I disgaree. Unfortunately firearm related violence toward police is only increasing. The military based training like counter assault and tactics to engage dangerous targets from preferable vantage points save lives. Enhanced body armour and ballistic helmets save lives. BUT I will agree that there needs to be more training on when to utilize tactical methods. Not every situation calls for it and if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't be a cop.
The second amendment exists so people can fight the tyranny of the state. That's what this is. People viewing police, who are agents of the state, as a direct threat to their freedom, and acting on it. Congrats
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
The second amendment exists so people can fight the tyranny of the state. That's what this is. People viewing police, who are agents of the state, as a direct threat to their freedom, and acting on it. Congrats
Congrats? I don't get it. Anyway, this isn't tyranny of state, this is a complete moron who needs to be charged for shooting an unarmed man.
I disgaree. Unfortunately firearm related violence toward police is only increasing. The military based training like counter assault and tactics to engage dangerous targets from preferable vantage points save lives. Enhanced body armour and ballistic helmets save lives. BUT I will agree that there needs to be more training on when to utilize tactical methods. Not every situation calls for it and if you can't figure that out then you shouldn't be a cop.
Again, more nuance: a lot of the money spent on things that are meant to make police's job easier and safer would be better spent on training with existing equipment. In particular, one of the issues is officers being over-reliant on their tools - the department spends a bunch of money on a fancy gadget for everyone, and they're jumping at the chance to use it... See the video below.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yeah, that's a pretty huge stretch too. You should realize that people won't think less of you if you're honest. I don't think people could right now if they tried.
Again, more nuance: a lot of the money spent on things that are meant to make police's job easier and safer would be better spent on training with existing equipment. In particular, one of the issues is officers being over-reliant on their tools - the department spends a bunch of money on a fancy gadget for everyone, and they're jumping at the chance to use it... See the video below.
It's not that simple. Do you think it's preferable to arrest a violent individual with a TASER which usually results in no injury to the individual or a beating with a baton which could very well result in broken bones. Do you think less lethal shotgun rounds should be used before real bullets when possible? Relying on police notes or requiring them to wear body cameras?
These are "gadgets". I think I can see where you're going with your post. No new tool is a panacea, there's a reason why officer presence and verbal intervention are continuous on use of force continuums. Obviously verbal deescalation is the preferable outcome in every situation when a police officer is dispatched to a call for service. Sometimes that just doesn't happen and force must be used, I would rather have a tool at my disposal that allows me to resolve an incident with the least amount of harm.
Why is there no video of the actual event? There is video of before and after but not the shooting?
It sounds bad but I will reserve judgement until a full video or body cam video is release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
It's amazing that people run to the defence of anyone thats shot by police as they are innocent till proven guilty but right away the cop is guilty.
I admit it sounds bad, and very likely could result in charges for the officer. But internet justice to the rescue and the cop is guilty.
Oh and nice to see you too Pepsi, missed you.
I have no words. You've been defensive of cops more so than anyone I've ever seen, but this is a cop trying to shoot an autistic guy, but instead shooting a black man three times and then handcuffing him.
I think you can give underGRADFlame some slack for his first post. There wasn't much information at the time, and I think taking a wait-and-see approach with anything is fine.
I can't wrap my head around his second post though after finding out that the best case scenario was the officer was trying to kill an autistic man with a toy truck.
You know you've ####ed up when your defense is "I wasn't trying to kill the unarmed, non-threatening, arms in the air, respectful black man, I was trying to kill the mentally ill, toy truck playing, young white man." And even then that pitiful defense has holes as they cuffed the man after 'accidentally' shooting him. How anyone can even remotely defend those actions is insane.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
I worked as a conservation officer before joining a police service. I have a bunch of posters on here who love to accuse me of different other jobs including a mall cop. There, I have clarified.
So you are a police officer? Yes or No.
"joining a police service" is a little wishy-washy.
If I wasn't a wimp who is scared of bats, cougars, rabbits, spiders, foxes, snakes, weasels, lynxes, darkness, and feral children in the woods, I'd love to be a conservation officer.
I have to wait until November to even apply for citizenship after having my green card (legal residency) for 3 years through marriage. It would be 5 years if I wasn't married to an American. This was after proving that I had 4 years of funds available to me throughout the course of my education BEFORE they would grant me a student visa.
Trump's right that immigration is broken in America, but he's wrong about what that means. To me, it means that it's nearly impossible to immigrate to this country if you're following the rules, so I fully understand why someone who doesn't have the same opportunities that I've had (professionally educated, married to an American, white, english speaker, no objectionable history) would find a way to enter the country illegally. I've been living here for 6 years, and I haven't had a single vote yet. The tea party and revolution occurred due to taxation without representation, but it still goes on here constantly. Just ask the millions of undocumented immigrants, and those of us who are legal, but still don't have a say in how the country is run.
Sorry for the rant, I'm just extremely pissed that I don't get a voice in this election coming up. You touched a nerve.
I hear you on this. I got to experience trying to immigrate to the US myself 16 years ago. What a multi year gong show that was, and I ended up leaving the States before the paperwork (eventually) came through.
The big hangup for me was that I couldn't work until I got my proper card...but the card kept getting lost and/or hung up in the red tape gears. It took them 1 1/2 years to 'authorize' me to work legally. All the while, my ex-wife was slaving away at 2 jobs so we could make ends meet.
I've long thought that if you want to immigrate, the process should look something like this. You show up at the border and state that you'd like to immigrate. You say what city you'd like to live/work in. You are given a work permit and SIN. You are sent to that city with the address for the Immigration Office that you will be expected to check in with every 6 months. You start working and paying taxes and after a period of time (say, 2 years) in which you have been working and paying taxes and not gotten into any serious trouble...welcome to you as a new citizen of wherever.
Obviously that's pretty simplified...but something like that. You want to live and work here? Great. Here are the means to live and work. Do so, and you'll be welcome.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Yeah, that's a pretty huge stretch too. You should realize that people won't think less of you if you're honest. I don't think people could right now if they tried.
Nobody cares what you say V, you are on more ignore lists than any other poster on CP I bet. I wonder what former troll you were? My bet is GreenTeaFrapp.
Nobody cares what you say V, you are on more ignore lists than any other poster on CP I bet. I wonder what former troll you were? My bet is GreenTeaFrapp.
Oh crap, V. I hope you're not black, because you gunna get shot!
I think you can give underGRADFlame some slack for his first post. There wasn't much information at the time, and I think taking a wait-and-see approach with anything is fine.
im sorry but thats just not true. his post was 6 minutes before someone posted the video in this thread. his post was after someone posted a link to a reputable news site. and i checked my twitter from yesterday, i had posted a link from a local florida news station with the video clips and comments from the man shot a couple hours before this thread existed. not too long after there was an article up on NPR's website with similar information.
there was plenty of information at the time, it just didnt agree with his world view, so he ignored it.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
I think you can give underGRADFlame some slack for his first post. There wasn't much information at the time, and I think taking a wait-and-see approach with anything is fine.
I can't wrap my head around his second post though after finding out that the best case scenario was the officer was trying to kill an autistic man with a toy truck.
You know you've ####ed up when your defense is "I wasn't trying to kill the unarmed, non-threatening, arms in the air, respectful black man, I was trying to kill the mentally ill, toy truck playing, young white man." And even then that pitiful defense has holes as they cuffed the man after 'accidentally' shooting him. How anyone can even remotely defend those actions is insane.
The more I read about this, it doesn't look good for the cop, looks like he really fd up, not once have I defended his actions in this, I just stated that I would wait for more info/full video (still find it strange that there is no video of the actual shot/s).
As for my second post, it was not directed at this incident as much as it is in general, which I didn't articulate well. People now believe the first social media post/news report instead of waiting for facts or the whole story to emerge. What's the saying "better to be first than be right".
The shooting in California of the unarmed white guy, a 20 second snippet is shown showing the cops shooting him on the ground, looks horrible, social media called for those officers heads on a platter, but finally 2 weeks later the body cam of the officers comes out and shows a completely different picture, showing the justification for the actions and force they took.
This happens because the police are actually governed to not release information right away until they have a clear picture, perhaps the solution is better communication from PDs. But they will never be able to release details as fast as the media or even close to the speed of social media.
I'm guilty of looking at these posts and making snap assessments too, it's human nature. Yes I'm pro police so I will come to the defence of police when I feel its needed, this one all I'm asking for is more clarity into what happened.
Last edited by underGRADFlame; 07-22-2016 at 09:04 AM.
im sorry but thats just not true. his post was 6 minutes before someone posted the video in this thread.
Obviously we know now what happened is completely unjustified (well...should be).
But at the time underGRADFlames posted his first response the story was unarmed man gets shot, says he did nothing wrong. Which is far from unusual, even when cops are justified. There was no video of the shooting, there was no response from the cops. Taking a wait and see approach is fine. Otherwise we end up with another Michael Brown situation.
However, once the cops response was "we were trying to kill an autistic man who we thought was suicidal" his tone should have changed greatly.
I'm guilty of looking at these posts and making snap assessments too, it's human nature. Yes I'm pro police so I will come to the defence of police when I feel its needed, this one all I'm asking for is more clarity into what happened.
What do you need clarification on?
The official response is out. And if you believe that baloney, the idiot believed the truck was a gun and that they were trying to remove the danger to the man...the man he shot three times and handcuffed. There's no justification.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Why was he lying on the street with his hands up? I just stumbled across this story today.
Did a cop approach him because he was doing something bad, and the guy surrendered by lying down? Or was he just kind of a weird guy a decided to lay on a sidewalk, and a insane cop just walked up and shot him?
Why was he lying on the street with his hands up? I just stumbled across this story today.
Did a cop approach him because he was doing something bad, and the guy surrendered by lying down? Or was he just kind of a weird guy a decided to lay on a sidewalk, and a insane cop just walked up and shot him?
The cops got a call for a suicidal person acting irrational. So naturally, they came out guns blazing to kill that man before he could kill himself.
However, the person was autistic, not suicidal and acting irrational, and the man who ended up laying on the floor was his caregiver trying to calm down the autistic man. They told him to get on the floor and show his hands. He did. They shot him to save his life or some other bull####.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
