|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:or not have naxalone on hand Or just not look in the cell for an hour.
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Theres so many conflicting accounts of what happened with this story. After he shot his wife the first time, was the little girl still in the car? How long after the first shots into the wife did he let the girl go? And then, how long after the police had the girl did he fire the second shots? There was a summary of witness statements on the last page and that gives the impression that all of this happened very very quickly and the waiting came after he had his gun to his head until they chucked the pictures of his family to him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Thanks. You said they made him a scrap book, but the other reports said they just slid a mobile phone over with photos on?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Anora posted:What the hell are you talking about? In the situation we are talking about a man has pulled a gun, out and visable, and shot someone twice. Someone he knew, which by your logic means he should have had a hard time killing her. I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you can't tell the difference between murder and shooting someone you know out of necessity I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Anora posted:They knew the wife too. If you categorically can't work out why its easier for someone to commit murder, usually while in a heightened emotional state or a minor psychological break and someone having to shoot their friend out of necessity I honestly don't know anymore. Thats like, a level of disconnect I didn't think was possible. This is not to say what the police officers did is correct, I think it was a monumental gently caress up on all parts. I just take issue with that statement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you think this unbreakable bond of friendship causes officers to ignore other wrongdoing by their friends as well? Or this just an isolated incident without further implications for how police treat outsiders? I think this is the case yes. Police officers will regularly protect each other because thats the culture they've been trained in. But I dont really give a poo poo about these police officers, I just take issue with the fact people expect human beings to be robots when confronted with an emotional situation. Even with the best training in the world its proven that people hesitate and make mistakes when faced with tough decisions regarding people they know. This is why doctors are advised not to treat family members. 'Its very difficult to shoot someone you know out of necessity' is not a controversial statement. If this thread could move away from both sides trying to win points against the other I don't think this would have ever have been an issue, never mind posted about for 5+? pages.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:They didn't even loving try. Okay, and I'm not arguing against that, nor excusing said police officers from making colossal errors in this situation, the biggest of which was their inability to neutralise their colleague after they'd removed the child from the situation and before he'd returned to shoot his wife again. Compounded by their actions afterwards where they took his word for the fact she was dead and went about talking him down from blowing his own brains out, when if it was not a police officer, he'd have had 20 bullets in him the second he came out from behind the car. I only took issue with the people who cannot tell the difference between how its possible for someone to murder someone they know and someone hesitating to shoot someone they know. serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I don't think anyone actually took this line unless they were using it to defend the cops. It's also an asinine line to take because it wasn't about hesitation, that's why people are arguing against the above statement. It was more along the line of "He is shooting her right the hell now, bloody do something to stop him!" rather than scrape booking and organizing the hug patrol. It is a microcosm of how hosed up even this one aspect of not-policing is. This is juxtaposed to every other incidents where cops are absurdly trigger happy or committing cover-ups or whatever systemic failures you care to name. It was actually the post I was responding to that started this: Anora posted:What the hell are you talking about? In the situation we are talking about a man has pulled a gun, out and visable, and shot someone twice. Someone he knew, which by your logic means he should have had a hard time killing her. Equating murder to be exactly the same as shooting someone out of necessity and using the argument that because the nutcase shooting his wife knows her, its impossible for the responding officers to have difficulty shooting him. Again, if you had to put me in a camp it would be in the 'gently caress cops' one, but this thread has devolved into ridiculous hyperbole from both sides just trying to score points. There's no debate happening here, its just a contest to shout the loudest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
tsa posted:This thread has seriously spent over 5 pages wishing cops were more trigger happy, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. No, I dont think they have. They've been pretty accurate in saying that for once the police would have been justified in shooting someone but didn't because of a multitude of reasons. The people saying the responding officers are murderers though are posting in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
I thought in that situation it wasnt the video that people were using as evidence he attacked the cop but that his face looked like he'd gotten a kicking. Edit: I also thought it was widely accepted that the kid had charged the cop in this case and started giving him a beating? The debate over this wasn't about that, but how inept the officer was in allowing the situation to not only get to that, but how he allowed a teenager who was on the ground being tazed to then be kicking his rear end. Has that changed since the last time it was brought up? serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
I think in that situation it isn't useful, but I would much rather have police officers wearing cameras than not since theres a demonstrable effect that when people know they're under surveillance they behave differently. If anything, it raises the chances of prosecutions against officers for abusing their positions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Go watch the open carry video, two guys doing the exact same thing, having a rifle strapped on their backs in an area where open carry is legal. I thought that video had been debunked as 'proof' as it was shot in 2 different cities in two different states so it was hardly a case of 'police force in this area treats people differently.' If i'm wrong, please correct me since it was a fairly vile video and I'd like to start showing it to people again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
I think this thread would be a lot less hostile if people stopped stating things as fact when they aren't. Toasticle posted:I've seen attempts to debunk it because Thanks for this. I thought it had been more obviously debunked, like they'd called the police in the 2nd video and alleged he was waving the gun around etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Perhaps you've heard of the saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? I don't think you want to be opening this door.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Has something juicy just come out in the press?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Some more facts have come out about this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33632894 How a prison can then not put someone on suicide watch who has admitted to attempting suicide in the past is mind boggling.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-usa-texas-death-idUSKCN0PX20G20150723 Your quote doesn't seem to be in that article anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:More than just that. When I opened the link when the post was new, the marijuana thing was the headline. This is what it's been changed to I guess. quote:The preliminary results also found marijuana in Bland's system, though officials are seeking additional tests to confirm that finding, Waller County Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam said. Seems Reuters aren't following the polices message 100%
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Oh boy. About half my facebook friends are now convinced Sandra Bland was already dead in the mugshot. You should link them to her recorded phone call from the jail to her friend after her first court appearance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Then they've never seen what happens to someone who hangs themselves....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I thought police were trained to use certain phrases and avoid specific wording in a way to make them clearer to juries and thats gives the impression of being more reliable. Them not saying 'uhhhh' or 'um' on the stand etc makes their accounts come across as more believable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
There is no threat, hes not being dragged, he can step back and the guy drives off without harm to either of them, they get back in the car and have a bit of a chase and get him later. I think more and more that American officers should still have weapons while on patrol, but perhaps they should be locked in a center console or something so they don't loving shoot people for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I thought the thread had come to a consensus that the kid was giving the police officer a beating after the pictures came out. I can't believe we're doing this again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Some people declaring it clearly showed something it didn't isn't a consensus. The autopsy report listed external injuries consistent with the reported physical altercation. Specifically abrasions to his right forehead and forearms. You don't have to hit people with your fists to do that kind of damage. Its just a really, really weird hill to die on. At the point they're fighting, it doesn't matter if hes hit the cop to try to get away or trying to attack the cop to kill him. He's still attacked the cop, and given that they shoot people for no reason at all, the expected outcome is always going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:accusing minorities of playing the race card is why people think you're a racist, because that's one of the go-to racist arguments He's not accusing minorities of playing the race card, I think hes accusing the middle class white people in this thread of playing the race card for them. Which is still rather silly given the preponderance of evidence that backs up the arguments that minorities are pulled over disproportionately for crimes that have a large degree of discretion on an officers part of enforcing. But still, important difference.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:How do you ignore the trolls if the racists and apologists sound the same as the supposed rational people arguing that the cops did nothing wrong? I don't think it's fair to assume people who sound racist/bigoted or like an apologist are secretly on your side. If you can't tell the difference between obvious trolls and people who are just simply pointing out that certain facts are incorrect perhaps you need to take a step back?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah gently caress that, if there's a few traffic laws I wish cops would actually enforce with an iron fist that would be near the top. That plus aggressive tailgating should be actively enforced and you'd see the rate of traffic accidents nosedive. They're far more dangerous on Motorways (Interstates I think you'd call them?) than people going 10mph faster than the speed liimit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but the racism deniers will just say we can never know why he pulled that uturn behind her, unless he has said he was going to pull her over just cuz? There are many reasons why a police officer will follow a car. Suspiciously high value for the area, matches the description of a previous call or reacted in a suspicious manner when they saw a cop car driving towards them etc. Given the area, it is a certainty that this police officer had driven past multiple other drivers of the same race and gender before deciding to follow Sandra Bland. You cannot in good faith state that racism, and only racism was the reason for that stop without the suspension of all forms of reason. Please note that I am not denying that the american police force is deeply racist before people ignore my post in the rush to call me a racism denier or whatever thats supposed to mean. VitalSigns posted:I already described how he acted like a bigot would, your ignorance of the petty harassment and assertion of social superiority over black people by white cops especially in the south is not my problem. So unless you have something else besides "nuh-uh" and "but how can we ever knowwwwwwww whether the cop putting a black woman in her place beneath a white man is doing it because she is black" then I guess we are done here? You are using literally the same argument to try and prove your point. Think about that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which is exactly why I didn't use the original stop as an example because I don't know why he did the uturn. Your quote in my post was in direct response to you saying anyone that didnt think he pulled a u turn to follow her was a racist was a racism denier. Hence why I gave you multiple examples of why that might have been. I mean its right there in the post you quoted to say that to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying the people who were determined not to see racism even in a white cop from a department with a history of racism in a southern state with a problem of racism giving a black woman who wasn't obsequiousness enough pointless and harassing orders and threatening to tase and arrest her for smoking when he didn't want her to...probably aren't going to agree with WJ's suggestion that he intended to pull her over before she failed to signal. I apologise, its just when you said VitalSigns posted:Yeah but the racism deniers will just say we can never know why he pulled that uturn behind her, unless he has said he was going to pull her over just cuz? I took that to be what you meant, because its what you wrote. Perhaps if you originally wrote what you've now said, there would have been no misunderstanding.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you'd address mine that professionalism entails a higher standard of behavior than "just don't do anything unquestionably criminal" To be fair, I've seen videos of police officers acting very similarly to white drivers too. A dick cop can sometimes be just a dick cop. If your argument is that video is 100% proof that the police officer is a bigot, well you're probably right that hes racist, but you cant prove it without doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know, I feel like if there were a trend of Texas cops beating white women for being uppity I would have heard about it living just off I-35, got anything to back up this claim? Again you're using 'feel' in place of actual evidence then demanding real evidence to counteract your claim. It took AR all of 5 seconds to prove that your statement is wrong. C'mon man, I'm on your side of this fight but you aren't doing yourself any favours. You're making the cardinal sin of trying to use statistics to fit your argument instead of fitting your argument to the statistics.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Certainly the cop who killed that 17 year old kid wouldn't think to do anything like this either... Here we go again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually we have a number of black victim capital cases here. Do you think you could actually post it instead of just stating things without anything to back it up? Also does anyone have a breakdown over what happened? Did the cops just turn up and immeadiately shoot him? Or did they turn up, try and get him off the top of the car, taze and then shoot? I've read several versions of the events so far and none of them really match up. Harik posted:He was shot because he posed a threat to the officers. He posed a threat because they recklessly approached someone acting erratically without regard for their own safety. They approached because their training is awful and is entirely about shows-of-force and escalation until they achieve compliance. They arrived at the scene with that training because he was smashing cars. This isn't really fair though is it. If someone was smashing up someones house or car and the police arrived, I'd expect them to try and get them to stop.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
mastervj posted:Why not? Why not just wait it out? Who the hell cares about stuff? Yeah why not just sit back and watch while someone trashes that shop. Oh he's set fire to it. Its spread to the rest of the block. Oh well, its just stuff after all. Whoops, there was an old lady who couldn't escape her building in time and burnt to death. Now obviously thats not going to be the situation 99.9% of the time, but I have to think 99.9% of arrests for property damage don't end in someone getting shot either. Although I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on that. Although if it becomes common knowledge that the Police will not stop someone from destroying your car or whatever, it wouldn't be long before you had property owners shooting them instead, and they'll do that with much less provocation and an even greater degree of legal getting away with it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Again, you're failing to take into account what will happen when it becomes common knowledge that people can wreck your stuff without the police doing a thing about it. What you're suggesting is a good idea, but in practice in a country with more firearms than people, all it will accomplish is having twitchy shop owners shooting people instead of calling the police.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
beejay posted:The "thing the police do about it" is putting the person in jail once they have control of the situation. The consequence is jail, prison, fines, etc. The "common knowledge" consequence of vandalism or breaking and entering or robbery is not "death by cop" right now, so I don't know what you're trying to say. Whats being argued is that if there is any risk of death, even a minute one, then police should step back and just let said person continue on their merry way of destruction until they're done. Like letting a toddler scream themselves out in a temper tantrum. Since there's no possible way to prove there isn't any chance of death, this will mean police officers will never intervene. So, extrapolating from that, when it is obvious the police will not protect your property, the property owner will do it instead, and the most likely way of doing that will be by waving a shotgun in someones face.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:You're failing to take into account that the cops can still arrest someone. It's not like they shrug their shoulders and say 'welp' and drive away. Did you actually read the post i'm responding to? Where they say if theres any chance of risk to life they should just step back and let them carry on doing what they're doing, because its only property? Can you not see the ramifications that would lead to. You wouldn't even get the police being called in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
I'm from the UK where that policy is more or less used too. Can you tell me what the main difference between Finland, The UK and Germany is with regards to the US? Aside from the racist police officers of course. (Although thats debatable.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
DrNutt posted:Multiple cops should be able to apprehend or subdue an unarmed man without resorting to lethal force. Jesus loving Christ. It would be a lot easier for them to do this if they didn't have easily accessible weapons on their belts that are always their first reaction. Their weapons should be in their cars and only allowed out with express permission from a supervisor. (Unless they're currently under fire of course). In the UK an armed officer has to fill out a 5 page form every time they remove their weapon from their holster, even if they don't use it. I like to think the threat of paperwork means they stay put away more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 17:45
|
|