|
blarzgh posted:Thanks to the way cops were handing the situation. Is "heroes" too strong a word? No actually, not thanks to the cops, Philip Seidle demanded she be taken out of the car so he could shoot his wife the second time.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Report I read said simultaneous. I don't know what reports you've been reading but every account says the timeline was murderer runs his ex-wife off the road, then shoots her while the kid is in the passenger seat, then the other cops who showed up got the kid out of the car (after the murderer told them to), then the murderer went back and shot his ex-wife again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I keep listening to the eyewitness statements and they're saying he rammed her car, jumped out and shot her, and then put the gun to his head when police officer approached.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But Jarmak, google tells me that this procedure it what you do for a completely different scenario and the words sound the same to me. So stop being a jackboot fascist. I am more inclined to consider the arguments of people who don't need to lace their arguments with tidbits about how they are totally lawyers/cops/soldiers/whatever profession IRL on internet forums. I would hope other rational people do not find such proclamations of professional expertise particularly impressive in these kinds of online discussions. Especially given the simple fact that people are notorious for lying about their personal lives on the internet to impress others. In other words, maybe stop bringing up your alleged jobs/training on the internet to win an argument that doesn't actually involve you personally. If you have knowledge due to your profession, then present it without the need of trying to shield your opinion from scrutiny by proclaiming you are an authority on the matter. If someone presents info that is wrong, show how it is wrong. It doesn't matter where the gently caress the info came from. I don't care if it came from google or your own rear end, both are just as capable of being bullshit or true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down? My guess is he would've been locked up after the 17 or so domestic violence calls (maybe even after the 4 apparently unrelated ones) and wouldn't have had a police department issued firearm to shoot anyone with. Or is that not part of this hypothetical?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I am more inclined to consider the arguments of people who don't need to lace their arguments with tidbits about how they are totally lawyers/cops/soldiers/whatever profession IRL on internet forums. So someone's ability to google is the equivalent of years of training and experience. Cool. I'm gonna go over to the doctor goon thread and tell them how neurosurgery works. hobotrashcanfires posted:My guess is he would've been locked up after the 17 or so domestic violence calls (maybe even after the 4 apparently unrelated ones) and wouldn't have had a police department issued firearm to shoot anyone with. Or is that not part of this hypothetical? We're talking about response to the shooting itself, not the failure to address the earlier DV. You are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The reason I bring it up is because when oohhboy originally introduced the term, he was arguing that the police had failed to follow active shooter best practices by not immediately engaging the suspect. Which is stupid, because the Neptune shooter was not an "active shooter" in the way the term is used by law enforcement when discussing best practices for dealing with active shooters. Funny that you didn't quote that definition. Why is it that you dropped the topic last time? Let us venture to the first page of google to find out. quote:An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and other populated area. In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims. I bolded the part that made you get quiet last time. You want to sit here and argue that because the police were so hyper confined by their training that due to this definition they couldn't consider this man an active shooter because he was shooting a "person" and not "people" and yet while they were apparently completely confined to this specific definition for the first sentence of the definition they were completely ignorant of the second sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So someone's ability to google is the equivalent of years of training and experience. Cool. I'm gonna go over to the doctor goon thread and tell them how neurosurgery works. In fairness, I'm pretty sure a doctor did come in here and tell you that the woman not receiving attention for 30 minutes after the second shooting might have cost her her life, and you ignored him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, and the guy Dead Reckoning was responding to didn't do that. The derail started thirty loving pages ago, and a different layperson said the words "active shooter" which set him off again. Pretty much shows why every PD needs some kind of SLED equivalent. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So someone's ability to google is the equivalent of years of training and experience. Cool. I'm gonna go over to the doctor goon thread and tell them how neurosurgery works. On an internet forum? Yes. Because I don't personally know you well enough to know if you are a bullshitter, or if you were even a good student or are any good at your job. Facts are facts. If something is wrong, then it is wrong. I don't see why I should give a poo poo that you say you are a lawyer on somethingawful.com. What does that even mean? Also, no one on in the doctor goon thread is referring to said thread as a reference during surgery. I'd imagine actual surgeons are a bit to busy to indulge in internet slap fights as well, if the lifestyle of the couple of doctor friends I have is any indication at least. And the fact that this needs to be explained to you at all is not helpful to your position here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:We're talking about response to the shooting itself, not the failure to address the earlier DV. You are a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. That was your hypothetical. If you really feel that the lengthy history of domestic violence which was responded to by possibly even the same officers which failed to respond during this incident, has absolutely no bearing on the situation . Well by all means, her reasons given for the divorce and all those DV calls must simply have happened in a vacuum. Guess I'll just keep burning strawmen while you try to gotcha some posters by turning the murderous cop into a young black man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Failing to address long term pattern of violence not the same as failing to kill friend (even if that's what should have happened) How do you not get that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
tezcat posted:And this is why people are questioning her integrity. She can't even read and gets so rage blinded supporting her "team" she eats a month probation getting into stupid slap fights rather than address the issue. No, sweetie. I'm laughing at you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No, sweetie. I'm laughing at you. Never go full youtube-commenter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Never go full youtube-commenter. This person is a member of a state bar association, somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Never assume you are having an emotional impact on an online poster
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Communities are simply not qualified to have concerns about policing. After all, attending police academy for a year is equivalent to a bsc, 4 years of medical training, and residency, so everything a cop does is as complicated as medicine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:This person is a member of a state bar association, somewhere. So was noted disgraced lawyer Jack Thompson until he sent gay porn into the court record and a judge felt it was somehow in bad taste and petty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Failing to address long term pattern of violence not the same as failing to kill friend (even if that's what should have happened) Yes, those two different things show how the cops are lovely in different ways. For the hundredth time, I'd also like to point out that nobody is disagreeing that it's difficult to kill your friend, just that it's not a good enough excuse for making zero effort to try to save the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Don't question my integrity and don't suggest you know anything about how I handle cases or charging decisions. Then don't use your supposed experience and knowledge as a hammer when we are talking about these issues. If you are going to appeal to authority, people are going to question that loving authority. ActusRhesus posted:And he's totally not going to be convicted because the fact people struggled to shoot someone they know means he's going to get away with murder. They may have been able to save her life if they had acted quicker; but we can't prove that, can we? You should be bothered by the fact that they sat there and watched her die while he did his little suicide drama. ActusRhesus posted:So police respond to gunshots and see, let's say, a black teenager. They think there is another black teenager in the car, possibly shot. Possibly bleeding. There is a kid in the car too. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot the kid if they draw their weapon. The police are not sure if the teen with the gun will shoot himself or them if they draw their weapon. They have no way to know the extent of the injuries to the teen in the car. Shoot the gunman or talk him down? Wow. If this is your opinion I don't think you have any place in the criminal justice system. Yes, I will question your integrity. What the gently caress is this racist poo poo you just posted? I know that you are going to spin it as you weren't being racist and you were pointing out how police need to evaluate the scene, whatever. You are going to spin it to seem like you meant the opposite of what you posted, and that is what you meant. If they shot that black man in the scenario I made up, everyone would be mad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Never assume you are having an emotional impact on an online poster Really? Then why are you calling people names and using offensive language?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
The fact that people are equating neutralizing someone who has had the police called on them for abuse multiple times, is armed and appears to have shot victim of said abuse, and is preventing aid to the victim, with simply "killing a friend" is mind blowing. Way to reduce the situation so far that it becomes completely unrecognizable. But anything for the sake of being an apologist I guess. It's pretty funny because this is one of those cases where anyone with some sense would walk away and just say," yeah, this was a huge gently caress up, that poor lady died because of it", and leave it at that but we just haaave to let people know that they shouldn't be questioning the actions of police officers no matter what. It's very important to put some points on the board, even in a loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Failing to address long term pattern of violence not the same as failing to kill friend (even if that's what should have happened) This is also something interesting. How did this guy suddenly become their friend? Did any of them come out and say this was their friend, or just a work acquaintance? Genuine question, here. Seems like a lot of people are just assuming he was more than someone they worked with and were familiar with (Which yes, would still make things difficult). Also, while I haven't posted about it extremely recently, I have mentioned how that's understandable in the past. I do get that, so please don't try to paint me as someone who thinks they should've just opened fire like unfeeling robots as seems to be the popular chorus. Much of my posting about this has revolved around how it sure seemed like there was quite a history of violence and abuse that went unaddressed and was swept under the rug, and surely aided significantly in this horrific incident unfolding as soon as she got the divorce she wanted.. Now that more of that is coming to light, I'm frankly surprised how it still seems to be getting ignored and waved off. e: my grammer hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:even if that's what should have happened Please, tell us how you think they should have acted, or if you feel they acted correctly. As you keep saying over and over, we don't have the equivalent of your years of training and experience, so I'm curious of your view on the incident. You're only arguing against 'uneducated' posters' views, while never actually saying what you think, and you're coming across as defending how the situation occurred 100%. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The fact that people are equating neutralizing someone who has had the police called on them for abuse multiple times, is armed and appears to have shot victim of said abuse, and is preventing aid to the victim, with simply "killing a friend" is mind blowing. This it how the "killing a friend" poster are picturing the incident: https://youtube.com/watch?v=m0evZywnnx4&feature=youtu.be&t=38 Except that afterwards Patrick Swayze murders his wife. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:This is also something interesting. How did this guy suddenly become their friend? Did any of them come out and say this was their friend, or just a work acquaintance? Genuine question, here. Seems like a lot of people are just assuming he was more than someone they worked with and were familiar with (Which yes, would still make things difficult). Also, while I haven't posted about it extremely recently, I have mentioned how that's understandable in the past. Most of the understanding that they were actually friends comes from this article someone posted relatively recently: http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/eyewitness_to_cops_fatal_shooting_of_his_ex-wife_s.html quote:"Sarge, put the gun down. Sarge, just put the gun down," the witness said the officers shouted. There were other uplifting words, such as "You taught us everything we know" and "We love you," the witness said. Here's another one that says they were hugging him afterwards: http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/wife_shot_by_neptune_police_officer_dies.html quote:While taking him into custody, some of the officers hugged him and patted him comfortingly on the back, the witness said. Incidentally, DARPA, that's pretty cool. Good job on following up with the reporter like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Most of the understanding that they were actually friends comes from this article someone posted relatively recently: Ahh okay. Thanks. Certainly implies more than a passing familiarity. Wonder how much they knew about his home life. \/\/\/ - I liked it..but then again I agree with you.. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So someone's ability to google is the equivalent of years of training and experience. Cool. I'm gonna go over to the doctor goon thread and tell them how neurosurgery works. What the hell, maybe this will help explain why people can't stand you and the other apologists. This thread like most D&D threads is people seeing something hosed up in the world and talking about it. Pretty much everyone realizes they cannot directly and only in a very small amount of cases indirectly do anything to help or change or fix the topic. Nobody in an I/P thread thinks they are going to "Fix" that hellhole yet they still want to discuss it. So here we have a thread on the police and criminal justice. The pattern over and over and over and over is: -Something hosed up happens, generally cops killing someone who in no way deserved to die yet a sequence of usually sketchy events ends with them dead anyway. Or somewhat similar situations like the guy who murdered the people sleeping in his abandoned house. -People discuss how this should not have escalated to death by cop/castle doctrine/whatever. -You, DR, or whatever random apologist derail the conversation for pages and pages over the most pedantic bullshit you can find. Whether flashing your high beams at someone was legal ate up what, three pages? The exact definition of "active shooter". Whether it is technically legal to murder someone for sleeping in abandoned property. None of which add a single loving thing to the conversation and only serve to drone on about how TECHNICALLY what happened was legal. Nobody gives a poo poo, the discussion is about how this should not be happening not bitching back and forth over whether its legal to flash your high beams in state X and distance Y. -As a result the lot of you manage to drone out the conversation people were trying to have: This is not the way things should be. Headlight kid should not have escalated to death by cop. Waistband imaginary gun guy should not have died. And to top it off is the incessant "Have you not empathy" bullshit over sarge when what people want is that empathy shown to everyone. People in positions to know what they are talking about could help further the discussion and maybe even offer insight into how things COULD change yet all the experts use this advanced knowledge to repeatedly explain how dead person is dead because of reason X so oh well. Thanks, we know the system is hosed up that's what the loving thread is for. The hope is to at least enlighten people who didn't realize just how hosed up it was and maybe figure out if its even fixable. Yes, thanks for explaining why its so hosed up but everyone already knew it was, being a snotty rear end in a top hat about the details is just being an rear end in a top hat. That was a waste of 10 minutes but worth a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
I guess it comes down to: I believe that if there is a person armed with a lethal weapon, and the police are present, and that person begins to use that weapon in a lethal manner against a human victim, then the police are obligated to both immediately separate that person from the weapon, and subdue that person in order to enter them into the justice system. In this case I see a man with a lethal weapon, who used that weapon in the presence of police officers, against a human victim, and was not subdued, nor immediately separated from that weapon. That's all, folks! RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Considering how frequently and violently cops argue about subduing suspects of crimes who aren't even armed you would think they would have a painfully abudant cause to at least disarm this murderous rear end in a top hat upon witnessing the scene or the fact that he obstructed them from helping. That should set off alarms that this was not a man that should be allowed near his wife let alone with a weapon. At all. The whole "So cops should just be cold robots and shootshootshoot the instant they get to the scene??" is just asinine. Get loving control of the situation. No, they don't didn't immediately pull their guns out and unload into him but they sure as hell should have did the above and the second he became violent or approached the woman/car he rammed and shot, the responding officers needed to protect HER life, even at the cost of his. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Then don't use your supposed experience and knowledge as a hammer when we are talking about these issues. If you are going to appeal to authority, people are going to question that loving authority. It's not racist to tailor a hypothetical to one of this threads persistent themes: cops (allegedly) love to kill young minorities. As evidenced by this thread's prior instances of losing it's poo poo over suicides by cop. Under those facts, if they shot you would be screaming that they were too trigger happy and you know it. The failure here was letting the DV case go as long as it did without intervention. And by intervention I mean arrest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:On an internet forum? Yes. Because I don't personally know you well enough to know if you are a bullshitter, or if you were even a good student or are any good at your job. Facts are facts. If something is wrong, then it is wrong. I don't see why I should give a poo poo that you say you are a lawyer on somethingawful.com. What does that even mean? Look if you want to call bullshit on the whole group of posters claiming real world experience unanimously tell you that you don't know what you're talking about then go ahead, that's on you. But don't try to sell us some line of bullshit that your ignorant rear end is somehow more credible because you can google up a bunch of poo poo that you don't understand. Toasticle posted:What the hell, maybe this will help explain why people can't stand you and the other apologists. Again, sorry that people want to have intelligent conversations about what are actual problems and actual reforms and how they'd work in the actual criminal justice system that we have instead of just yelling "gently caress the 5-0". These "pedantic" little derails are actually substantive 90% of the time, that's the loving point, its not what the law "technically" says, its what the law loving says and usually for a reason. If you don't even want to be assed to understand the system that you want to change why the gently caress do you expect anyone who does to take you seriously? This thread goes to poo poo because when someone points out that "hey 'active shooter' is a term of art and that's not what it means" the response is a page of people trying to argue something which is easily provable obviously wrong and then another page of dumb-rear end posts like this crying about how the boot-lickers and apologists keep trying to cloud the issue with their facts. The headlight example is loving great example of this thread throwing a hissy fit because someone had the temerity to point out that the "cop illegally stops teen and executes him on side of road" narrative was total bullshit. It wasn't the "apologists" that kept us from the actual controversy of the action, which was the decision to physically escalate the arrest attempt, it was the people who kept wanting to rant about made up bullshit. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's not racist to tailor a hypothetical to one of this threads persistent themes: cops (allegedly) love to kill young minorities. As evidenced by this thread's prior instances of losing it's poo poo over suicides by cop. Under those facts, if they shot you would be screaming that they were too trigger happy and you know it. I disagree that them not shooting the gunman wasn't a failure as well, the difference is that its a failure of human emotion that's somewhat understandable and hard to prevent even though it probably still warrants some level of punishment. The DV issue is likely a failure of a corrupt police department which shielded one of its own and loving crucifying the department over it will likely dissuade future occurrences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's not racist to tailor a hypothetical to one of this threads persistent themes: cops (allegedly) love to kill young minorities. As evidenced by this thread's prior instances of losing it's poo poo over suicides by cop. Under those facts, if they shot you would be screaming that they were too trigger happy and you know it. ActusRhesus posted:Don't question my integrity and don't suggest you know anything about how I handle cases or charging decisions. Go gently caress yourself you hypocritical rear end in a top hat. You asked a hypothetical, nobody took the bait the way you wanted, and then you still accuse people of thinking things they don't, right after taking exception to someone doing the same thing to you. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I disagree that them not shooting the gunman wasn't a failure as well, the difference is that its a failure of human emotion that's somewhat understandable and hard to prevent even though it probably still warrants some level of punishment. Fair enough. I should have clarified "willful failure" I agree they should have shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
I challenge any of you to find a police-invovled homicide that was justified based on the news report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's not racist to tailor a hypothetical to one of this threads persistent themes: cops (allegedly) love to kill young minorities. As evidenced by this thread's prior instances of losing it's poo poo over suicides by cop. Under those facts, if they shot you would be screaming that they were too trigger happy and you know it. I posited a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical scenario. Are you discarding that as an outlier?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Go gently caress yourself you hypocritical rear end in a top hat. You asked a hypothetical, nobody took the bait the way you wanted, and then you still accuse people of thinking things they don't, right after taking exception to someone doing the same thing to you. gently caress you. See, if I wrote a post like this you'd accuse me of having a meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:I posited a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical scenario. Are you discarding that as an outlier? Missed it. Phone posting. Link please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:23
|
|