Police are people, too

[subwannabe]

"Self-defense is largely accepted as a reasonable excuse for a violent action"

Does that mean you believe that it is reasonable to kill the unarmed person in my example or not?

I did answer your question. It is not always wrong to kill an unarmed person. The circumstances of every situation are different.

As far as OJ Simpson goes, he was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court and guilty in a civil court. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Ferguson but I respect the courts' decisions, no matter how they may turn out. They're not 100% perfect but it is the best thing we have and if we don't have respect for the legal process then it all goes to shit and everything degenerates into a mob mentality, which is exactly what Al Sharpton and the like are hoping for. This respect also includes having respect for the grand jury in Ferguson and Eric Holder's justice department in finding that Darren Wilson did not do anything wrong. The investigation concluded that Michael Brown had robbed that store, was high, did not have his hands up, had struggled with Darren Wilson trying to get his gun, was charging Darren Wilson at the time of the shooting, that witnesses against Wilson had a history of not being credible and making previous false statements to the police, and that witnesses for Wilson (including some blacks) were credible. It is also unreasonable to assume that Michael Brown made any logical decisions while high.

 

[DVS]

"The police" aren't a collection of otherwise good individuals just trying to pay the bills, "the police" are an institution that is structurally toxic, as is evidenced by all of the origin stories I shared that you obviously didn't read. They literally evolved from slave patrols in the south.

"The law" that they defend is not objective, nor is it ever applied nondiscriminatory among all citizens of this country.

Read about the history of usury, of capitalism, of the commons, and then you can talk to me about facts.

I read many of the links you posted, but you should know that after a while, those links are just another example of what I already read in the last, so you are wasting your time in posting others. A few links should be enough to get your point across. While I understand what you are trying to say by posting those links, I've stated more than once that it's easy to find links like those, because they are news worthy.

Bad cops killing innocent people will always be news and white cops killing black people will be even more news worthy, at least in the US. But, these stories also fuel the underlying racism in our country, too. It would be nice to read about some of the good things cops do, but it's not likely we will hear any of that. Like it's already been said in this thread, cops are suppose to be good, so that side of them is expected and not news worthy. But, seeing what the bad cops do in all of these stories does let some people assume all cops are bad and I will never believe that to be true.

Also, you posted a link about the 16 most dangerous jobs a while back. Sorry, I don't know which post it was, but I checked that link out, too. You said that police weren't even in the top 10 dangerous jobs, which is true. But, they were #11. I've taken the liberty of re posting that link.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2013-8?op=1

And of all of the dangerous jobs listed, I think it's safe to say that they were dangerous because of something dealt with in their job and mistakes they make. Dealing with electricity for electricians, working with heavy equipment for earth moving equipment operators, working dangerous heights for construction workers, roofers and grounds maintenance workers/tree trimmers, structural iron and steel workers.

Logging workers have a dangerous job because they work with sharp saws and have to watch that they don't get hit by falling trees. Truckers drive long hours to save money and that causes fatigue, which causes accidents to happen. Trash collectors and farmers also have to deal with accidents related to traffic and farmers have to reclaim and plow their fields out of some of the more tricky parts of the country's landscape.

Taxi drivers and chauffeurs have to deal with traffic issues, but they also deal with violence, because they get robbed at gunpoint. But, the one job that has some of the same issues as the above job hazards, the police are mostly dealing with the unknown and a violent public where they have no idea if someone has a gun, or even if they've been given the correct information by their dispatcher about what they're going to face at any given moment.

Traffic stops can get them killed, so they have to be on their guard for every one, domestic disputes can often turn ugly, because at least one of the people involved is going to be violent. Other than taxi drivers, the only other dangerous job on the list that had an impact because of violence was police. 52% of deaths for taxi drivers was from violence. The second was from traffic accidents. With police, it was 59% from violence and the second was from traffic accidents.

Yes, many police don't wear their seat belts, because sometimes they have to get out of the car in a hurry. I think it would be a good idea for someone to design a better seat belt release for them. Police also carry at least 20 pounds of extra gear with them at all times. Try repeatedly getting in and out of a car with all of that bulk on.

Police deal with all sorts of menaces on a daily basis; some can damage their health while others can get them killed in the line of duty. Roofers and construction workers often wear heavy equipment, they don't have to run after anybody while wearing it. Police wear heavy leather belts, ballistic vests, pepper sprays, batons, radios, handguns and handcuffs. This adds a lot of weight to their feet, back, hips and knees.

When in pursuit of a suspect, they’re not allowed to take off any of those items. Apart from doing a lot of physical work, the risk of getting injured or even shot is extremely high. Many police officers deal with a lot of stress as well. Some can’t cope with the thought of killing a perpetrator, so their issues are also psychological. It's no wonder they become wife beaters as well as hardened to some of the people they deal with.

If a cop makes a mistake, they can kill someone, or get killed themselves. People take days or even months to see if they acted correctly, wanting them to wear cameras to help in that task, when in reality, the cop has seconds to decide what he should do. I'm sure they would like videos to be available of the job they do, but those videos don't show the emotion involved or the things that the cop sees, that the video can't.

They do their job, even though much of the public doesn't seem to care, and many more don't respect them, calling them corrupt and pigs, spitting on them. On a daily basis they see people at their worst. Try to do a job, with those kinds of odds against you. You'll probably end up with some resentment of the public you meet every day, too.

 

[DVS]

1. A civilian is a non-police officer. Now answer the question. You put the word "innocent" in there to allow for the excuse that it's ok for a police officer to shoot someone who is not innocent. Unless the person is in the act of committing a crime, how does the officer make this determination? And, when he does so, is his determination the same thing as a fair trial by jury?

2. "Sometimes there will be judgment mistakes made." You say this as if it's the only possible reason for excessive police violence. It's not.

3. You are under the mistaken opinion that I believe that all police officers are corrupt killers. Prove that I have said that. You can't.

Since you won't answer a simple question, it's clear that you're unwilling to actually discuss this. Too bad. I was willing and I tried to engage you in one.

I think this has been answered at least once in one of my posts, but I'll answer it again, because you seem to think I didn't. And I'll leave the word "innocent" out, if you want.

A police officer has to make split second decisions that can mean his death or the death of another. It's not an easy job. And they can go a long time without being put into that kind of a situation, only to have it thrust upon them without any warning. As an analogy, while driving in a strange area and you come to a fork in the road and have to make a choice of which way to go, do you slow down and think about which way you should go? Police can't slow down, because they could end up dead, if they do. Many times, they are looking in all directions, trying to make the right choice, not kill some innocent person and stay alive in the process.

With that being said, nobody should be killed without cause. What is cause? Cause is if the person is trying to kill the officer or someone else, for one thing. If the cop is in a fast chase of a person and the person is putting the public in jeopardy with his reckless driving, that car is a deadly weapon. Killing someone it might be the only way to stop them. But, police have been using inventive ways of pushing the person's car out of control, and forcing them to crash, if they are in a remote area. This isn't possible, when diving down city streets, but there must be a choice made, in some cases, if the person has already killed someone or is thought to be driving so recklessly that it's likely they will.

Yes, police must make choices. It's not the cop in the car, but his superiors who make that decision. The cop on the scene relays the situation for his boss, and the radio calls during the whole chase as well as if the chase is in a populated area all comes into the decision, too.

But, if the officer is alone and has to make the decision on his own, he has to make that choice in seconds and live with it. In South Carolina, that officer made the wrong choice and he's going to pay for it. I don't know why he decided to shoot the guy in the back, but that is against any kind of police rules, unless the person has a gun and is considered a threat to someone in the immediate vicinity or to the officer himself. Unarmed suspects who run can not be shot, if they are running away. The threat is no longer there.

It's the same thing for civilians who have confronted burglars in their homes. If that person has a gun and as long as they are in the house, they are a threat to you. But, once they have left your house and are running away, they are no longer a threat to you and you have to leave the chase up to police. Again, in that case, the police officer must make the decision if the person is a threat to the public.

Like in any stand off with police, the suspect is given a chance to surrender, but if they refuse, SWAT can be called in and they use things like concussion bombs and pepper spray canisters distract a suspect's attention. Then, they can move in and arrest him. But, if all else fails, a police sniper can be brought in. If the suspect has a hostage, sometimes there is no other recourse than to bring in a sniper, because trying to overtake a suspect can get the hostage killed.

Michael brown was quite a bit larger than Wilson was. In fact, he had already shown he was strong and maybe stronger, by struggling with Wilson over his gun. Brown was leaning in the window, if I remember correctly. Wilson fired at least two times, one of the bullets went into the car door, and the other one grazed Brown's thumb. Just that conflict was enough to tell Wilson that he couldn't allow Brown to get too close to him again. He might not be able to keep him from taking his gun a second time, especially out in the open. Who knows what would have happened, if Brown had gained possession of the officer's gun. Wilson had to make the choice to stop him before that could happen.

Was it the right choice? I wasn't there. You weren't there. The grand jury and the federal government both decided Wilson had made the correct choice, judging from witness testimony, autopsy report and from Wilson's account of what happened. Do I wish it hadn't happened that way? Of course I do. I'm sure Wilson feels the same way. But in the amount of time he had to decide what to do, he weighed everything and decided to act in the way he did.

Neither you nor I can judge him, because we weren't there at the time. The only way we could judge him would be to place ourselves in the very same situation and see how we handle it. I don't think he even had a taser, so he couldn't use that. I doubt any kind of baton would have worked on someone as large as Brown. Only precise blows to the knees really do much good to stop someone and you have to be in very close contact with someone to even try that. If that hadn't worked, what else do you do? He had to think of his safety and he had to keep Brown from getting his gun.

But, if this hasn't answered your question well enough, no, there is no time when an unarmed suspect should be killed, unless the officer feels he, or the public is in some sort of danger from that suspect. The problem arises when police have to make that split second decision. And I don't care how much training you go through, until you have been in that position, you can't judge the cop's choice.

 

[DVS]

You didn't ask if he was blameless in the eye of the law. You asked if I believed he had done something wrong. That's two entirely different things. He clearly did something wrong because a man died because of his actions who should not have died. But that's not the legal finding. Surely you agree that it's wrong to kill an unarmed man, right?

Example: do you believe that OJ Simpson did anything wrong related to the death of his wife and Ron Goodman? Probably not, but he was exonerated by the court. Does the fact that OJ was found not guilty mean that he did nothing wrong?

Actually, the guy with Nicole Brown Simpson was named Ron Goldman. And in the beginning, I didn't think O.J. could have done it, but as the trial went on and on, I realized he just had very good council and the prosecutors were outmatched. O.J. was overwhelmed with emotion. I feel a little sorry for him, because he had a good life and was a great athlete, but he killed two innocent people in a fit of rage.

He was found guilty in the civil trial, but I don't think he has payed the Goldmans any cash that he owes. Maybe I'm wrong on that. And he tried to get some of his possessions back, but I guess someone with him had a gun and so he was convicted of using a gun in the process of a crime. He was put in prison over that. He should have been in prison from Nicole and Ron's murders. But, at least he's where he should be.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think this has been answered at least once in one of my posts, but I'll answer it again, because you seem to think I didn't. And I'll leave the word "innocent" out, if you want.

A police officer has to make split second decisions that can mean his death or the death of another. It's not an easy job. And they can go a long time without being put into that kind of a situation, only to have it thrust upon them without any warning. As an analogy, while driving in a strange area and you come to a fork in the road and have to make a choice of which way to go, do you slow down and think about which way you should go? Police can't slow down, because they could end up dead, if they do. Many times, they are looking in all directions, trying to make the right choice, not kill some innocent person and stay alive in the process.

<snip to save space>

But, if this hasn't answered your question well enough, no, there is no time when an unarmed suspect should be killed, unless the officer feels he, or the public is in some sort of danger from that suspect. The problem arises when police have to make that split second decision. And I don't care how much training you go through, until you have been in that position, you can't judge the cop's choice.

Why do you continue to contradict yourself? You say that "there is no time when an unarmed suspect should be killed" and then you say that none of us can judge the officers in these cases because we haven't been in their shoes. I disagree. I can judge whether an assassin acted badly without ever having been an assassin. I can judge whether a third baseman made the right choice in a tough double-play situation even though I'm not a professional ballplayer. These disclaimers continue to suggest that you won't categorically condemn the murders of unarmed civilians by armed police officers. I know you like to say that it's ot a black-and-white world, and we both know it's not. But there's a reason why murder is ALWAYS against the law: because life and death are black and white conditions. Either you're still alive after a rfun-in with a cop or you're dead. There is no in-between.

 

[midwestyankee]

"Self-defense is largely accepted as a reasonable excuse for a violent action"

Does that mean you believe that it is reasonable to kill the unarmed person in my example or not?

I did answer your question. It is not always wrong to kill an unarmed person. The circumstances of every situation are different.

As far as OJ Simpson goes, he was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court and guilty in a civil court. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Ferguson but I respect the courts' decisions, no matter how they may turn out. They're not 100% perfect but it is the best thing we have and if we don't have respect for the legal process then it all goes to shit and everything degenerates into a mob mentality, which is exactly what Al Sharpton and the like are hoping for. This respect also includes having respect for the grand jury in Ferguson and Eric Holder's justice department in finding that Darren Wilson did not do anything wrong. The investigation concluded that Michael Brown had robbed that store, was high, did not have his hands up, had struggled with Darren Wilson trying to get his gun, was charging Darren Wilson at the time of the shooting, that witnesses against Wilson had a history of not being credible and making previous false statements to the police, and that witnesses for Wilson (including some blacks) were credible. It is also unreasonable to assume that Michael Brown made any logical decisions while high.

Yes, self-defense makes sense to me as a reason to use potentially lethal force - so long as the mthreat was actually real.

You didn't really answer my question about OJ Simpson, which was do you think he did anything wrong, or does the fact that the court let him go mean that he did not do anything wrong. It's a simple question: what do you think in this case? Did he do anything wrong?

 

[DVS]

Why do you continue to contradict yourself? You say that "there is no time when an unarmed suspect should be killed" and then you say that none of us can judge the officers in these cases because we haven't been in their shoes. I disagree. I can judge whether an assassin acted badly without ever having been an assassin. I can judge whether a third baseman made the right choice in a tough double-play situation even though I'm not a professional ballplayer. These disclaimers continue to suggest that you won't categorically condemn the murders of unarmed civilians by armed police officers. I know you like to say that it's ot a black-and-white world, and we both know it's not. But there's a reason why murder is ALWAYS against the law: because life and death are black and white conditions. Either you're still alive after a rfun-in with a cop or you're dead. There is no in-between.

Of course you twist my words around, yet again. I haven't contradicted myself. I've said the same thing, over and over. If the situation is able to be judged by others as a blatant murder, any officer should be charged with murder. But, if nobody is there but the officer, and say the person he's after has a toy gun, but the officer has been told he has a real gun, how can the officer be judged, if he shoots that person? He's not to blame. The information he got is to blame.

Like in that one situation when a 12 year old kid was said to have a gun and pointing it at people in a play ground. Someone called police and said they "thought" it as a real gun, but they couldn't be sure. The officers on the scene were never told the gun "might be a toy with the red tip removed, so they thought it to be a real gun. They told the kid to drop the gun and he refused. Because there were innocent people in the vicinity, they shot him. Unfortunately, they found out afterwards that the gun was a toy.

Who is to blame for that mistake? The dispatcher that didn't give all of the information to the officers? The civilian who called about the kid with a gun in the first place? First, I'd say the civilian should take some of the blame, because he was there, on the scene. He could have checked to see if the kid had a toy or not before he even called police. Of course, I wasn't there so I can't really judge that person, either, but I think I would do my best to find out if the gun was real, before I'd be calling the police in about a kid with a gun.

The dispatcher was also partly to blame, because she/he didn't relay all of the information to the officers on the scene. And we don't really know how that information was given to the dispatcher by the caller, so we can't zero in on any one person to blame. The result is sad, because I think it could have been solved by some other means than killing the kid. There were multiple errors there. Hopefully, that police department will take that case and change their communications to officers in the future.

And there was the situation where there was a report of a guy in a Walmart with a gun, pointing it at customers. This call had come in by a customer in the store who had seen it. He actually stayed on the phone with the dispatcher through out the ordeal, telling the dispatcher over and over that he was pointing the gun at customers. I've seen the video and at no time did I see the guy point the gun at anybody. He did have it up as if to aim it, but I didn't see any customer near him when he did that.

Police on the scene were told there was a guy in Walmart pointing a gun at customers. When they got to the store, they confronted the guy with the gun from about 15 feet away, and told him to drop the gun. The guy was startled, because he just had a BB gun, but in just a few seconds and before the guy could even explain, the police shot him dead.

Now, the police didn't know the gun wasn't real. The person who called police said the gun was real and he was pointing it at customers. What were the police supposed to think? They act on the information they are told.
In my opinion, police should have called that store's Loss Prevention people to have them check their cameras to see if they could see the guy.

I've worked Loss Prevention. People do have a bad habit of picking up BB guns and walking about the store with them. We would follow them with the cameras, making sure they didn't walk out of the store with the gun, but we never had anybody call police to say that person had a real gun and was pointing it at customers. We would usually go tell the person to put the BB gun back onto the shelf.

People will be people. We had people riding bicycles around the store, because they wanted to try them out before they bought them. We had kids riding skateboards around the store, while mom and dad shopped in a totally different part of the store. Nobody thinks of what could go wrong. Somehow, they just assume they have the right to do what they do and don't question the consequences.

Walmart has Loss Prevention people, just like we did in our store. I'm sure they had cameras on the person in question and could have said it was just a BB gun the customer had picked up from the shelf. All somebody had to do was ask them. The customer who called police should have gone to the store's information desk and told them about the customer and let them call their Loss Prevention people to see if the gun was real or not...and then let them call police. Our cameras could zoom in on a cell phone and see the number someone was calling, so it would be easy to see if the gun was real or not.

So, there are times when police act on the information they receive and while that's sad, how can you judge the police for making the choice they did? With the information they are given, they have to act to save other people from getting hurt, while not getting hurt themselves. Sure, you hope the correct information is relayed in all cases, but that doesn't always happen. I started this thread by saying police are people, too. And people are prone to make mistakes.

Does that mean they should be able to make the correct decision in that split second they need to? You'd hope they do, but with the system we have today, that's not always going to happen. I wish I had the answer, but I don't. And I've asked you if you had a better way, I'd listen. But, sometimes life just sucks. When you give someone a lethal weapon in his job and you train him in how and when to use it, you are still going to get mistakes. These incidents I've just talked about were mistakes. I don't know if the South Carolina situation was a mistake or not. Maybe in the trial we'll find out more information about it, but right now, it looks like the officer shot the guy in the back and in cold blood.

 

[midwestyankee]

Of course you twist my words around, yet again. I haven't contradicted myself. I've said the same thing, over and over. If the situation is able to be judged by others as a blatant murder, any officer should be charged with murder. But, if nobody is there but the officer, and say the person he's after has a toy gun, but the officer has been told he has a real gun, how can the officer be judged, if he shoots that person? He's not to blame. The information he got is to blame.

Like in that one situation when a 12 year old kid was said to have a gun and pointing it at people in a play ground. Someone called police and said they "thought" it as a real gun, but they couldn't be sure. The officers on the scene were never told the gun "might be a toy with the red tip removed, so they thought it to be a real gun. They told the kid to drop the gun and he refused. Because there were innocent people in the vicinity, they shot him. Unfortunately, they found out afterwards that the gun was a toy.

Who is to blame for that mistake? The dispatcher that didn't give all of the information to the officers? The civilian who called about the kid with a gun in the first place? First, I'd say the civilian should take some of the blame, because he was there, on the scene. He could have checked to see if the kid had a toy or not before he even called police. Of course, I wasn't there so I can't really judge that person, either, but I think I would do my best to find out if the gun was real, before I'd be calling the police in about a kid with a gun.

The dispatcher was also partly to blame, because she/he didn't relay all of the information to the officers on the scene. And we don't really know how that information was given to the dispatcher by the caller, so we can't zero in on any one person to blame. The result is sad, because I think it could have been solved by some other means than killing the kid. There were multiple errors there. Hopefully, that police department will take that case and change their communications to officers in the future.

And there was the situation where there was a report of a guy in a Walmart with a gun, pointing it at customers. This call had come in by a customer in the store who had seen it. He actually stayed on the phone with the dispatcher through out the ordeal, telling the dispatcher over and over that he was pointing the gun at customers. I've seen the video and at no time did I see the guy point the gun at anybody. He did have it up as if to aim it, but I didn't see any customer near him when he did that.

Police on the scene were told there was a guy in Walmart pointing a gun at customers. When they got to the store, they confronted the guy with the gun from about 15 feet away, and told him to drop the gun. The guy was startled, because he just had a BB gun, but in just a few seconds and before the guy could even explain, the police shot him dead.

Now, the police didn't know the gun wasn't real. The person who called police said the gun was real and he was pointing it at customers. What were the police supposed to think? They act on the information they are told.
In my opinion, police should have called that store's Loss Prevention people to have them check their cameras to see if they could see the guy.

I've worked Loss Prevention. People do have a bad habit of picking up BB guns and walking about the store with them. We would follow them with the cameras, making sure they didn't walk out of the store with the gun, but we never had anybody call police to say that person had a real gun and was pointing it at customers. We would usually go tell the person to put the BB gun back onto the shelf.

People will be people. We had people riding bicycles around the store, because they wanted to try them out before they bought them. We had kids riding skateboards around the store, while mom and dad shopped in a totally different part of the store. Nobody thinks of what could go wrong. Somehow, they just assume they have the right to do what they do and don't question the consequences.

Walmart has Loss Prevention people, just like we did in our store. I'm sure they had cameras on the person in question and could have said it was just a BB gun the customer had picked up from the shelf. All somebody had to do was ask them. The customer who called police should have gone to the store's information desk and told them about the customer and let them call their Loss Prevention people to see if the gun was real or not...and then let them call police. Our cameras could zoom in on a cell phone and see the number someone was calling, so it would be easy to see if the gun was real or not.

So, there are times when police act on the information they receive and while that's sad, how can you judge the police for making the choice they did? With the information they are given, they have to act to save other people from getting hurt, while not getting hurt themselves. Sure, you hope the correct information is relayed in all cases, but that doesn't always happen. I started this thread by saying police are people, too. And people are prone to make mistakes.

Does that mean they should be able to make the correct decision in that split second they need to? You'd hope they do, but with the system we have today, that's not always going to happen. I wish I had the answer, but I don't. And I've asked you if you had a better way, I'd listen. But, sometimes life just sucks. When you give someone a lethal weapon in his job and you train him in how and when to use it, you are still going to get mistakes. These incidents I've just talked about were mistakes. I don't know if the South Carolina situation was a mistake or not. Maybe in the trial we'll find out more information about it, but right now, it looks like the officer shot the guy in the back and in cold blood.

This seems to be a pointless exercise. You don't seem to accept that murder by the police is murder without trying to add in a loophole to excuse the officers involved. And in my view that means that you don't see it as murder but just an unfortunate mistake, as if some bureaucrat made a math error on a tax form.

Do you not believe that murder is never acceptable, or do you believe that we should always give police officers the benefit of the doubt until evidence, like a video, proves that they acted badly?

 

[DVS]

This seems to be a pointless exercise. You don't seem to accept that murder by the police is murder without trying to add in a loophole to excuse the officers involved. And in my view that means that you don't see it as murder but just an unfortunate mistake, as if some bureaucrat made a math error on a tax form.

Do you not believe that murder is never acceptable, or do you believe that we should always give police officers the benefit of the doubt until evidence, like a video, proves that they acted badly?

Of course you twist my words around, yet again. I haven't contradicted myself. I've said the same thing, over and over. If the situation is able to be judged by others as a blatant murder, any officer should be charged with murder. But, if nobody is there but the officer, and say the person he's after has a toy gun, but the officer has been told he has a real gun, how can the officer be judged, if he shoots that person? He's not to blame. The information he got is to blame.

Like in that one situation when a 12 year old kid was said to have a gun and pointing it at people in a play ground. Someone called police and said they "thought" it as a real gun, but they couldn't be sure. The officers on the scene were never told the gun "might be a toy with the red tip removed, so they thought it to be a real gun. They told the kid to drop the gun and he refused. Because there were innocent people in the vicinity, they shot him. Unfortunately, they found out afterwards that the gun was a toy.

Who is to blame for that mistake? The dispatcher that didn't give all of the information to the officers? The civilian who called about the kid with a gun in the first place? First, I'd say the civilian should take some of the blame, because he was there, on the scene. He could have checked to see if the kid had a toy or not before he even called police. Of course, I wasn't there so I can't really judge that person, either, but I think I would do my best to find out if the gun was real, before I'd be calling the police in about a kid with a gun.

The dispatcher was also partly to blame, because she/he didn't relay all of the information to the officers on the scene. And we don't really know how that information was given to the dispatcher by the caller, so we can't zero in on any one person to blame. The result is sad, because I think it could have been solved by some other means than killing the kid. There were multiple errors there. Hopefully, that police department will take that case and change their communications to officers in the future.

And there was the situation where there was a report of a guy in a Walmart with a gun, pointing it at customers. This call had come in by a customer in the store who had seen it. He actually stayed on the phone with the dispatcher through out the ordeal, telling the dispatcher over and over that he was pointing the gun at customers. I've seen the video and at no time did I see the guy point the gun at anybody. He did have it up as if to aim it, but I didn't see any customer near him when he did that.

Police on the scene were told there was a guy in Walmart pointing a gun at customers. When they got to the store, they confronted the guy with the gun from about 15 feet away, and told him to drop the gun. The guy was startled, because he just had a BB gun, but in just a few seconds and before the guy could even explain, the police shot him dead.

Now, the police didn't know the gun wasn't real. The person who called police said the gun was real and he was pointing it at customers. What were the police supposed to think? They act on the information they are told.
In my opinion, police should have called that store's Loss Prevention people to have them check their cameras to see if they could see the guy.

I've worked Loss Prevention. People do have a bad habit of picking up BB guns and walking about the store with them. We would follow them with the cameras, making sure they didn't walk out of the store with the gun, but we never had anybody call police to say that person had a real gun and was pointing it at customers. We would usually go tell the person to put the BB gun back onto the shelf.

People will be people. We had people riding bicycles around the store, because they wanted to try them out before they bought them. We had kids riding skateboards around the store, while mom and dad shopped in a totally different part of the store. Nobody thinks of what could go wrong. Somehow, they just assume they have the right to do what they do and don't question the consequences.

Walmart has Loss Prevention people, just like we did in our store. I'm sure they had cameras on the person in question and could have said it was just a BB gun the customer had picked up from the shelf. All somebody had to do was ask them. The customer who called police should have gone to the store's information desk and told them about the customer and let them call their Loss Prevention people to see if the gun was real or not...and then let them call police. Our cameras could zoom in on a cell phone and see the number someone was calling, so it would be easy to see if the gun was real or not.

So, there are times when police act on the information they receive and while that's sad, how can you judge the police for making the choice they did? With the information they are given, they have to act to save other people from getting hurt, while not getting hurt themselves. Sure, you hope the correct information is relayed in all cases, but that doesn't always happen. I started this thread by saying police are people, too. And people are prone to make mistakes.

Does that mean they should be able to make the correct decision in that split second they need to? You'd hope they do, but with the system we have today, that's not always going to happen. I wish I had the answer, but I don't. And I've asked you if you had a better way, I'd listen. But, sometimes life just sucks. When you give someone a lethal weapon in his job and you train him in how and when to use it, you are still going to get mistakes. These incidents I've just talked about were mistakes. I don't know if the South Carolina situation was a mistake or not. Maybe in the trial we'll find out more information about it, but right now, it looks like the officer shot the guy in the back and in cold blood.

Contrary to what some people do, I don't jump to conclusions without all of the facts. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt, no matter who they are or what color they are. But, like I said in the bold part of my last post, (I guess you missed that?) right now, with what I've seen, that South Carolina cop shot that guy in the back, and in cold blood. Isn't that enough for you? It not, I'm not going to mess with this any more, because either you're just not reading what I've written or twisting what I've written into something you prefer to read. I stand by what I've written, like it or not.

 

[midwestyankee]

Contrary to what some people do, I don't jump to conclusions without all of the facts. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt, no matter who they are or what color they are. But, like I said in the bold part of my last post, (I guess you missed that?) right now, with what I've seen, that South Carolina cop shot that guy in the back, and in cold blood. Isn't that enough for you? It not, I'm not going to mess with this any more, because either you're just not reading what I've written or twisting what I've written into something you prefer to read. I stand by what I've written, like it or not.

We never get all the facts, and it's quite clear from both the OJ trial and the Darren Wilson grand jury that wrong-doers regularly come out the other side of the courts swithout being punished. I am unwilling to accept that trials reveal all the facts, but I am also unwilling to say that I can't judge another's actions because I "don't know all the facts." That's a cop-out, pure and simple.

 

[DVS]

We never get all the facts, and it's quite clear from both the OJ trial and the Darren Wilson grand jury that wrong-doers regularly come out the other side of the courts swithout being punished. I am unwilling to accept that trials reveal all the facts, but I am also unwilling to say that I can't judge another's actions because I "don't know all the facts." That's a cop-out, pure and simple.

Man, talk about cop-outs! Thankfully, you're not a judge, and if you're ever selected for jury duty, please be sure to tell them you already have decided if the guy is guilty or not. One side won't like you and you won't be chosen for the jury. Courts prefer honest, non biased jurors.

EDITED TO ADD:
You know, opinions like yours are similar to the lynch mobs of the 60s when vigilantes took the law into their own hands. You don't take the law into your own hands and by saying you can judge another person's actions even when you don't have all of the facts, that's what you're doing. Add a couple others with the same opinion as yours and you have a lynch mob. If nothing else, it just fuels the racism in America that much more. Jumping to conclusions without all of the facts is just not acceptable.

 

[midwestyankee]

Man, talk about cop-outs! Thankfully, you're not a judge, and if you're ever selected for jury duty, please be sure to tell them you already have decided if the guy is guilty or not. One side won't like you and you won't be chosen for the jury. Courts prefer honest, non biased jurors.

EDITED TO ADD:
You know, opinions like yours are similar to the lynch mobs of the 60s when vigilantes took the law into their own hands. You don't take the law into your own hands and by saying you can judge another person's actions even when you don't have all of the facts, that's what you're doing. Add a couple others with the same opinion as yours and you have a lynch mob. If nothing else, it just fuels the racism in America that much more. Jumping to conclusions without all of the facts is just not acceptable.

This is bs, DVS, and you know it. I said we NEVER can know all the facts, even in a court room. You want to excuse a cop's behavior because we can't know all the facts, but you were perfectly willing to assume that Walter Scott had done something wrong simply because he ran away from a police officer. Either we judge a man's actions when we don't know all the facts - and I have to assume that as much as you might think so, you don't really know what was in his mind at that moment - or not. You clearly believe that it's okay to judge that man's actions without all the facts.

But courts presumably do their best to judge whether someone broke the law based on the facts they have. The problem is that breaking the law isn't the only way to determine if someone did a bad thing. You've already agreed that the cop in the Walter Scott case did a bad thing by shooting Mr. Scott in the back. Will you change your story if, for some reason, the court finds the officer not guilty?

My point all along has been that individual police officers should be held accountable for doing bad things and you keep trying to find excuses for the cops and reasons to convict the victims.

You just can't have it both ways.

 

[DVS]

This is bs, DVS, and you know it. I said we NEVER can know all the facts, even in a court room. You want to excuse a cop's behavior because we can't know all the facts, but you were perfectly willing to assume that Walter Scott had done something wrong simply because he ran away from a police officer. Either we judge a man's actions when we don't know all the facts - and I have to assume that as much as you might think so, you don't really know what was in his mind at that moment - or not. You clearly believe that it's okay to judge that man's actions without all the facts.

But courts presumably do their best to judge whether someone broke the law based on the facts they have. The problem is that breaking the law isn't the only way to determine if someone did a bad thing. You've already agreed that the cop in the Walter Scott case did a bad thing by shooting Mr. Scott in the back. Will you change your story if, for some reason, the court finds the officer not guilty?

My point all along has been that individual police officers should be held accountable for doing bad things and you keep trying to find excuses for the cops and reasons to convict the victims.

You just can't have it both ways.

Nope, I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want about me. If you ask me, you've shown your colors quite nicely and I just can't agree with your logic. Sorry.

 

[midwestyankee]

Nope, I'm done with this conversation. Believe what you want about me. If you ask me, you've shown your colors quite nicely and I just can't agree with your logic. Sorry.

What I believe about you is taken directly from your own words. You say we can't judge a man without all the evidence but what you actually did was judge men like Walter Scott and Michael Brown while refusing to judge the cops. Your colors are eminently clear.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In the time period while the cop was back in his car, checking the identity of the driver decided to run. At the time he decided to run, he was still in his car, and the cop was in his own car, checking information. If the driver felt he was in danger, why didn't he drive his own car to the nearest police station

Do I really need to explain why a black guy who feels threatened by a cop isn't likely to go to the police station for help?

or some other place where it wasn't just him against the cop? If the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you have called him

"as you have called him"? Seriously?

why did he get out of the car and run, instead?

I dunno. He may have thought he had a better chance of getting away on foot. He may have not wanted to get his buddy mixed up in it. There might be other explanations neither of us have thought of. None of them make it OK to murder him.

Instead of staying in the car and driving to a police station or other place like that, he chose to open the door and run on foot, making himself a very open target for the cop,

if the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you say he was.

...second time...

And if the cop was a homicidal criminal,

And that's three times, so I have to assume you really do have doubts over this point.

He shot an unarmed guy 8 times in the back with a lethal weapon. That's about as homicidal as it gets, and Tennessee v. Garner doesn't leave much wiggle room on the "criminal", given what the video footage shows.

why wasn't the rider of the car worried about getting shot, too?

Where do you get the idea that he wasn't?

The fact that the driver got out of his car and ran while his friend didn't overpowers your statement that the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could.

(1) Not following your logic here.

(2) Could you please point me to where I said "the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could"?

I'll certainly own the "homicidal criminal" bit but I don't remember saying the rest of that. If you can't supply a cite, I would very much appreciate an apology and retraction; I don't appreciate having people put words in my mouth.

Again, the rider didn't run and he's still alive. Just let that sink in a minute. He didn't run, and he's still alive. That doesn't justify the driver getting shot by the cop, because the cop was totally wrong for shooting the driver,

I am glad that we agree on this point.

But it seems to me that you're much more interested in Walter Scott's decision to run than in the cop's decision to shoot him. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but you certainly seem to be talking far more about the former than the latter. Don't you think that's just a wee bit disproportionate?

We may never know what went on between them in the scuffle. Maybe it will come out in the cop's murder trial.

Well, I expect we'll hear one side of that...

Back to the rider. If the cop was a homicidal criminal and intended to kill the driver all along,

I'm not sure where you're getting this "intended to kill the driver all along", but it's not from me. I have never suggested that he initiated the traffic stop with a clear plan to kill anybody, only that - as the video shows - he was capable of illegal violence up to and including killing somebody.

Perhaps Scott picked up on some of that, thought he might be in for trouble if he stayed, and decided to take a chance on running. Or perhaps it was all about the child support.

why would he leave the rider as a witness?

Word of a black guy against word of a cop? Not exactly a major threat. If it hadn't been for the video footage, he'd have gotten away with the "guy grabbed my Taser" story, with or without Scott's friend contradicting him.

Don't try to bring up any other case to twist an opinion around to mean something else. we are just talking about the South Carolina situation, right now.

No, we're not. If you want to ask why a black guy might behave in a particular way when pulled over by a cop, seems pretty likely that guy would have been thinking about other interactions between black people and cops.

The rider didn't seem threatened by the cop or maybe he would have run, too.

It's like you didn't read my post at all. I'll say it again: NEITHER choice is safe. People just have to make their own judgements about which choice is less likely to get them shaken down/beaten up/jailed/killed, and not everybody's going to call it the same way.

It seems obvious that the rider didn't feel threatened by the cop. He didn't run.

No, it's not "obvious" at all. All we can conclude from that is that staying in the car seemed less dangerous than fleeing, in his judgement.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'll repeat: do you believe that criminals have the right to a fair trial for their crimes? It's a simple yes-or-no question and I'm willing to bet you have an answer. Let's share it and turn this into the discussion you claim to want.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Do the police deserve a fair trial? Are they innocent until proven guilty? Are you willing to admit that Darren Wilson didn't do anything wrong because not only did the Ferguson grand jury fail to charge him with any wrongdoing but neither did Obama's and Holder's henchmen? Or, is he still guilty, let free by a fucked up and prejudiced justice system?

False equivalence. There is a big difference between being shot dead (what midwestyankee is talking about) and being called a murderer (what you're talking about).

 

[DVS]

Do I really need to explain why a black guy who feels threatened by a cop isn't likely to go to the police station for help?



"as you have called him"? Seriously?



I dunno. He may have thought he had a better chance of getting away on foot. He may have not wanted to get his buddy mixed up in it. There might be other explanations neither of us have thought of. None of them make it OK to murder him.

Instead of staying in the car and driving to a police station or other place like that, he chose to open the door and run on foot, making himself a very open target for the cop,



...second time...



And that's three times, so I have to assume you really do have doubts over this point.

He shot an unarmed guy 8 times in the back with a lethal weapon. That's about as homicidal as it gets, and Tennessee v. Garner doesn't leave much wiggle room on the "criminal", given what the video footage shows.



Where do you get the idea that he wasn't?



(1) Not following your logic here.

(2) Could you please point me to where I said "the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could"?

I'll certainly own the "homicidal criminal" bit but I don't remember saying the rest of that. If you can't supply a cite, I would very much appreciate an apology and retraction; I don't appreciate having people put words in my mouth.



I am glad that we agree on this point.

But it seems to me that you're much more interested in Walter Scott's decision to run than in the cop's decision to shoot him. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but you certainly seem to be talking far more about the former than the latter. Don't you think that's just a wee bit disproportionate?



Well, I expect we'll hear one side of that...



I'm not sure where you're getting this "intended to kill the driver all along", but it's not from me. I have never suggested that he initiated the traffic stop with a clear plan to kill anybody, only that - as the video shows - he was capable of illegal violence up to and including killing somebody.

Perhaps Scott picked up on some of that, thought he might be in for trouble if he stayed, and decided to take a chance on running. Or perhaps it was all about the child support.



Word of a black guy against word of a cop? Not exactly a major threat. If it hadn't been for the video footage, he'd have gotten away with the "guy grabbed my Taser" story, with or without Scott's friend contradicting him.



No, we're not. If you want to ask why a black guy might behave in a particular way when pulled over by a cop, seems pretty likely that guy would have been thinking about other interactions between black people and cops.



It's like you didn't read my post at all. I'll say it again: NEITHER choice is safe. People just have to make their own judgements about which choice is less likely to get them shaken down/beaten up/jailed/killed, and not everybody's going to call it the same way.



No, it's not "obvious" at all. All we can conclude from that is that staying in the car seemed less dangerous than fleeing, in his judgement.

How am I suppose to respond to this? You cut up my post and that changes the context of my statements. And I had to go back 2 pages to find the original post to try and understand what what you were quoting. And if I wanted to spell out what I said, I'd have to somehow quote my quote.

All I can say is the driver got out and ran. If you can't agree that he escalated the situation by doing that, I can't go any further with you. The rider didn't run. He just sat in the car as he should have and lived. If he was concerned for his life, why didn't he run, too?

If the driver couldn't go to a police station and find safety, I guess that means this whole white cop shooting black people thing is racist and has nothing to do with anything the blacks were doing. If a black citizen can't go to a police station and find an honest cop to talk to, he should consider moving to another town, unless you think this racism thing is so wide spread that all cops are racist and all cops should be considered homicidal criminals towards black people. Is that what you believe?

The cop in South Carolina did shoot the driver in the back while he was running away. I've agreed with you and everybody else on that point. But, I also think that running from police will only make matters worse and it played a part in why the driver was shot. The fact that he was shot is agreed on by all, but maybe, just maybe he would still be alive, if he had stayed in the car like his friend did. Quite possibly the scuffle wouldn't have happened either, which also escalated the situation.

That doesn't mean he should have been shot just because he ran. It just means it played a part. If you can't understand that, I'm done with this conversation. If you only see parts of the situation and don't look at it in the whole, you aren't seeing the situation as it happened. Everything plays a part in how and why something happens. If you are going to piecemeal the facts - picking out what you want to believe and dismissing what you want to dismiss, you are no better than another poster in this thread, in how he says he can judge someone, even though he doesn't have all of the facts. I'm not going to waste my time in such a conversation, if all of the facts aren't going to be included and the weight of each fact considered.

Oh, and if you want to continue with this conversation, I'd appreciate it if you would quote my whole post instead of cutting it up into pieces. Not only does it end up taking my statements out of context, I don't like going back several pages to find out exactly what it was I said that you didn't agree with. I'm sorry, if that doesn't work for you, but when people don't agree and start quoting where they don't agree, it's better to have the complete post there for all to see it. I hope you understand.

 

[subwannabe]

Yes, self-defense makes sense to me as a reason to use potentially lethal force - so long as the mthreat was actually real.

You didn't really answer my question about OJ Simpson, which was do you think he did anything wrong, or does the fact that the court let him go mean that he did not do anything wrong. It's a simple question: what do you think in this case? Did he do anything wrong?

Sorry to disappoint you but I guess I'm going to kind of cop out of the question again. I don't share your mob mentality. Before the trial I felt OJ was probably guilty but he was found not guilty in the criminal trial and guilty in the civil trial. I wasn't there so how could I know if he was guilty or not? That's why we have courts and why we should respect the process, because that's the best thing we've got going right now.

Anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't mean their opinion is right. It's just an opinion. The trouble with you is you believe your opinions are always right and never wrong and you will never stop until your opinion is accepted as truth, even if it isn't.

DVS: I don't know your political affiliation but I suspect it is somewhere in the middle, like mine, because we try to have intelligent and thoughtful discussions. That just isn't possible with either the far left or the far right because they will always be right and pigheaded and will always twist your words and the facts to prove their point of view. It's not any different than those who twist the words in the bible to prove whatever they want. The one thing that both the far left and the far right never seem to comprehend is that they sway no one's opinion because the only ones who listen to them are the people who are already on their sides and the rational middle of the road people who want to have on honest discussion just think they are idiots.

 

[DVS]

Sorry to disappoint you but I guess I'm going to kind of cop out of the question again. I don't share your mob mentality. Before the trial I felt OJ was probably guilty but he was found not guilty in the criminal trial and guilty in the civil trial. I wasn't there so how could I know if he was guilty or not? That's why we have courts and why we should respect the process, because that's the best thing we've got going right now.

Anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't mean their opinion is right. It's just an opinion. The trouble with you is you believe your opinions are always right and never wrong and you will never stop until your opinion is accepted as truth, even if it isn't.

DVS: I don't know your political affiliation but I suspect it is somewhere in the middle, like mine, because we try to have intelligent and thoughtful discussions. That just isn't possible with either the far left or the far right because they will always be right and pigheaded and will always twist your words and the facts to prove their point of view. It's not any different than those who twist the words in the bible to prove whatever they want. The one thing that both the far left and the far right never seem to comprehend is that they sway no one's opinion because the only ones who listen to them are the people who are already on their sides and the rational middle of the road people who want to have on honest discussion just think they are idiots.

Yes, I'm pretty much middle of the road in many things. I have my opinions but many of them don't fit with the left or the right's point of view. Some tell me I'd be a good negotiator, but I don't think I could do that.

Hopefully, someone will some day come up with the answers to these issues we all argue about. But, until that day comes, we're all just going to think we're correct and everybody else is wrong. There's usually some correctness in what many people say, but I think they feel too much emotion to have strictly rational thoughts. That's not necessarily a bad thing, either. It's good to feel strongly about your opinion, but, both sides get so emotional about it.

People I know that are really to the right or the left will often want to argue about things and wonder why I don't see their views. I'm just an individual with no affiliations. I lean to the right in some things and the left in others, but I don't follow either side by being a true liberal or conservative. I look at the big picture, listen to both sides and decide what I think is right and wrong. I'm sure many people think I'm wishy washy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As requested, quoting entire post. I've bolded a couple of sections:

There are a lot of stupid questions in this post that I won't even try to answer, because they were twisted around from statements I made in previous posts.

But, I'll ask you one very straight question about the South Carolina situation. The car was stopped because of a broken tail light. The cop went up to the car and talked to the two males in the car, then walked back to his car, probably with the driver's license and other information, just like a normal traffic stop.

In the time period while the cop was back in his car, checking the identity of the driver decided to run. At the time he decided to run, he was still in his car, and the cop was in his own car, checking information. If the driver felt he was in danger, why didn't he drive his own car to the nearest police station or some other place where it wasn't just him against the cop? If the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you have called him, why did he get out of the car and run, instead?

If he had done nothing wrong and the cop wasn't going to find out anything by checking his information, he could have driven his car to some populated place, where there would be many, many witnesses and the cop wouldn't be able to cover up any criminal action he might have planned. The more eyes that see an illegal act, the less likely it's going to be possible to cover it up.

Instead of staying in the car and driving to a police station or other place like that, he chose to open the door and run on foot, making himself a very open target for the cop, if the cop was a homicidal criminal, as you say he was.

And if the cop was a homicidal criminal, why wasn't the rider of the car worried about getting shot, too? Weren't both occupants of the car black? So now, you're going to tell me that the cop was a homicidal criminal looking to shoot down innocent blacks, but he was satisfied with killing only one. If he was going to satisfy his killing urges, he could have killed them both, while they sat in the car, plant a gun and be done with the whole thing.

The fact that the driver got out of his car and ran while his friend didn't overpowers your statement that the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could. The driver ran and the rider didn't. That driver had a choice to drive to a different location, so there would be witnesses to what was going on. He didn't. Instead, he chose to run...the rider didn't.

There must have been a reason why the driver chose to run, and I don't think it was because the cop was a homicidal criminal. He had something to hide. His brother said it might have been because he had outstanding child support payments. I don't know if that is the reason he ran, but the fact is, he ran. If he had nothing to hide, why did he run? If that cop wasn't going to find out anything by checking his driver's license, why did he run?

Again, the rider didn't run and he's still alive. Just let that sink in a minute. He didn't run, and he's still alive. That doesn't justify the driver getting shot by the cop, because the cop was totally wrong for shooting the driver, but maybe he would still be alive, if he hadn't run. Oh, he'd have a court date to appear before a judge about why he wasn't paying his child support, but he'd probably still be alive.

So, the driver did escalate the situation by running. Was he guilty of something where he should have been shot? No. But running from the police is never a good thing to do. NEVER! They automatically assume you have something to hide. They are going to chase you and do their best to catch you, because you ran from the law.

We don't know what went on between the cop and the driver after the scuffled out in the open. But, again, the driver ran, instead of doing the smart thing and allowing the cop to arrest him. Again, that is no reason to be shot and killed, but it did escalate the situation even further.

We may never know what went on between them in the scuffle. Maybe it will come out in the cop's murder trial. But for some reason, the cop felt he should shoot that driver, even though he had his back to him and was no further threat. We don't know why he shot him, but hopefully that will also come out in the trial. I don't think he will be able to justify shooting him, but all of that will be in the trial.

Back to the rider. If the cop was a homicidal criminal and intended to kill the driver all along, why would he leave the rider as a witness? Like I said, he had them both in the car. Shoot them both, then. But he leaves them sitting in the car, turns his back and walks back to his own car. At that point the driver decided to run, but the rider didn't. The rider didn't escalate the situation, so the cop didn't have a reason to assume he'd done anything. He went after the driver.

There are many situations where there are two suspects in a car, and only one cop. Both people will choose to run and they will go in different directions, making the cop choose who he's going to chase after. This didn't happen here. The driver chose to run and he's dead. The rider chose not to run and he's still alive.

The driver shouldn't have been killed, we all agree on that, but he did escalate the situation by running. He very well may still be alive today, if he'd just done what the rider did and stay in the car.

Don't try to bring up any other case to twist an opinion around to mean something else. we are just talking about the South Carolina situation, right now. The driver ran and he's dead. The rider didn't run and he's alive. The cop was wrong for shooting the driver, but to me it seems like he might still be alive, if he'd just stayed in the car with the rider. His running doesn't justify being killed, but it added some weight to the situation.

The rider didn't seem threatened by the cop or maybe he would have run, too. And the driver didn't run just once, but twice. He first ran from the car, when the cop turned his back and walked back to his own car. Then, he ran again, after they scuffled.

If he had been the only occupant of the car and decided to run, my scenario wouldn't work. The cop could have said something to him that made him feel afraid for his life. But, with the addition of the rider being in the car, that changes the scenario. That means there had to be something only the driver knew about that made him decide to run.

It seems obvious that the rider didn't feel threatened by the cop. He didn't run. He didn't escalate the situation and he's still alive. If the rider didn't feel threatened by the cop, why would just the driver feel threatened? The driver had the choice to drive away from the scene, as I stated before. Maybe they talked that over and the rider didn't want to do that, because he had nothing to hide. So, maybe the driver decided to run on his own. But again, the question is why did he run? You don't run from police. They automatically will assume you have something to hide.

It's a simple question. If someone has nothing to hide, why run? That's never a good thing to do. Yes, he's dead now, so we can't ask him. He was murdered by the cop. But maybe, just maybe he would still be alive today, if he hadn't run.

Now that I've quoted the entire context for those remarks, I repeat my earlier request:

Could you please point me to where I said "the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could"?

I'll certainly own the "homicidal criminal" bit but I don't remember saying the rest of that. If you can't supply a cite, I would very much appreciate an apology and retraction; I don't appreciate having people put words in my mouth.

Until then, frankly, it seems a bit hypocritical for you to complain about an edit that at least responds to your exact words, when you're attributing words to me that I didn't say at all.

 

[Primalex]

It would be nice to read about some of the good things cops do, but it's not likely we will hear any of that. Like it's already been said in this thread, cops are suppose to be good, so that side of them is expected and not news worthy.

Can we please not associate the term "good" with "not killing someone"?

"Hey, son, how was your boyscout meeting?"
"I did get my good behavior medal."
"What did you do?"
"I didn't kill anyone this month."

But, seeing what the bad cops do in all of these stories does let some people assume all cops are bad and I will never believe that to be true.

So, because there is a fair percentage of good cops, there is no percentage of bad cops?

People take days or even months to see if they acted correctly, wanting them to wear cameras to help in that task, when in reality, the cop has seconds to decide what he should do. I'm sure they would like videos to be available of the job they do, but those videos don't show the emotion involved or the things that the cop sees, that the video can't.

So...because a video might only show a part it's better to have no video at all?

On a daily basis they see people at their worst. Try to do a job, with those kinds of odds against you. You'll probably end up with some resentment of the public you meet every day, too.

But what is your consequence of this logic?
a) "Oh, well, another one down; no wonder, after all, that cop got hit the day before by a black guy, so it's just payback".
b) "The psychological support and surveilance for cops must be improved."

This is actually somehow funny. At the start of your posting you're blaming the public for getting a wrong impression about cops and here you are excusing the cops for getting a wrong impression about civilians.

 

[Primalex]

That doesn't mean he should have been shot just because he ran. It just means it played a part. If you can't understand that, I'm done with this conversation. If you only see parts of the situation and don't look at it in the whole, you aren't seeing the situation as it happened. Everything plays a part in how and why something happens.

"Well, I'm not saying that she deserved to be raped. Oh no! I'm just saying that wearing a short skirt played a part. Let's not talk about the rapist before we get the facts straight: She did wear a short skirt. She didn't phone her friend to pick her up. She did have quite some drinks. Everything plays a part in how and why something happens. But I'm really not saying that she deserved to be raped. No, no, but please, look at the bigger picture."

 

[IrisAlthea]

How am I suppose to respond to this? You cut up my post and that changes the context of my statements. And I had to go back 2 pages to find the original post to try and understand what what you were quoting. And if I wanted to spell out what I said, I'd have to somehow quote my quote.

All I can say is the driver got out and ran. If you can't agree that he escalated the situation by doing that, I can't go any further with you. The rider didn't run. He just sat in the car as he should have and lived. If he was concerned for his life, why didn't he run, too?

If the driver couldn't go to a police station and find safety, I guess that means this whole white cop shooting black people thing is racist and has nothing to do with anything the blacks were doing. If a black citizen can't go to a police station and find an honest cop to talk to, he should consider moving to another town, unless you think this racism thing is so wide spread that all cops are racist and all cops should be considered homicidal criminals towards black people. Is that what you believe?

The cop in South Carolina did shoot the driver in the back while he was running away. I've agreed with you and everybody else on that point. But, I also think that running from police will only make matters worse and it played a part in why the driver was shot. The fact that he was shot is agreed on by all, but maybe, just maybe he would still be alive, if he had stayed in the car like his friend did. Quite possibly the scuffle wouldn't have happened either, which also escalated the situation.

That doesn't mean he should have been shot just because he ran. It just means it played a part. If you can't understand that, I'm done with this conversation. If you only see parts of the situation and don't look at it in the whole, you aren't seeing the situation as it happened. Everything plays a part in how and why something happens. If you are going to piecemeal the facts - picking out what you want to believe and dismissing what you want to dismiss, you are no better than another poster in this thread, in how he says he can judge someone, even though he doesn't have all of the facts. I'm not going to waste my time in such a conversation, if all of the facts aren't going to be included and the weight of each fact considered.

Oh, and if you want to continue with this conversation, I'd appreciate it if you would quote my whole post instead of cutting it up into pieces. Not only does it end up taking my statements out of context, I don't like going back several pages to find out exactly what it was I said that you didn't agree with. I'm sorry, if that doesn't work for you, but when people don't agree and start quoting where they don't agree, it's better to have the complete post there for all to see it. I hope you understand.

"He came at me with a weapon, so he was escalating the situation" seems like a reasonable statement and I can see how it would be followed by " I got scared/needed to defend myself so I shot him".

"He ran away from me, so he was escalating the situation" seem less reasonable to me and when followed by "so I shot him in the back", I have to say that you lost me completely.

 

[DVS]

As requested, quoting entire post. I've bolded a couple of sections:



Now that I've quoted the entire context for those remarks, I repeat my earlier request:

Could you please point me to where I said "the cop was a homicidal criminal wanting to shoot down innocent blacks, just because he could"?

I'll certainly own the "homicidal criminal" bit but I don't remember saying the rest of that. If you can't supply a cite, I would very much appreciate an apology and retraction; I don't appreciate having people put words in my mouth.

Until then, frankly, it seems a bit hypocritical for you to complain about an edit that at least responds to your exact words, when you're attributing words to me that I didn't say at all.

you might not have been the one who said that, but because you said homicidal criminal, it seemed to fit. I've had multiple people berate me for my opinion and I don't like it when someone cuts up my post to quote one sentence, when the very next sentence might clarify what I said in the quoted one. It's happened before and I really don't have the time to go back several pages to see what I actually did say to see if it has happened again. Trust me, some people do snip up posts to make them say what they want, so I just wanted to make that clear. I don't care to respond to posts that have been cut up.

If you look at it from my point of view, you are doing the same thing to me, by cutting up my posts. If you don't feel that way, that's too bad. I do feel that way. People twist my posts around enough to say things I didn't say so I don't need any more headaches about that. You can say it's hypocritical if you want, of course I see it differently.

I think I'm one of the only two in this thread that tries to see things with an open mind. Everybody else seems to be calling the police homicidal criminal, including you. I think it's sad that people who should believe in innocent until proven guilty doesn't want to give the police the same right.

 

[DVS]

"He came at me with a weapon, so he was escalating the situation" seems like a reasonable statement and I can see how it would be followed by " I got scared/needed to defend myself so I shot him".

"He ran away from me, so he was escalating the situation" seem less reasonable to me and when followed by "so I shot him in the back", I have to say that you lost me completely.

Sorry I lost you, but I can't make it any clearer. Escalation doesn't mean he caused himself to be shot. It just means he escalated the situation. ANYTHING someone does that isn't what the cop said to do or expected of him is escalating the situation. A weapon doesn't have to be involved. He simply ran. That's escalating the situation, plain and simple. How many times do I have to say this before everybody gets it?

His friend stayed in the car and he is alive. The driver ran and he is dead. That very well could have been partly because he ran. The cop thought he had a reason to run because who in their right mind would run from police without good reason? The cop caught up with him and they had a scuffle. After the scuffle, he ran again and that's when the cop shot him. If he had stayed in the car like his friend did, it's a good possibility that none of that would have happened.

And don't say he ran because he feared for his life, because his friend just sat in the car. He didn't seem to be afraid for his life. Oh, by the way, did I say his friend is still alive?

Now, if you don't understand this now, I can't help you. You need to go to someone else and have them explain it to you. I think I've explained the process of escalation enough times.