|
quote:The district attorney’s office declined to file charges against the officers. Deputy Dist. Atty. Rosa Alarcon wrote in a memo about the shooting that Diaz Zeferino’s right hand was no longer visible from the officers’ angle and that it was reasonable for them to believe he was going to reach for a weapon. I can kind of see the DA's point here. That guy clearly looked like a master assassin capable of drawing one pistol from his hat or waistband and killing three officers trained on him before they could react. You know, he just looks like one of those types. Also, there's that "technicality" stuff the apologists are so fond of fighting over. Agrajag posted:I also like that they also managed to shoot the guy next to him while they are at point blank range. loving turds with badges so trigger happy they don't even give a gently caress that there are bystanders in their crosshairs. WITH LASER SIGHTS!!!!! By the way WHY DO COPS NEED LASER SIGHTS?
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Agrajag posted:Deranged cop with a gun actually shooting an unarmed victim? Nah, it's cool. A minority slightly slow at complying with officers or making hand gestures? Lets light em up. (minority in this case also happens to be the victim of theft and was the one who called the cops, but whatevs am I right?) thing is, he does it 4 times through the video and the cops shoot him almost immediately after the 4th i'm p sure they murdered him out of pure rage at his unwillingness to follow their orders
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Really, this again? The United States has murder rates something like 200% higher than most comparable, developed nations. Can you give us your sources and guidance on 'comparable' then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
And we are back to the situation where officers create tense situations out of nothing (bicycle theft??) and then based on that and their own edginess are allowed to use lethal force on people that were not committing any crimes. Of course it's the "fault" of the people that had no reason to believe they should be accosted by armed police and their actions caused their own deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Oh, he was hispanic? Are you just completely unable to understand words? Like, do you not process them like a normal human being? "What happened was still bullshit" means that it wasn't okay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
The fact that those turds with badges are still roaming the streets should be a huge issue. Seriously, there is no job anywhere else in the world that would still keep you employed after a colossal gently caress-up like that. Especially after your gently caress-up had a quantifiable cost in the millions.
Agrajag fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Are you just completely unable to understand words? Like, do you not process them like a normal human being? I understand words. The cops shot him for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Are you just completely unable to understand words? Like, do you not process them like a normal human being? Take it easy, sniping him over it wasn't necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Are you just completely unable to understand words? Like, do you not process them like a normal human being? Did you say it was bullshit? I missed that? Good for you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:And we are back to the situation where officers create tense situations out of nothing (bicycle theft??) and then based on that and their own edginess are allowed to use lethal force on people that were not committing any crimes. The article mentions that the dispatcher erred and reported that it was a robbery (although they don't say what type of robbery, or whether there was actually a report of a weapon) not just someone reporting a bicycle theft. That doesn't excuse their actions, but there is a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:The article mentions that the dispatcher erred and reported that it was a robbery (although they don't say what type of robbery, or whether there was actually a report of a weapon) not just someone reporting a bicycle theft. That doesn't excuse their actions, but there is a difference. Not really though? There's still no need to be in fear when it's 3 officers with guns trained on an unarmed suspect. Even if he miraculously pulled a gun from his hat, magician style, he's not going to get three perfect shots off like a master assassin. It seems like an underlying problem in all these cases is officers either not being able to control the flow of encounters, despite training and armaments, or not knowing WHEN they have control, like in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Honestly I don't think it matters too much if it was a bike theft or whatever. Rolling up and pointing weapons on people, then shooting them for either being twitchy or actually following directions (but too slowly or quickly) is clearly a problem and the wrong way to handle it regardless if the cops thought that MAYBE they were armed and they stole something of a higher value than a bike. There's really no safe standard for people to follow cop directions since everything is excusable due to officer safety once they make the altercation unsafe. They create their own excuse for lethal force while none of those men who were not committing any crimes have that same right to self defense when attacked by police officers acting on bad information and using no discretion. The system them goes way out of its way to protect them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Honestly I don't think it matters too much if it was a bike theft or whatever. Rolling up and pointing weapons on people, then shooting them for either being twitchy or actually following directions (but too slowly or quickly) is clearly a problem and the wrong way to handle it regardless if the cops thought that MAYBE they were armed and they stole something of a higher value than a bike. There's really no safe standard for people to follow cop directions since everything is excusable due to officer safety once they make the altercation unsafe. They create their own excuse for lethal force while none of those men who were not committing any crimes have that same right to self defense when attacked by police officers acting on bad information and using no discretion. The system them goes way out of its way to protect them. I agree, I'm just being slightly nitpicky about downplaying part of the circumstances. This is just my hypothesis, but one of the three officers probably fired first, then the other two joined in because of poor training.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:WITH LASER SIGHTS!!!!! Visible spectrum laser sights are really only useful as a force escalation tool, despite movies typically portraying them as cool guy special forces poo poo, you actually want cops to have them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Are the officers involved still employed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Are the officers involved still employed? quote:In May, when The Times first reported that the city had settled a civil rights lawsuit over the shooting, Gardena Police Chief Ed Medrano said the officers who opened fire were still on patrol. He said at the time that the department's internal investigation to determine whether discipline is warranted had been put on hold during the civil litigation. Under California law, the outcome of the disciplinary investigation will remain confidential. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gardena-police-shooting-video-justified-or-cold-blooded-killing-20150714-story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I wonder what law protects the results & why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't. Is it some kind of uncontrollable reflex for you guys? Find irrelevant incorrect item in a post and smugly point it out while throwing in a dick one liner? You loving know his point was "Because he wasn't white", that he got which minority wrong is just being pedantic and throwing in "rush to post how much you hate cops" is just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thing is, he does it 4 times through the video and the cops shoot him almost immediately after the 4th It's all about dominance, they hate when people don't follow orders and feel like they're being attacked when someone won't submit. These people are monsters and sociopaths, giving anyone that kind of power over others is beyond hosed up . But it's ok for white America because they mostly go after the savages. C2C - 2.0 posted:I wonder what law protects the results & why. They were clearly in fear of their lives, they believed they were under attack so it doesn't matter that they executed some wet backs in the streets. They though they were right so the law backs then up, this is how it works. But it's ok, we paid for their mistake with tax dollars and they promise they looked into it and found no problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Is it some kind of uncontrollable reflex for you guys? Find irrelevant incorrect item in a post and smugly point it out while throwing in a dick one liner? Also, this is still an internet comedy forum, correct? And yes, that was straight up voluntary manslaughter and the fact that the LA DAs office cleared him shows why you should actually pay attention on those elections. What a bunch of horseshit. A Fancy Bloke posted:
I actually don't blame the cops for pulling guns, they had a report of a robbery, not a theft with no other details, but the guns should not have been aimed from the start. I suspect once the guy started lowering his hamds, aiming may have been justified, but shooting -- never. nm fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Is there a video of the cop murdering his wife I can watch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Wait, is this the thread that dogpiled on someone yesterday who took one statement and assumed it was correct for not reading the whole article. FYI, Kalman has agreed with you on most things, but it appears he doesn't like the pedantic shitfests (god, I wonder why). What part of that was comedy? And is this so hard? Non rear end in a top hat correction: "No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't, he was hsipanic What happened is still bullshit"." Typical rear end in a top hat correction: "No, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino wasn't. What happened is still bullshit, but don't make obvious errors in your rush to post how much you hate cops." Tell me again how the bolded part was comedy or not a repeated "You just hate cops" like every other similar reply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Can you give us your sources and guidance on 'comparable' then? How's this for a start? https://www.quandl.com/collections/society/oecd-murder-rates
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Non rear end in a top hat correction:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How's this for a start? Terrible. I can get murder rates from anywhere. Whats your definition of comparable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Terrible. I can get murder rates from anywhere. Whats your definition of comparable? As I have been saying all along, countries with reasonably similar levels of development - GDP per capita and HDI are reasonable enough measures. You're just being obtuse though, it's obvious as can be that the US murder rate is very high for its level of development.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:So your whole issue here is just that people are being rude? I much prefer rude people to the continuous stream of posts that contain, by your own admission, incorrect and irrelevant items. You can't seriously expect to have a thread where people are unironically saying that you have a right not to present your ID to police officers and not have them told to get hosed. People really should just lay off posting incorrect and irrelevant items, and we'll see less (rude or otherwise) corrections of incorrect and irrelevant items. I see you decided to focus on the part where he said obvious errors were a problem and not the part where he implied that an entire spectrum of posters was in fact entirely motivated by their hatred of police. He didn't even bother with "And some I'm sure are good people". Edit- I suppose he was mostly responding to one poster in that specific post. I'll try to find exactly what he said elsewhere that is bringing me to this conclusion to make this a little prettier. Doubleedit- I found it. Kalman posted:I have lots of empathy for the victim, I'm just not a sociopath who has zero empathy for the wrongdoer. You can empathize with both. Why did I have this feeling when he was talking about this one guy he really meant a large group? He has done it before! Fail to have empathy for the wrongdoer? Everybody who wanted a fair application of police procedure in this case is apparently a sociopath. reignofevil fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:As I have been saying all along, countries with reasonably similar levels of development - GDP per capita and HDI are reasonable enough measures. This is the first time you mentioned GDP and HDI, its not 'saying all along' when you just used the ill-defined 'comparable' as your descriptor. So, you have some stats to show to prove your point, or are you just asserting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:This is the first time you mentioned GDP and HDI, its not 'saying all along' when you just used the ill-defined 'comparable' as your descriptor. I specifically said "comparable, developed" and "similarly developed" in the original post. HDI is simply a measure of development, it even has "development" in the acronym! Per capita GDP happens to be a convenient proxy as income is strongly correlated with development. The OECD data was used because that just so happens to be an group of mostly highly developed countries. You are being intentionally pedantic, or you have some sort of fundamental reading disability. Do you need anything else clearly spelled out for you? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:I see you decided to focus on the part where he said obvious errors were a problem and not the part where he implied that an entire spectrum of posters was in fact entirely motivated by their hatred of police. He didn't even bother with "And some I'm sure are good people". No, I was mostly just stating that Pohl was too busy being self-righteous to actually read poo poo, which he promptly proved by completely missing the half of my post that stated that what happened in Gardena absolutely wasn't okay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:what happened in Gardena absolutely wasn't okay. You should seriously reconsider your use of such strong language when posting about police shooting unarmed people. edit: added -ing DARPA fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:...my post that stated that what happened in Gardena absolutely wasn't okay. Whoa, whoa there. Careful with such bold and reaching language. Here are some other alternative phrases to help you moderate your hyper-dramatic wording. "plausibly non-benevolent" "approaching the threshold of somewhat-concerning" "vaguely ungood" "suspiciously lacking that warm and fuzzy feeling"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
I believe the correct police apologist line is: "obviously what happened wasn't ok, but since the disciplinary process is confidential we should assume that the officers received any and all punishments they needed. Really, haven't these officers suffered enough? They'll have to live the rest of their lives with that moment."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I believe the correct police apologist line is: Calling out their bullshit arguments beforehand doesn't help, they literally think the police are in the right regardless of what happens and that's just reality to them. Which I guess it is reality, because we saw what happened and the murderers are facing no criminal charges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I believe the correct police apologist line is: "Technically, this was all legal"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:"Technically, this was all legal" 'Your lack of empathy for the dude who blew that kid/woman/elderly persons head off makes you the true sociopath. That suspect (of nothing) was doing lawful poo poo, the killing was justified!'
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
A Good Shoot (TM)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
nm posted:And yes, that was straight up voluntary manslaughter and the fact that the LA DAs office cleared him shows why you should actually pay attention on those elections. Out of curiosity, what makes it voluntary manslaughter instead of, say, second degree murder? From a quick google it sounds like voluntary manslaughter requires "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed," but the cop in that video obviously did not have any legitimate reason to flip his poo poo and want to shoot the guy in question. Like, I was sitting on the jury for a case where this guy shot this other guy that he didn't really know, with a video of it happening. The prosecutor was pushing for attempted first degree murder (with it seeming like second degree to me since there was zero proof of premeditation). How is what that guy did a greater crime than what this police officer did?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I can't believe the cop is still employed and on patrol, like what level of liability do you have to be OK with. If another shoot happens and he is involved, right or not, he's going to cost them more money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Ah, that part of the thread cycle where nobody is actually defending an incident so you gotta work up some mad against imaginary arguments. This is when the real crazy comes out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:05
|
|