|
Jarmak posted:Yes I'm sure that the kid was trying to do the cop a favor by warning him of a potential hazard and not as an expression of "gently caress you turn your brights off" like literally everyone who flashes their brights at people "gently caress you turn your brights off" is alerting people to a hazardous situation they're creating, you nitwit. But no I guess those other people also flashing their lights were all out to get this poor cop too right? Jarmak posted:Also how loving stupid do you have to be to flash your brights at a cop when you're driving without a license. The kid probably couldn't tell it was a cop car at night behind the blinding headlights, come on. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jun 18, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The kid probably couldn't tell it was a cop car at night behind the blinding headlights, come on. okay that's fair
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Aren't tasers not supposed to be used for compliance? Or am I misunderstanding this and getting on the ground when you're ordered to is referred to as something else.Jarmak posted:Also how loving stupid do you have to be to flash your brights at a cop when you're driving without a license. About as stupid as a 17 year old who thinks they they can prove that an authority figure is wrong. This seems as obvious as "you're probably not going to want to shoot a coworker"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/what_did_cops_give_suspected_shooter_during_asbury.html#incart_river_mobileshort Police delayed medical treatment to the victim for 30 minutes while they created a photo album for her killer. Edit bonus cop murders spouse http://www.counton2.com/story/29329492/sc-deputy-shoots-and-kills-wife-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter-police-say Wife dead from a headshot in the bathtub, broken wedding ring. M4 rifle and spent casing in the bathroom. Officer charged with involuntary manslaughter cause it was totes an accident. The officer even said so. DARPA fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Wife dead from a headshot in the bathtub, broken wedding ring. M4 rifle and spent casing in the bathroom. Officer charged with involuntary manslaughter cause it was totes an accident. The officer even said so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Aren't tasers not supposed to be used for compliance? Or am I misunderstanding this and getting on the ground when you're ordered to is referred to as something else. In NZ we were very wary of deploying Tasers because we feared they be used for compliance. We even had studies done on it and when we looked at American Taser use, the vast majority was used for compliance. We did eventually roll them out very slowly and treat them like guns. There have been cases where using a Taser has been ruled excessive use of force. We even call them Taser Guns on occasion to emphasize the seriousness where even drawing one is considered an event that must be reported. Thankfully despite the increase number of Tasers, use has fallen. Cop apologist in this thread are completely out of whack missing the forest for the trees. Your cops are hosed up. Instead of being protectors they are perpetrators. The behaviour of your average cop makes our worst look like saints. Get it into your head that defending cops does nothing to help the situation and only deepens the problems you are constantly trying to wash off. When we interact with cops here we generally expect to get a fair deal and help, not "I hope I don't get hurt". I even thanked the last cop that pulled me over since he helpfully pointed out I had a burnt out tail light before letting me go on my way. He even help confirm which light it was when I went and looked for myself. So get a grip and see that your cops aren't cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also how loving stupid do you have to be to flash your brights at a cop when you're driving without a license. This is some "why'd you talk back if you knew your husband was abusive" level poo poo. Why are we always talking about how stupid the kid not on their best behavior is instead of the supposedly trained professional who chooses to end a human life?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
White man kills nine black churchgoers in Charleston SC http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/us/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/ What a monster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:White man kills nine black churchgoers in Charleston SC Troubled Mentally unstable lone gunman. Who could have forseen a hate crime happening in Charleston SC. *walks past 9 Confederate flags*
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Police delayed medical treatment to the victim for 30 minutes while they created a photo album for her killer. http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_cop_accused_of_killing_wife_appears_in_court.html quote:... The police officer charged with killing his former wife in front of their 7-year-old daughter. quote:A witness had reported that just before Seidle gave himself up, authorities slid a black object across the street to him. Almost immediately the distraught officer raised his arms in a gesture of compliance and started heading toward police officers, they said. Yeah, considering its now tactically sound to drop grenades into baby cribs, I think that maybe The Big Gang might have been acting out of Brotherly Solidarity rather than "save the victim". You "might" have drugs? Your baby gets a grenade. Wanna kill your wife? No problem. Brother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
I hope the eventual civil suit includes the caveat that the Neptune Police Department gets burned to the ground publicly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:This is some "why'd you talk back if you knew your husband was abusive" level poo poo. Why are we always talking about how stupid the kid not on their best behavior is instead of the supposedly trained professional who chooses to end a human life? Yes, "why would you antagonize the police while doing something clearly illegal" is totally the same thing as talking back to abusive spouse
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Q: What do you tell a suspect with two black eyes? A: *hail of gunfire*
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/what_did_cops_give_suspected_shooter_during_asbury.html#incart_river_mobileshort Wow, that guy has 9 kids.  quote:ASBURY PARK — For all the negotiations that police officers employed to try to convince a Neptune cop to surrender in the fatal shooting of his wife, it was a cell phone containing the photographs of his nine children that finally got him to comply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, "why would you antagonize the police while doing something clearly illegal" is totally the same thing as talking back to abusive spouse Because both of them murder you for the same reason. Because they can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, "why would you antagonize the police while doing something clearly illegal" is totally the same thing as talking back to abusive spouse It's similar in the sense that apologists for violence like to distract attention away from the murderer by focusing on how stupid the victim was for provoking the killer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
The problem with focusing on if headlight flashing or failing to provide ID (apparently you don't have to give your ID, just show it but if the cop can't read it that counts as obstruction so you should just give it) are illegal is that it doesn't touch on what the problem is. Police should be in the business of de-escalating situations, not allowing people to get under their skin to which they will incrementally make things more and more heated until the officer can kill. Additionally once again we are back to "the officer feared because the teen was advancing on him so shooting him seven times is appropriate" even after he was the once that started being physical, however the teen after being tazed and yanked out of his car for non-violently, but illegally resisting is not allowed this "I feared for my life so anything I do is excusable" discretion. The cop in that incident was probably doing everything legal, but that ignores the point people are frustrated with that the law is ok with routine traffic stops ending in death when they really, really don't have to. Human life is worth more than just "well TECHNICALLY he was breaking the law so..." Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:The problem with focusing on if headlight flashing or failing to provide ID (apparently you don't have to give your ID, just show it but if the cop can't read it that counts as obstruction so you should just give it) are illegal is that it doesn't touch on what the problem is. Police should be in the business of de-escalating situations, not allowing people to get under their skin to which they will incrementally make things more and more heated until the officer can kill. Additionally once again we are back to "the officer feared because the teen was advancing on him so shooting him seven times is appropriate" even after he was the once that started being physical, however the teen after being tazed and yanked out of his car for non-violently, but illegally resisting is not allowed this "I feared for my life so anything I do is excusable" discretion. Exactly. The cop escalated the situation needlessly and I can't believe anyone who side with the cop in this story. "Just make sure you know all of the laws and all of your rights and never ever question a police officer or you might get killed" is not a valid position to take.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
And you don't even have to go "gently caress all cops" to talk about reforms that can reduce the chance a cop will feel threatened and shoot somebody. For example, even just funding the department properly and having a partner on patrol means he'd be less likely to feel threatened by an unarmed teenager facedown on the ground, because he'd have help controlling the kid when he tried to struggle against being cuffed. But there are always a few people who like to focus on what the teenager did wrong and talk about that, as if that's some kind of solution to murder and we can solve police brutality by just lecturing teens until all teens everywhere respect authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, "why would you antagonize the police while doing something clearly illegal" is totally the same thing as talking back to abusive spouse You're right, it's considerably more offensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Exactly. The cop escalated the situation needlessly and I can't believe anyone who side with the cop in this story. "Just make sure you know all of the laws and all of your rights and never ever question a police officer or you might get killed" is not a valid position to take. Additionally it wouldn't really matter if the teen did know the law correctly and was right since once the police officer starts feeling like he isn't being respected by a punk kid it's over. The people saying "he shouldn't have been breaking the law" would just change to "well he was legally correct but come on we all know being discourteous to a cop is a bad idea he should be contesting this in court not on the road" to keep the blame on the victim and continue the illusion that the cop had no agency in the interaction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And you don't even have to go "gently caress all cops" to talk about reforms that can reduce the chance a cop will feel threatened and shoot somebody. For example, even just funding the department properly and having a partner on patrol means he'd be less likely to feel threatened by an unarmed teenager facedown on the ground, because he'd have help controlling the kid when he tried to struggle against being cuffed. This is actually something that I always find really striking if a reality show about American cops is on or if I'm reading about a case in the US. In Nordic countries police patrol virtually always in pairs, and reinforcements are usually a few minutes away unless you're in the absolute wilderness. It's certainly not the only factor but the experience of being by yourself in a situation is definitely an inducement to excessive force. If you're by yourself and get clobbered in the head in a scuffle you can end up dead, but if you have a buddy you have some leeway and don't need to be extremely risk averse by blowing away everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:Additionally it wouldn't really matter if the teen did know the law correctly and was right since once the police officer starts feeling like he isn't being respected by a punk kid it's over. The people saying "he shouldn't have been breaking the law" would just change to "well he was legally correct but come on we all know being discourteous to a cop is a bad idea he should be contesting this in court not on the road" to keep the blame on the victim and continue the illusion that the cop had no agency in the interaction. So instead of arresting him for driving without a license he was going to be arrested for being mouthy to a cop?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
I wish my job let me kill everyone who gave me the side eye too, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So instead of arresting him for driving without a license he was going to be arrested for being mouthy to a cop? Yes? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/stopped-drinking-snapple-teetotaling-bronx-mormon-douglas-brown-plans-sue-city-article-1.141446
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Radish posted:The problem with focusing on if headlight flashing or failing to provide ID (apparently you don't have to give your ID, just show it but if the cop can't read it that counts as obstruction so you should just give it) are illegal is that it doesn't touch on what the problem is. Radish posted:Additionally it wouldn't really matter if the teen did know the law correctly and was right since once the police officer starts feeling like he isn't being respected by a punk kid it's over. The people saying "he shouldn't have been breaking the law" would just change to "well he was legally correct but come on we all know being discourteous to a cop is a bad idea he should be contesting this in court not on the road" to keep the blame on the victim and continue the illusion that the cop had no agency in the interaction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
If you weren't saying "he shouldn't have been breaking the law" and merely trying to broaden our knowledge of the law then nothing in the second post should offend you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I want to kill people and then have a bunch of people focus on the fact that my victim was wearing aggressive shoes, or had an audacious haircut, or anything other than the fact that I totally unnecessarily took a life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's similar in the sense that apologists for violence like to distract attention away from the murderer by focusing on how stupid the victim was for provoking the killer. It's almost like frightened people in pain from electric shocks or being tossed around like a ragdoll against the pavement or a wall do not react a rational manner! Especially nowadays where its becoming more and more likely that not complying (sometimes contradicting orders) with the guy screaming at you with his gun pointed at you will result in you getting shot, running away from a potential killer or trying to disarm them is a fairly normal human response. You don't think about whether its a cop, your fight or flight kicks in an its get away or stop the guy threatening to kill you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yes? Indeed, false arrests occur every day and people sometimes even win civil rights suits against departments after they occur. Sometimes, rarely, officers are even punished. These are consequences that should occur more often for police abuses. I don't understand what this has to do with arresting someone for the misdemeanor of operating a vehicle without a license.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:It's almost like frightened people in pain from electric shocks or being tossed around like a ragdoll against the pavement or a wall do not react a rational manner! No, only angels are capable of feeling that their life is in danger. People who are no angels who commit minor driving infractions don't feel threatened by someone with a gun, they're murderous thugs who will kill again. Don't you get it? This youth was headed straight to a life of crime. I bet he was hopped up on THC and had a can of popular drink in his car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Indeed, false arrests occur every day and people sometimes even win civil rights suits against departments after they occur. Sometimes, rarely, officers are even punished. These are consequences that should occur more often for police abuses. Once the police officer feels threatened he is allowed to protect his life with lethal force based on his own escalation of the situation. People claiming that if the kid had not broken the law this wouldn't have happened are incorrect since if the kid was stopped illegally and mouthed off to the cop to which the cop then precoded to make the encounter physical as in the video he would have been just as justified in lethal defensive force. The point is that saying if you stay totally within the law you will not have to worry about this sort of thing is incorrect and victim blaming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
The correct thing to be angry about is "an officer was not able to arrest an unarmed child for a misdemeanor without loving shooting him" not "this monster illegally pulled someone over just to shoot him!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
I'm clearly criticizing the mentality that staying within the law will keep you safe from aggressive police violence while also saying that traffic stops should not be escalated into violence not that this specific cop was looking for someone to kill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm clearly criticizing the mentality that staying within the law will keep you safe from aggressive police violence
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you quote the person who said this? twodot posted:I actively don't want to focus on this. Someone said not giving your license to a police officer that pulled you over while you were driving is a Constitutional right, and that is wrong. I said that it is wrong because 1) it is wrong and 2) it's dangerous for people to believe that wrong thing. This should not spark any sort of argument. The response should be "Oh, thanks for the correction, this is still hosed up". Why is it dangerous for people to be mistaken about Constitutional protections? If they are instead up to date on their Constitutional law, does that make them safer? Is it the knowledge of the law PLUS their choice to stay within the law that makes them safer? Perhaps staying within the law will keep you safe from aggressive police violence. Or was your statement above saying that while staying within the law will make you MORE safe, you are still subject to wanton police abuse even if you stay within the law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
It's rediculous that defending yourself when attacked is illegal (and a death sentence, if you actually spook the dainty little flower with a gun), if you're non-violent there is no excuse for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Devor posted:Why is it dangerous for people to be mistaken about Constitutional protections? quote:If they are instead up to date on their Constitutional law, does that make them safer? Is it the knowledge of the law PLUS their choice to stay within the law that makes them safer? quote:Perhaps staying within the law will keep you safe from aggressive police violence. quote:Or was your statement above saying that while staying within the law will make you MORE safe, you are still subject to wanton police abuse even if you stay within the law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The correct thing to be angry about is "an officer was not able to arrest an unarmed child for a misdemeanor without loving shooting him" not "this monster illegally pulled someone over just to shoot him!" That is exactly what people are angry about...so...good, you should be happy then?  The bad judgment of pulling multiple people over for alerting him that his lights were blinding them isn't horrible on its own, but that attitude of making sure everyone respects that I have the biggest dick first and public safety second plays a role in the escalation of these confrontations. We're never going to stop mouthy teens from being mouthy teens, but we can address training, procedures, and department culture among the professional and (supposedly) trained authority figures in whom we place public trust. hallebarrysoetoro posted:No, only angels are capable of feeling that their life is in danger. People who are no angels who commit minor driving infractions don't feel threatened by someone with a gun, they're murderous thugs who will kill again. Don't you get it? This youth was headed straight to a life of crime. I bet he was hopped up on THC and had a can of popular drink in his car. Yuuup. A lot of this solid defense of cops and property owners who kill in self-defense has to do with seeing those people as "my team" against the Others. How much the guy on my team contributed or escalated the confrontation doesn't matter, it's in the past and only his fear for his life at the instant of firing the shot matters. Whatever fears the dead person may have had for their life are invalid, of course, because only one person can have a valid fear and that's my guy. But if the dead person did anything wrong no matter how inconsequential, that will be used to show that the whole think "didn't have to happen" and "I'm not saying he deserved it, but it sure was dumb of him to drive without a license so maybe he kind of deserved it?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
What the law says is illegal covers a vast amount of things and some of those are things that people either think is legal due to popular misconception (such as flashing lights) or because it really isn't a big deal, or are designed to get people caught up in the justice system (such as in Ferguson). Saying that doing something illegal is dangerous in general isn't always right especially when what was REALLY dangerous was the person supposed to be protecting people. It's a tonal disconnect that people hear someone arguing over the legality of flashing lights and can misinterpret that as the implicit assumption that that is what led to the eventual result (in this case death). I am not calling out any posters here for explicitly saying that he would be alive if he had obeyed the law but the attitude that victims of police violence are responsible since they broke some law, no matter how minor is a real thing.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jun 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 16:54
|
|