|
*There *too *a lot  And I thought the general consensus was that people didn't shoot officer wife-beater because they knew him. Which is...you know...human.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
Veskit posted:I don't have the time nor the patience to read the 1000 posts I missed. May I ask what we're even debating here? See the above post. Maybe they will be able to post better when they get in front of a computer instead of phone posting. tezcat fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Was he black?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Yeah he was a 14 year old unarmed black boy. Wonder how long it will take before someone posts his height and a suspension from school along with "he was no child".quote:Twelve hours after the shooting, police recovered a .22-caliber handgun underneath [sic, a car?] nearby. quote:“The boy didn’t even come from that direction, so I don’t see how his gun could’ve been found over there near Pashley Avenue. If the suspect was running from Pashley, then why were the rear of homes on Dunham Street hit with bullets.” quote:Other witnesses told the paper that a responding officer threw his arms in the air as if to say "Oh my God," when another cop unloaded nearly 10 shots. The boy reportedly cried out: "Why they have to shoot me?" even the other cop on the scene knew it was hosed. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/unarmed-black-14yearold-shot-7-times-by-police-officer-in-new-jersey-10454395.html A gun near the scene, that wasn't found for 12 hours, was enough for AR to assume this boy was no angel worth defending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
The opinion of someone who makes their living from the very system that continually perpetrates these kind of murders is less than worthless btw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
So what the gently caress is there to debate another one of my black brothers unjustly died from the hands of the police and they'll get away with it again. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Veskit posted:So what the gently caress is there to debate another one of my black brothers unjustly died from the hands of the police and they'll get away with it again. Well. You could start by reading the article which stated (right up front) that he survived.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Well. You could start by reading the article which stated (right up front) that he survived. My dumbass point still stands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Of course. A 14 year old black kid. Thankfully not dead this time either despite shooting him 7 times. Police say they saw a gun but that's standard for every police shooting. And don't worry about the link. Some people may have issues opening it up or it may be blocked at work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Was he black? Officers responding to a report of gun shots. Finds three teens. Radazz Hearns, a 14 year old african american male and one of the three teens, runs from police. Police open fire hitting him 7 times in lower body. He survived, was hospitalized, and is now recovering at home. As far as I can tell Radazz was un-armed, at least once the police were there. A gun was found in the vicinity under a car, but has not been connected to any of the teens. Witnesses, but not the actual responding police, report that Radazz reached for his waistband when he ran. Other witnesses state he was just trying to hold his pants up. No video and Radazz has not been charged. One of the officers attorneys stated that Radazz "certainly had a gun". -Zydeco- fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
To be fair the fact he survived is more luck than anything else and shouldn't be used to mitigate that he was shot at with lethal intent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Yeah he was a 14 year old unarmed black boy. Wonder how long it will take before someone posts his height and a suspension from school along with "he was no child". Was that what I said? Funny. I don't remember saying that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
So what kind of idiot would defend this?ActusRhesus posted:Well at least now you're acknowledging there was a gun at all. ActusRhesus posted:The bigger issue is the giant wildcard of "unknown assailant" there is a huge delta between the victim numbers and the offender numbers. ActusRhesus posted:No. That the police were responding to a report of multiple shots fired, the two who complied were not shot, and a non cop witness said the victim was reaching "into" his waistband, and a gun was, in fact found at the scene. I'm sure it was planted though, right? ActusRhesus posted:You're still omitting key details. ActusRhesus posted:you left out the parts where the police were responding to a report of multiple shots fired, two of the people at the stop complied with law enforcement and were peacefully detained, the one who was shot started running (and again....shots fired....public safety issue) a non-cop witness reported seeing the kid reach into his pants, and a handgun was recovered at the scene. What are you trying to argue? If you're arguing that it was legal then congratulations, you win. Cops can shoot black people "reasons" and it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
-Zydeco- posted:Officers responding to a report of gun shots. http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20150812/teen-shot-by-police-in-trenton-ran-because-he-sensed-trouble-his-attorney-says Trentonian posted:Police sources who spoke on condition of anonymity initially said Hearns turned and fired a gun at officers during the chase. Luckily it seems there was at least one actual non-police witness to the shooting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20150812/teen-shot-by-police-in-trenton-ran-because-he-sensed-trouble-his-attorney-says Yeah I left that out since it wasn't supported by any witness statements, or police reports.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Was that what I said? Funny. I don't remember saying that. ActusRhesus posted:Trust me. This case is not the hill you want to die on. Do you not understand what that term means?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Veskit posted:So what kind of idiot would defend this? I have made zero statements about the character of the victim. I'm focusing on the objective facts that would lead an officer to believe (correctly or incorrectly...don't know yet) that a person fleeing from police responding to a multiple shots fired scenario, might in fact be the shooter and might in fact pose a threat to public safety. At no point did I make any judgments on the character of the victim, nor did I say "it's ok to shoot black people" Jesus loving Christ people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Veskit posted:What are you trying to argue? If you're arguing that it was legal then congratulations, you win. Cops can shoot black people "reasons" and it's ok. Isn't that kind of her job?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:[I have made zero statements about the character of the victim. I'm focusing on the objective facts that would lead an officer to believe (correctly or incorrectly...don't know yet) that a person fleeing from police responding to a multiple shots fired scenario, might in fact be the shooter and might in fact pose a threat to public safety. So why bring up a gun found 12 hours later?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I have made zero statements about the character of the victim. I'm focusing on the objective facts that would lead an officer to believe (correctly or incorrectly...don't know yet) that a person fleeing from police responding to a multiple shots fired scenario, might in fact be the shooter and might in fact pose a threat to public safety. So you're trying to explain why an officer would do this, but not just saying cops like shooting black people as the main reasoning? frajaq posted:Isn't that kind of her job? Kind of a problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Who knew it could be hard to switch off when your very livelihood depends on taking the police at their word.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you not understand what that term means? Yeah. I understand what it means. And the facts of this case look a lot more "reasonable belief" friendly for the cops than, say, a Freddie Gray case. And that's the standard. Not "was it right with the benefit of hindsight" it's "was it reasonable under the circumstances." No one has said there aren't racist cops. No one has said there are no bad shoots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
The Larch posted:So why bring up a gun found 12 hours later? Are you seriously trying to say a gun with 3 rounds in it recovered at or near a location where people were stopped following a report of multiple shots fired is irrelevant? Going through the guy's grades and digging up dirt is a lot different than acknowledging physical evidence AT the scene, no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Are you trying to say the cops had motive to shoot? Like I don't know what dumb point you're trying to make i genuinely don't and am trying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Are you trying to say the cops had motive to shoot? Like I don't know what dumb point you're trying to make i genuinely don't and am trying. A gun existed nearby, so therefore there was mortal danger to the cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:A gun existed nearby, so therefore there was mortal danger to the cops. Since cops carry guns they are always in danger and can shoot anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
It's not just safety to officers. It's also safety to public. 1.cops respond to report of multiple shots fired. 2. Cops arrive. 3. 2 individuals are compliant. 1 runs. 4. Running individual is in vicinity of where shots are fired. 5. Running individual either a. Tries to hold up his pants b. reaches into his pants or c. Fires shots at officers depending on which witness account you believe (and so far no report has released exactly where the gun was found) 6. Police now are stuck with "is that just a kid running away, or is that person armed and a threat to the public if those shots came from him". lovely position to be in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yeah. I understand what it means. And the facts of this case look a lot more "reasonable belief" friendly for the cops than, say, a Freddie Gray case. And that's the standard. Not "was it right with the benefit of hindsight" it's "was it reasonable under the circumstances." You're right, in a police state the "facts of this case" make the shooting entirely within reason. That's the goddamn problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Of course. A 14 year old black kid. Thankfully not dead this time either despite shooting him 7 times. I think I'm just surprised that they didn't handcuff him and leave him on the ground for a good 4-5 hours to make sure he was dead. Progress? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
quote:Police sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the shooting said the teenager was running from law enforcement when he allegedly reached for a gun in his waistband, then turned and fired at police, who fired back. Sources said the teen’s gun was found Saturday morning. quote:A K-9 later sniffed the crime scene, witnesses said, but did not locate a weapon. The Dunham Street witness said she overheard police talking about a weapon being found on Saturday morning, so she took a picture of it. The picture, which she shared with The Trentonian, shows an object lying in the middle of Calhoun Street near the Pashley Avenue intersection. The witness said the area was filled with people, including law enforcement, all night long; and she doesn’t understand how police and the K-9 missed a gun lying in the middle of the street less than 100 feet away from where the teen collapsed after being shot. ActusRhesus posted:It's not just safety to officers. It's also safety to public. quote:The woman said she wants to speak with Acting Attorney General John Hoffman, and only asked to remain anonymous for this report due to the position she holds with law enforcement. When asked if she heard gunshots near her home at two different times Friday night, she said that all of the shots were fired in rapid succession. She said she never heard any gunshots prior to the shots that were seemingly fired by police. http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20150809/witnesses-question-honesty-of-police-involved-shooting-investigation-in-trenton DARPA fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Wonder if this leaked lie was automatic, or they worked it out ahead of time. I am presenting all accounts with the caveat "depending on which account you believe" And pointing out we don't know where the gun was. Could have been a block away. Could have been 2 feet away. Don't know. As to which one *i* believe: waiting for the full report. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Are you seriously trying to say a gun with 3 rounds in it recovered at or near a location where people were stopped following a report of multiple shots fired is irrelevant? Going through the guy's grades and digging up dirt is a lot different than acknowledging physical evidence AT the scene, no? A more cogent point is if the suspect was armed, why did it take them 12 hours to recover the firearm? Are we sure this recovered firearm was used? That it's related to the incident?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
God, they can't even use a throwdown correctly. Drop it by the suspect idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
We don't know any of that. You're right. And it may turn out the gun had been sitting there for a week and had nothing to do with any of this. But ignoring the fact a gun was present (at or near...no clue how close) is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
I'm still confused why any of this matters or the what of you're debating. Maybe we should play true detective in a different thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
I think this discussion would be far more productive if the parties could stipulate to the following: 1. Refrain from debating and analyzing the facts of individual cases. Nobody in this thread has personal knowledge of what happened; they're working off news reports, and unverified statements from witnesses. Plus, we all know that [Arguing about what really happened] is just a proxy for debating the real issues. The anti-police side will always assume and highlight the facts which support police abuse, and the pro-police side will always assume and highlight the facts which support justification of the shooting. 2. Stipulate that regardless of any institutional racism in law enforcement, the public certainly feels that way. Whether its true or not, the way the public perceives it is all that really matters, because that perception contributes to a culture of lawlessness, which exacerbates issues with enforcement, which contributes to distrust, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
^^^^^ We could also accept that everyone is racist, but that'd about as likely. Just think if we had body cameras we'd know what happened. This one is too close to call, at the moment. It does seem strange to me that if he was actually firing at officers, why the others didn't shoot. There may be a legitmate reason for that (bad sight lines, houses behind him, too far), but in a vacuum, seems strangem
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
nm posted:This one is too close to call, at the moment. You're a serious real person? blarzgh posted:2. Stipulate that regardless of any institutional racism in law enforcement, the public certainly feels that way. Whether its true or not, the way the public perceives it is all that really matters, because that perception contributes to a culture of lawlessness, which exacerbates issues with enforcement, which contributes to distrust, etc. What no that's ridiculous I'm not perceiving that black people are disproportionately shot more than anyone else. That's a loving fact. Unless someone needs me to argue that? What the gently caress is wrong with this thread 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
nm posted:^^^^^ My understanding was 2 opened fire but only 1's lawyer is talking. But I agree. I need more facts to make an opinion one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:23 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:My understanding was 2 opened fire but only 1's lawyer is talking. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm What facts would you need to hear to go "ohhh yeah, that shooting of a running unarmed black kid was totally justified" I'm serious by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 17:10
|
|