Slashdot Mirror
Baton Rouge Police Database Hacked In Retaliation For Killing of Alton Sterling (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill quotes a report from The Daily Dot: Just days after the fatal shooting of a black man by Baton Rouge police prompted international outrage and a Justice Department investigation, the Baton Rouge city government's servers have been hacked and 50,000 city police records leaked including names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers. A hacker that goes by the name @ox2Taylor claimed responsibility for the breach, which was confirmed by security intelligence analyst at Patch Penguin, Jamie-Luke Woodruff. He told the Daily Dot that the administrators of the website had failed to implement proper security measures. When the hacker first announced the hack, he accompanied the tweet with three hashtags revealing the motivation: #AltonSterling, #Hacked, and #BlackLivesMatters. "The reason i did it is because of what that officer did to alton sterling," Taylor told the Daily Dot in a private message. "i'm sick of seeing police abuse their power and all the killings."
This problem has a few pieces. First cops have the us versus them mentality. Everyone other than a cop is just a person who hasn't committed a crime yet. Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what. Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you. Third the unions and legal system ensure cops rarely do jail time. Why do cops get trials where a judge decides? How can an average citizen get those privileges?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Anyone can waive the right to a jury trial and have a judge instead. Read a fucking book.
This is the first time I hear about a database that has killed someone.
Ezekiel 23:20
How many of the people impacted by the dump are Black? How much redaction was done to protect the innocent?
Yeah, I hope Karma comes knocking.
I do find it interesting that many of the same people claiming the police are corrupt want to take away the 2nd amendment. The same people claiming certain groups need protection are fine to oppress other groups. The same groups yelling "listen to me" also attempt to prevent opinions they disagree with.
Karma - cares about right and wrong, not about personal hypocrisy.
Not necessarily directed at you, but if the shoe fits give it a good sniff.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides? How can an average citizen get those privileges?
Generally, defendants can waive their right to a trial by jury, and have their case heard just by the judge (a "bench trial"). Technically, the prosecution has to consent, but it almost always does, since to decline to do so is opening up grounds for an appeal.
Defendants usually go for bench trials when their lawyers believe that the law is on their side, but the defendant isn't sympathetic.
It's targeting 49,900+ people who had little or nothing to do with the event, and the vast majority of whom are most likely sympathetic to the existence of a serious cultural problem that needs to be addressed, and would like to see that problem get better.
There are many potential ways to improve the situation, few of them fast or easy. I fail to see how this is one of those ways. Doxing the front desk lady and the janitor doesn't do much to prevent the next such event. All it does is create an even deeper culture of mutual antagonism and distrust... which is sort of the whole problem to begin with.
Other police forces have been making dents in this problem through increased social contact between the police officers and supervisors, and the local populace. Once you've had a burger with someone, it's a lot harder to shoot them in the back. Once you've sat down to talk to a local store owner about the problems they face running their shop, it's easier to want to help them.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
Everyone gets this. The right to a jury trial is something a criminal defendant has and can waive. There are rare cases where an average citizen thinks he'll get a fairer shot at acquittal from a judge than a jury and waives the right to jury trial. Usually, this happens if the accused thinks that a jury will hold a particular prejudice against him for matters unrelated to the crime which the prosecutor has a way of putting in front of the jury. For them, it's about avoiding unreasonable jury bias. For cops, it's about seeking unreasonable bias in their favor from the judge.
Cops get trials where the judge decides, because that is in the best interest of the cop, and the cop chooses to forgo a jury trial. It is their right (as is yours as well). Most of the time, you WANT a jury trial, cops are one of the exceptions where judge tends to be more dispassionate.
And you're right, cops don't like to lose control. But the moment THEY lose control, they've already lost. Having been arrested by a pair of cops who "lost control" (verbal, not physical) I can assure you, I have no loss of love for the police.
Actually how it happened ..
Cops: "You're under arrest for being drunk in public"
Me (already in cuffs): "Officer, I am neither drunk nor in public"
slam jerk yank ....
Cops: "um I mean assaulting a police officer"
The way I view it, the cops have an impossible task of breaking liberties to protect "the public". The fact is, cops should be under the goal of "Defend liberty" and not "Protect and serve". "Protect and Serve" is way too nebulous and has been twisted into "shooting a guy during a traffic stop for a broken tail light" in a vain effort to "Protect and Serve". What are they protecting, serving?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Resisting arrest and wrestling with police while possessing a gun is not healthy - this can't be stressed enough.
We have a gun loving culture and as such police having a hair trigger mentality is a survival advantage. A local cop in my area hesitated last year and paid the price, they got great body cam video of the criminal searching his dead body for another weapon.
ha!
they do NOT protect NOR do they serve. not us, anyway.
the courts ruled that cops have no obligation to PROTECT you.
sleep well, america.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
better hope for club fed and not the local jail / courts.
the thin blue line stands together.
they abuse together.
let them hang together.
what goes around, comes around.
I have no sympathy for those that DAILY abuse citizens and get away with it. ZERO.
let them all suffer. maybe then they'll change their act.
its us vs them, and yes, its gotton to that. I could not care less about cop lives.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's not clear what the contents of the database were, though. With 50k records, it can't have been a personnel database, no way Baton Rouge has anything like 50k cops.
Unlike the Elites
Laws exist only for the 99 percent. And don't apply if you're DWB.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Get real, people. Sterling was a registered sex offender, with a long history of violent crime, spousal abuse, and had tried to disarm a police officer during a previous arrest. This is a guy who broke a wall to steal an old lady's goldfish so he could sell them for $20. Nothing was below him. He was well known to area police, and he's your typical punk thug who thinks that a gun makes him tough.
Waves a gun around threatening to kill someone, the cops show up, he is MOST uncooperative because he's a gangsta with a gun, and don't have to take no shit from nobody, especially da man!
It would have been (and has been) the same outcome if he had been white in Canada with a knife, as opposed to black in the southern US with a gun. You keep asking for it, eventually you'll get it. The world is a better place without him, and all other punk-asses. He doesn't get a pass just because he's black. Reverse discrimination is as bad as outright discrimination.
As for him being shot 4 times, nobody's going to shoot only once and then wait for you to pull out your gun. People are making a big thing about that because carrying a gun is legal there. They seem to forget that making threats while waving a gun around isn't.
This has nothing to do with race, and people shouldn't be giving a perp anything close to a pass just because of their skin colour.
Now all you people who are so bent on being seen as so politically correct and pure that you can't see or think stright, flame on!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Wait. You read something about the actual event? Are you new here? you are supposed to simply gen up your opinion organ and twist the HEADLINE to your preconception. Try again.
They are protecting themselves. Ever watch a real cop show on tv? They do a raid or bust someone, they always say to the camera how happy they are all of their people got home fine. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be the mindset of a cop. The police's primary goal should be to make sure that innocent citizens get home fine. The cop's life should be secondary to that goal.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
stop being corrupt and people will stop hating you.
Don't be a criminal and you won't have to worry about police shooting you.*
*I'm not making a judgement about this particular case since the facts are not yet known. But when it comes to criminals like Michael Brown who attack police, they shouldn't expect to be treated with velvet gloves.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
let them hang together.
Ah yes, collective guilt.
All Muslims are terrorists.
All gun owners are murderers.
All computer gamers are anti-social psychopaths.
It might surprise you to learn that there are plenty of good, non-racist cops just trying to help their local communities. Are there also racist and power-tripping ones? Yes, plenty of them too, and there is a big problem due to the power they wield over the people. But painting everyone with the same brush leads to the kind of racism that leads to these shootings to begin with, or led to lots of very nasty events in human history. It's the same mentality, applied to a different target.
Cops are individuals. There are good ones and bad ones, and they have good days and bad days. Their lives are often at risk. Sometimes they do heroic things, sometimes they do horrific things. You cannot solve problems like this by painting with too wide a brush.
So how is your logic any different from "I'm reading all the time about black people robbing stores and murdering. They all must be bad, it's us versus them now."
No way Baton Rouge has anything like 50k cops.
Correct. A quick trip to governing.com reveals that Baton Rouge Police employ just 832 people, 728 of which are officers.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
None of which justifies his murder by police. Yet another example of unjustified shooting by US police.
If police are raiding a home, they are, in theory, protecting the community at large from the people and activities going on in the home. Sorry, but I don't want people manufacturing meth in the Condo or even house next to me.
In such a situation, you do want your police force to be going home after enforcing the laws on the books.
We can discuss whether or not laws of specific sorts are good or bad and we can also discuss how reality is quite diferent then text on paper.
This problem has a few pieces. First cops have the us versus them mentality. Everyone other than a cop is just a person who hasn't committed a crime yet.
Sadly, this is all too true. They've also gotten kitted up in the last few years so they all look like extras from Robocop.
The average cop cop carries a gun (often 2 guns), a Taser, military-grade pepper spray, a baton, and a knife. He or she wears a bullet-resistant vest, steel-toed shoes or boots, and has handcuffs and a radio with which to call for help.
And yet despite being armed to the teeth, he or she is terrified, simply terrified of a person in a t-shirt and shorts with a camera, or some dude who might be selling CD or single cigarettes.
American police are not taught to de-escalate situations, they're taught that they must allow NO resistance or uncooperativeness. Telling them "no" to almost anything they want will set them off on a rampage.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Cops go for bench trails because they only consider other cops as their "peers". No way to get a jury of only law enforcers so the judge is the next best thing. In my experience, most cops do not relate to their fellow man very well, and if they do they are not in the field for long.
You can choose to be a police officer. You can't choose your skin color.
Karma applies to everyone and Alton Sterling was hardly a stand-up, do-right kind of person.
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
The video clearly shows the officer pull his gun, point it at Sterling, and after a delay of a few seconds, he shot the man in cold blood. This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple. There is pretty much no way you can misinterpret that video. The officer used deadly force with absolutely no good reason to do so. Sterling was effectively subdued, and the officer had no remotely justifiable reason to pull the trigger. A good cop would have cuffed Sterling right then. A murderer does what this guy did.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
And so you don't think the felon who has already threatened one person with the gun may have made the mistake of going for his gun during a scuffle with the police? It's interesting to note that AS SOON as he was incapacitated they found the gun immediately, no searching, no time to plant a gun. The officer knew exactly where the gun was. How do you suppose he knew that if Alton never went for it?
First, none of what you said is punishable by death. Second, did you watch the video? The guy is laying on the ground with 2 officers on top of him and another over him, they can't control his hands and instead need to just shoot him several times?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's true - the 99% bad apples spoil it for the other 1% of law enforcers.
Today I had the thought, "When is BLM going to start doxing all the officers who unjustifiably shoot people?" Appears it has already started. Not that I support vigilante justice, but at some point perhaps thought of the risk of pissing off people so much that mentally unstable folk starting hunting you down _should_ cross officers minds.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
When you wipe your ass with the constitution.
When your police fail to police the police.
When you subvert the media to the point that the public doesn't recognize the concept much less the term "fifth estate"
You have forfeited your legal mandate.
You have demanded the public no longer trust you.
You have asked each of us to take it upon ourselves to expose your crimes against the public trust.
And some of are willing to take up the work.
If we don't hold their feet to the fire it's only going to get worse.
Look to Russia to see where we're headed.
A kleptocracy controlled by thugs.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Fucking idiot. Did you even look at the shit?
It's a list of businesses.
887582 BURKHART DENTAL SUPPLY CO 10 453000 7/23/2010 BURKHART DENTAL SUPPLY CO 2502 S 78TH ST TACOMA WA 98409 8409 2502 S 78TH ST TACOMA WA 98409 8409 2532124865 8669470713 2532124865 KUDBYE@BURKHARTDENTAL.COM BURKHART DENTAL SUPPLY CO OWNER 2532124865 0 2502 S 78TH ST TACOMA WA 98409 0 LORI ISBELL PRES 2532124865 0 2502 S 78TH ST TACOMA WA 98409 8409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 7/27/2010 12:00:00AM J:\Reports\Sheriff Data.rpt
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... said the anonymous coward.
In this case the shooting appears justified. Grow up. The world is a better, safer place without him. He could have avoided all this by not illegally carrying around a gun and threatening someone at 12:30 at night.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
From the initial complaint they knew that he had a gun. Even you admit they couldn't control his hands. I'd have shot him too. He wasn't being "punished" - so get your terms right instead of trying to reframe the situation.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Rewatch the video frame by frame. Mr Sterling posted up and lifted his chest from the ground right before the officer shot him. Further the gun was in a pocket on the side of him you can't see on the camera, you don't know where his hand is. What you can see on the camera is that immediately after shooting him the officer was able to locate and remove the gun from Mr Sterling's person without having time to have planted it or having frisked him to find it. The police knew exactly where the gun was, which means somehow Mr Sterling revealed where the firearm was during their interaction. How do you suppose that happened?
No doubt George Zimmerman agrees... only in his case he was able to draw his weapon and fend off an unlawful attacker who had him pinned to the ground.
The difference is that in this case, like it or not the cops did have the right to talk to the person (though they don't have to respond), even to detain him... and if you do end up resisting/fighting with police... bad things may end up happening, doubly so if you appear to be going for a weapon.
Murder 1 usually requires some degree of forethought... and I highly doubt any jury would convict on the premise that simply drawing a weapon is 'forethought' given previous non compliance.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple.
You don't actually know what 1st degree murder is, plain and simple.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No. The point is they might think of themselves as good, but if they cover-up for abusing murderers, then they are not. They are accessories after the fact. If they know somebody's planning to commit murder, and they cover-up, they are accessories before the fact, and equally guilty.
I didn't write the laws, but that's the way they read. If only they were honestly enforced.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
When he posted up and managed to lift both officers, yes they rightfully felt fearful for their life. And watch the video closely. Right before they start shouting "He's got a gun" the officer on his chest's eyes went wide and his mouth dropped. And after the shooting they knew exactly which pocket the gun was in, they didn't need to frisk him. He clearly revealed the location of the gun at some point during their interaction AND somehow scared a man who had been on the force 5 years (or is it 4?)
Oh yes, let's blame the victim. Yay. Whoooo.
"...used a gun to threaten someone outside a convenience store."
The murder victim had been robbed several times, and it was a rough neighborhood. A homeless man came up and asked him for money, but the murder victim declined. When the beggar persisted, and continued to molest the murder victim, they allegedly presented their firearm in a non-threatening manner to warn them off. (Showed the assailant they had a gun in their pocket.)
"... violent offenses..."
Resisting arrest, obstruction of an officer, disturbing the peace. Gosh. Such violence. Wow. Those are like, consolation prizes in the game of Living While Black.
"...possession of a controlled substance."
Weed. A dimebag of weed. Less an ounce, maybe a few grams. But hey, I guess you already know that Louisiana has an absolute zero-tolerance policy to *any* amount of cannabis? At least, prior to 2015, anyway.
So yeah. Take your KKK-brand dogwhistle and head for the door.
[End Of Line]
He was a convicted felon, and as such not allowed to own a gun. Ask the feds.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm about as far left as you can get, but you don't see me rallying around this thug. That's probably because I think political correctness is a disease of the mind.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I don't think the motto has all that much of an effect. In Canada, the RCMP has "Maintiens le droit." Which means "Uphold the law." Or, more poetically "Uphold the right."
Doesn't stop them from shooting a prisoner in the back of the head in self defence.
Let every legal settlement in these cases come directly out of the police pension fund. We would see the bad cops being fragged by the good ones.
" There is pretty much no way you can misinterpret that video"
Looks like you did. How do you know what Sterling is doing with his other hand that you can't see? If he was resisting arrest, and continued to go for his gun this was justifiable. A token fight eh? It only takes a small movement and trigger pull to kill either cop who are trying to subdue Sterling. You do not resist arrest while carrying a weapon...
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
I disagree.
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.* Wow! That guy is a tank! So the officers physically took him down. One officer pinned Mr. Sterling's left arm, while the other officer was unable to pin his right arm because of the car in the way. From the store's video camera view, we see that Mr. Sterling's right arm was reaching down to his side. After the shooting, the police remove a gun from his right side.
So I see:
* Man refuses to stand down when verbally asked.
* Man stands-up to two stuns.
* Man is still struggling after being pinned to the ground.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times? Hope another officer arrives and that 3 people can take him down? I'm seriously interested in hearing what the next escalation level is that doesn't involve a gun.
* Man has a gun.
I am no lawyer, but I am pretty confident that NOW they can shoot him. At this point, even if he laughed and said "Sorry guys, I just was messing around, let me up and we can chat about this" they might still be room to shoot him. He demonstrated that he is willing to use force, that he is strong as hell, and he isn't giving up. Now he has a deadly weapon too?
* Man is reaching for a gun.
No brainer. Done.
" they can't control his hands"
Exactly. You said it yourself. And what are hands good for when someone is armed and desperate?
A 95 lb criminal in a split second grab an officer's gun and kill the officer.http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/jefferson_parish_deputy_killed.html
What do you think a 300lb felon with a gun in his pocket resisting arrest can do to an officer ? This isn't the movies where the good guy can disarm the bad guy with his bear hands.
The sex offender Sterling caused his own death. Yes I scene both videos and it could have easily been officer shot and killed.
I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it. Now perhaps the officers were far to aggressive at first but the call they had was a man with a gun who had threatened someone else already. They were on high alert, they don't know Alton all they know there is this armed guy that is a threat. Not to mention that Alton was a very large guy. Was it murder? No it's not like they walked up to him pulled a gun and shot him in the head. That's murder. They tried to make an arrest and the suspect got violent and resisted.
All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things. Now, brandishing a firearm in public is indeed illegal just about everywhere it is a threat of deadly intent and he probably would have been arrested and jailed and he would likely have lost his firearm and his permit. If he was not a licensed gun permit holder he would have been jailed and charged with a much more serious crime. Root cause of Alton's death? Do not fight with the police, just don't do it. Especially when armed. This one sways in favor of the officers.
The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements! Wait for instructions and move slowly when ordered to move. Do not move till ordered to move. Be calm and clear. In this situation a police officer will want to cuff you and search you and the officer will then be the one to remove your weapon from your person. You certainly do not want the officer thinking you are reaching for the gun, no not ever.
You can hear the officer swearing repeatedly after the shooting throughout the video, he didn't want to shoot the guy. The officer knows he screwed up. At the same time the victim did in fact reach for his wallet where the gun could have been holstered. Truly tragic. The poor girlfriend had to watch him in pain, bleed out and die. Horrific. She was right her boyfriend didn't need to be shot dead.
The officer failed to properly manage the situation. As soon as he was told the driver was armed he went into an instant frightened mental state. He's likely never had to draw his weapon before let alone shoot someone. First words out of his mouth should have been, place your hands on the steering wheel and do not move. Freeze. Next words would be calmly explaining what happens next. "Sir, I want you to remain perfectly still. I need to secure your firearm and we are going to do this nice and slow. Do not move till I tell you to move. I will be cuffing you for both our protection and removing your
Kill your network connection first, THEN kill people.
That way hackers from outside can't get in.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If a 95lb criminal can grab an officers gun in same position and kill the officer, what do you think a 300lb man with a gun in his pocket can do? http://www.nola.com/crime/inde...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We've been told by the NRA and others that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." This goes along with a push from some people to arm more people and let them conceal carry their weapons. If we have more people carrying guns with them, would this result in more of these "pinned down by the police" turning into "shot by the police" because the person reached for what the officer assumed was a weapon?
We have the Alton Sterling shooting and, a day later, the Philando Castile shooting. In the latter case, Philando informed the officer of his legal concealed carry weapon and was shot as he reached for his wallet. Since the police have no way of knowing on the spot who is a "good guy with a gun" and who is a "bad guy with a gun", would more armed people with concealed carry permits mean more police shootings? (Or will this only be the case if the concealed carry permits are held by people with the "wrong" skin color?)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.
Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?
You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.
All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.
A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?
The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!
I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".
I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:
It's about respect not about an officers authority.
Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.
Resisting arrest can come about if the officers say to put your hands behind your head and you don't do it as fast as they want you to.
Also, we have to take into account that the officers likely didn't know Sterling's record right then and there. They were dealing in the moment and made decisions (good or bad) based on what they saw at the moment. So it's disingenuous to say "well, the guy had these past offenses and so the officers were justified in doing this."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Personally I don't think they had to shoot him. I'm with you on the fact he was actively resisting and it looked as if he might have been trying to reach for something with his free hand but I'd simply have pistol whipped his ass into submission. If two big ass cops can't handle a guy they're sitting on then they're fucking useless. They'll never get them for 1st degree murder as it's obvious they were in a struggle before they shot him but it's possible a jury might get them for manslaughter. But then they'll ask for a judge and with a bench trial and a non passionate judge applying the law in the strictest sense these guys will walk. Still, they should be fired. If they can't do any better than what I saw in that video they need to find another line of work.
So what's the rue for Philando Castile - the man who was shot when he reached for his wallet during a traffic stop? He had a legal concealed carry permit and wasn't a criminal. How could he have prevented being shot? "Don't get stopped by the police if you're black? Don't be armed if you're not white?"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Wait, George Zimmerman was the unlawful attacker who instigated the fight.
I'm sure there are a lot of bad cops. Unfortunately there are also a lot of people like you. Ignorant and full of shit. I'll take my chance with the cops because I know what life would be like without them. Let a city like Baton Rouge have all their cops walk off the job for a week. It'll become a war zone for real.
What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest? That gives no rights to kill someone. He had as much right to live as the police officer did.
People always dredge up "facts" that the victim wasn't saintly as an excuse to justify the killing, support the cops, or to just be contrarian.
Maybe there's some fear that causes this reaction, worries that if the police don't shoot the black people then who's going to protect decent citizens from the black people...
I don't think most people are capable of turning off their cognitive functions that make them strive for self-preservation. Some people might tell you that they can do it, but put them in a shitty situation and they'll habitually look out for number one. Never mind that if you want to require that, most people aren't going to do it for a cop's salary.
Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling. The worst place I've ever lived that made me feel uncomfortable about living there doesn't even rank in the top 1000 if we're going to look at statistics. I can't imagine what being in one of those environments for an extended amount of time would be like.
Anyone who has to live or work in those truly bad areas honestly needs therapy because I don't think the average person can deal with that for any prolonged period without becoming warped.
If you, a 6'-4" 300lb career criminal, refuse to cooperate with the police who show up to deal with a call about you threatening people and waving a gun around, don't chill out after two taser hits, and then when they've got you on the ground knowing you have a gun on you, you manage to keep them from controlling your hands while you wrestle with them and start to shrug them off ... them using force to make that immediate threat end is not "punishment," it's self defense. He was fighting with them because he didn't want to submit, once again, to the legal system for more of the actual punishment he'd earned multiple times for his previous crimes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually, a second is considered long enough for 'pre-meditation'.
Citation, and actual examples of any judge or jury ever convicting on 1st on that basis, needed.
... I'd like to see you be in that position (one of the cop's) and thinking that shutting down his fight while he's armed was anything approaching premeditated murder. It's called self defense.
Regardless, cops showing up to a complaint of a 6'-4" 300 pound guy threatening people and waving a gun around, and having it go south when he won't simply do what they say, and then when he's combative, being unable to alter his behavior with multiple taser hits, and then having him wrestling on the ground with his hands still free while you know he's got a gun
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling
Funny you say that. I looked Mr Sterling up on the sex offender registration site and his last known address (keep in mind he was wanted for failure to register so it's probably out of date) is a known bad neighborhood, a little boy was murdered there not long ago, it may be over a year by now but the memorial is still out, I drive through his neighborhood every day on my way to work.
A textbook example of Internet Tough-guy rhetoric. Can we get your picture for the Wikipedia Article?
What else can they do? They can muster every last bit of sensibility they have and bring him down with non-lethal means. Multiple officers have him pinned to the ground - they've got the upper hand, and if they wanted to bring him in alive, they could have. Zap him again, or give him one good blow to the head to knock him out, or fuck it - shoot him in the leg!
They've got his weapon, he's in a compromised position, and they're armed and armored like god-damn combat soldiers. Buck up and take this guy in alive. You don't get to tell me how much of a dangerous job you have if you've got carte blanche to empty a clip into anything that threatens you.
never drink kool-aid from a big vat
What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest?
The police had exhausted non lethal techniques including verbal orders, a taser, PPCT and open handed control tactics against a man they knew to be armed with a gun, he then proceeded to overpower and lift both officers and there is some pretty clear evidence he was reaching for his gun at the time he was shot. What do you think the officers should have let him do? Remove the gun from his pocket and hope he just intends to hand it to them?
So what's the rue for Philando Castile - the man who was shot when he reached for his wallet during a traffic stop?
He should have waited to be told to reach for his wallet. It was a horrible incident and it could have been prevented if everybody involved hadn't reacted so strongly with poor communication.
No, he wasn't waving a gun around when they pulled up. He had been doing that to OTHER people, which is why they were called to the scene - because the guy was being threatening, dangerous, reckless. And he then went about refusing their commands and fought with them. A huge guy, known well to police for his violent crimes, with every reason to believe (accurately, as expected) he was armed, withstanding their attempts to use non-lethal means (multiple taser hits) to get him to back down, and fighting with them as they tried to restrain him. He wasn't "laying on the ground," - just advance through the video frame by frame.
Of course you know all of this. And if that same guy was waving a gun around in front of your place of business, you'd ALSO call the cops and be glad they were willing to roll up and risk their lives as they do every single day.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In Soviet America, law enforces you!
2nd ammendment is a train that has long left the station.
Nope, while there are surely some restrictions most law abiding citizens can own a gun in most States. Exceptions are not the rule.
our little pee shooters are no match for the goverment's toys.
200 million people with small arms can put up a hell of a fight. You are also omitting the fact that if there is a civil military action mandating killing citizens, a good number of military people would jump ship and join militias with their government toy. Also, and at least as important: You don't have to kill everyone currently holding power to have a successful revolt. My guess is about 2 dozen is all it would take. Your point is often provided as a Strawman argument against keeping the 2nd amendment. Hence my desire to knock it down.
what we have can't even stop the mafia (they still exist, right?).
Another straw man, I wont bother knocking that one down and should not need to.
a well regulated militia was meant to protect the people against a rogue government, which, sadly is EXACTLY what we have now.
but over time, we reduced our own rights to own 'serious' armor and so our ability to keep balance of power is now zero.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from ITS OWN government. Exactly what it presently does and exactly why the Government has been chipping slowly away at rights and dumb'ing down the populace. You did not really think Carter started the Department of Education because he wanted the people smart did you? And don't even get me started on immigration.
There are hundreds and hundreds of writings by the founders on why Guns are essential. The Federalist papers are the easiest, but there are letters and memoirs from every one from Adams to Washington on guns being essential for _personal_ liberty. (See that, it's not militia as in a trained army as evil people will attempt to claim. It is personal liberty.)
I wish we could keep the government honest. if they feared us, they'd respect us. ;(
they don't, its too late, and that's that. revolution time. in the US v2.0, maybe we'll learn our lesson (oh, WHO am I kidding, sigh)
First part, sorry but we can't change human nature. Second part, such is the cyclical nature of humans, civilizations, and societies. Let us hope it's over quick and comes out with another couple hundred years of progress. Unfortunately my hope does not match history at all.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
OK, but let's talk brass tacks for just a second. Baton Rouge offers new recruits the princely sum of $25K a year, maybe rising to $35-40K after a decade. Your average nice suburb in Louisiana starts at $32-35K and goes up to $50-55K or more.
So you know what, cops are individuals and there are good ones and bads one -- 100% agree. It's just that Baton Rouge gets a lot of the crappier ones. You get what you pay for, and poor places just don't get very much good police.
The cops weren't able to control him, knew he had a gun on him, tazering didn't work, and you would rather they do what - serve tea? BTW, as a convicted felon and repeat offender he knew that he'd be doing time for the gun he illegally had in his possession, so he was highly motivated to not surrender.
As for me, you don't see me going around threatening homeless people with a gun at 12:30 at night (or any time, for that matter). And if I were to be accused of threatening someone, I would let the police handle it, same as the last time I was wrongly accused of making threats after reporting a child abuser, and let the court give me the chance to screw over my accuser during cross-examination and drive them into a screaming fit at the judge so they get kicked out. That made my week!
Why resist when you can turn it to your advantage because you haven't done anything wrong ... unless of course you've done something wrong, in which case you're already a stupid f*ck.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
My point was that whatever the laws were for anyone else, Louisiana and Federal law did not allow him to be in possession of a firearm, period. A guy with his extensive rap sheet would never get special permission.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, he wasn't waving a gun around when they pulled up.
Exactly. Thanks for noticing. Too bad the police didn't.
He had been doing that to OTHER people, which is why they were called to the scene - because the guy was being threatening, dangerous, reckless.
Nope. They were called with reports, but that doesn't mean any of that happened. See also the shooting of John Crawford III and Tamir Rice.
And he then went about refusing their commands and fought with them. A huge guy, known well to police for his violent crimes, with every reason to believe (accurately, as expected) he was armed, withstanding their attempts to use non-lethal means (multiple taser hits) to get him to back down, and fighting with them as they tried to restrain him. He wasn't "laying on the ground," - just advance through the video frame by frame.
I'd rather view the police body cameras. Oh wait, those were not enabled.
All you've convinced me is that these police officers conducted themselves in an unprofessional manner. If they were so unable to resolve this situation without violence, they should not be wearing badges. They, and whoever employed them should be in jail. They are a danger to the public.
Really, if what you say is true, they should have called for sufficient backup to resolve the situation safely. But they couldn't even get their cameras on right.
Too incompetent to serve, let alone protect.
Of course you know all of this. And if that same guy was waving a gun around in front of your place of business, you'd ALSO call the cops and be glad they were willing to roll up and risk their lives as they do every single day.
Actually, the local police have consistently neglected to do anything when I called them about actual problems. For that reason, I know I have zero confidence in them at all.
This the one time a stolen car was wrecked on my driveway, one of the officers dropped a clip, maybe somewhere on my property. Did he find it? I didn't, but he never got back to me about it, so what I had to do was worry about it for sometime after. If nothing else, it could have ruined my lawnmower.
So I do not trust them with guns anyway. Not to mention they never made the thieves pay to fix my mailbox they destroyed. They said I shouldn't even complain, because I might get hurt by the offenders. How does that make you feel?
Me, I have no confidence in them.
So tell you what, they can go find other jobs if they want, no hard feelings.
I have been convinced that the police here are useless, though I believe it has been some time since they unlawfully killed somebody. They are the only ones who pissed off the Supreme Court so much they got put on trial for it though. We did have a police officer charged with perjury recently though. Man tried to bury a crime that got a teen in the hospital.
That isn't even talking about the corruption and malfeasance. Had a fire chief with false certifications a county over. Judge who refused to grant a divorce after the Supreme Court decision on Obergefeld v. Hodges was not to his liking.
So no, the only reason I call the police is because my insurance requires the documentation. Not because I believe they will do anything properly.
And in fact, I document their presence just to be sure I am covered.
But seriously, offer to disband my local police, dissolve the government, I'll take you up on it.
1. He was a thug for his entire adult life. That is justified by his record. You can read 46 pages of his previous activities here It's at the top of the page, but takes a moment to load since it's from disqus.
2. There is no reason whatsoever that this career criminal wouldn't have continued being a violent thug. Obviously 2-1/2 years of hard labor didn't change him, so jail isn't the answer.
3. There is absolutely zero objective evidence that the world would be a safer place with him, but there's plenty that the world wasn't when he was alive.
If you read elsewhere, I go into detail about the particulars of this incident; the shooting was justified, and the 2nd video proves it. Even after being tazed and dragged to the ground, he was still fighting back and refusing to be cuffed. The video also proves that the cops knew he had a gun in his pocket - they took it out without having to search for it.
So, aggressive armed perp, what would you do if you're on top of him and you can't control him? You know he has a gun and that he's probably not going to hand it over peacefully. You'd shoot, or be shot. Take your pick, but most of us aren't willing to be martyrs.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Obviously you are willing to ignore that Sterling was armed, that he had threatened someone, that he had resisted arrest, that tazing him didn't work, and that (from the second video) the cops knew he was armed at the time because they didn't have to frisk him to find the gun - they immediately took it from his pocket.
This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the guy's actions. At that point the cops were acting in self-defence, and you would have shot too, unless you're even more of an idiot than your statements indicate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.
Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?
Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you.
Have you tried this? I will bet you haven't. If you don't know what your rights are or what the police can do that is really your problem.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
You do realize you can opt to waive your trial by jury for a bench trial? So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.
I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation.
Also he was falling on his stomach but Sterling pulled himself to his stomach.
And yet despite being armed to the teeth, he or she is terrified, simply terrified of a person in a t-shirt and shorts with a camera, or some dude who might be selling CD or single cigarettes.
That's because they have a "Bully" mindset.
And ya know whatcha see underneath when you scratch the surface of a Bully?
A scared little child.
Explains a lot, doesn't it?
In the UK that's murder. The police escalated the level of violence; unless and until Sterling drew his firearm he was not threatening their lives.
In the US you have different laws though.
Wait, the police should put someone face down in the dirt and cuff them just to talk to them? No.
It was a tragic accident
I call it murder.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?
GP was not saying "he did not roll over, so he was shot". In reality he was shot because he was reaching for his gun with his right hand. Objectively it was stupid, and dangerous.
A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. [cnn.com] Need it also be mentioned that he was black?
And do you know in this case, he was felon, and he cannot legally carry guns, let alone get a concealed permit.
I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".
It was the "victim's" fault for not complying from the beginning. You dont carry a gun illegally, and then refuse to comply.
I am not even going to bother with the rest of the comment.
Of course they say so, they're playing for the camera. Would you want to admit on national television that the pothead you just arrested was not a threat to anyone?
The problem is, pretending to be the chosen hero fighting against the forces of darkness can be addictive. The sorry state of our political system is a good example of that. And then you forget it's all just a fantasy for the fleeting moment it takes to pull the trigger, and then someone's dead. And then neither you nor your buddies can admit the truth, because that would mean admitting you're now a murderer.
That's simply feeding the roleplaying fantasy which caused the problem in the first place.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Because they have tachyon vision and thus effect can precede cause for them? Because I have a hard time seeing how else the reaction to police brutality could possibly be its cause.
But hey, kicking a dog and then playing the victim when it finally bites you back certainly deserves plenty of respect, amirite?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So you don't know the facts but do know the conclusion?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Raids are the wrong way to get safety.
You get a warrant and arrest the perps outside after a low key stakeout. No worries about them suddenly flushing the evidence, no letting them get an AK47 from the basement, etc.
The raids are just adrenaline junky machismo bullshit.
the cops knew he was armed at the time because they didn't have to frisk him to find the gun - they immediately took it from his pocket.
Just so we are clear here, the point at which it is okay to kill a suspect in self defence is when they are being uncooperative and you are fairly sure he has a gun, even if he hasn't actually removed it from his pocket yet?
I'm sorry, I know being a police officer is often dangerous, but I'm not willing to accept that. We have had similar incidents in the UK where the police have killed people they thought were probably armed, but it later turned out they were not. I think at least waiting for the suspect to threaten with the gun is the minimum we have to expect, otherwise the police can kill pretty much anyone they like with impunity if they heard they might be armed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Citation required
As far as I can figure, the rationale for becoming a cop falls into three general categories:
1. "A police officer helped me and my family when I was young, so I wanted to do the same."
2. "Hey, it's one of the few remaining living-wage jobs with benefits."
3. "I get to be a bully to everyone I meet and occasionally execute a minority with the only punishment being a two-week paid vacation."
The problem is, what percentage is number three. Plus, the smaller the force and the Redder the state, that number three percentage rapidly approaches 100%.
I personally know two black guys in my tiny rural town that were pulled over by a cop for some rinky-dink excuse, and the cop quickly called for backup as they were black. Two brittle diabetics in their fifties (one of whom is an Air Force vet) that have difficulty even walking required these Barneys to 'go heavy'.
Their family later joked the cops had pulled over 'Two Canes'. They could joke about it, because they miraculously didn't get shot.
and then you get idiots and like Sean Hannity saying "well the thing I always do when confronted by police is show them my gun so they know I'm carrying".
must be nice to be white and rich and that delusional.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Does not justify summary execution restrained on the ground.
Stop being ignorant.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So in your world the penalty for that is death?
Bugger off.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
well then thank god you aren't a cop.
cops are trained to deal with and disarm suspects being arrested.
and that training doesn't involve "shoot in the back".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the scary black man trope
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
now size is a measure of guilt and punishable by death
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm about as far left as you can get
the hell you are.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
1- not relevant, not punishable by death
2- not relevant, not punishable by death
3- not relevant, not a reason for death
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
amen
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
For me the issue here is not if it was race related or what the cause was some hacker decided to hack the police. I do not even care if he was right or wrong.
The thing that is important to me is that he was able to do so. To me this means that others, who do not do this out of revenge, are able to do the identical same thing. He is boasting about it. What about all the others that don't?
If I were a criminal (I am not, honestly) I would be interested in knowing it is apparently possible to do so and ask friends to hack the police and do several things, the least to find out what they know about me and when they are coming after me.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Telling them "no" to almost anything they want will set them off on a rampage.
Yup, although in my case not a rampage but a power trip to show you who is actually in charge. Over the summer when I was in college I was stopped by a cop on my way home from work because as he put it he heard me peel out from a stop light. Problem was the car I had at the time physically couldn't as originally was under powered and now was a worn out rolling pile of crap. The cop asked if they could search my car and I said no so I got put into the back of the squad car while he called for a k-9 unit that they walked around the car that alerted back by the trunk. I then got asked if there was anything in the trunk they needed to know about and I told them no. they opened the trunk and of course saw my tools and some spare parts (like I said the car was a rolling pile). One of the cops comes over and demands to know why I have tools and car parts in my car to which my response was that I drive a pile of shit that likes to break down. The other officer is now busy dumping my tools out on the side of the road and unloading everything else from the trunk, like the spare tire, jack, tire iron, carpet, etc. After not finding anything there they proceed to unload most things from the interior of my car. Once done they didn't find anything, there was nothing to find, I get told that I am free to go but that I have to clean up the mess otherwise I will be ticketed for littering. I demanded their badge numbers and told them I would be filing a complaint which I did but that of course had gotten lost when I inquired about it a few weeks later.
Ever since then I have been very skeptical of anything where a police dog is used and "alerts", and of the police in general.
Time to offend someone
Let's look at those options unemotionally:
Zap him again
Their hands were occupied trying to hold him down. They had already zapped him twice and he still struggled.
blow to the head
If they can't even hold his arms down, and the stun gun didn't work, will a blow to the head work? Maybe.
shoot him in the leg
Where did they shoot him? I suspect they pointed the gun at his chest thinking "Surely he won't continue to reach for his gun after this." Moving the gun to point elsewhere might have given him enough time to finally reach his.
They've got his weapon
No they don't. If they did, it would be a non-issue
They're armed and armored
I do not believe police normally wear body armor. Even if they were, you don't let someone shoot you just because you have body armor.
Part of the problem here is that no rational person would reach for their gun when a gun is pointed square in your chest. He tried to call their bluff. I haven't read enough background: was he high? That might explain the non-effect of the stun gun plus his irrational behavior.
The sex offender Sterling caused his own death.
Nice cop-out. You're not supposed to shoot people who resist arrest, except as a last resort.
What do you think a 300lb felon with a gun in his pocket resisting arrest can do to an officer ?
So you admit there was a good chance of this situation happening. Since they knew he was a felon and armed, why did they dispatch only two officers to arrest him? That sounds negligent. They could have sent in a SWAT team or at least 5 or 6 policemen. The police chief is directly at fault for negligent policies.
He should have waited to be told to reach for his wallet.
It seems that there may be evidence that he was doing just that. Granted that is what was livestreamed by his girlfriend in the immediate aftermath but it is something more that we have in a lot of cases.
Time to offend someone
The Philando Castile shooting was a definite case of the cop acting improperly. "Improperly" doesn't sound strong enough but I'm unable to come up with the right word at the moment. However, if you listen to the video afterwards the cop is absolutely distraught to the point of tears. It's clear he overreacted and thought Castile was going for a weapon. He will be put on trial and face the consequences, and Castile's death is an unmitigated tragedy. That said, the situation could have been avoided if Castile had announced what he was about to do asked the cop if he was OK with it first. Not BLAMING Castile. Fault is definitely with the officer. I'm merely offering a suggestion on ways this could have been avoided.
Sterling is a different case entirely despite attempts to conflate the two simply because both victims were black. Sterling was a convicted felon. He had a gun on him, which is illegal for a convicted felon to possess. Police were responding to a call where Sterling was reported to be waving a gun and threatening people with it so they had every reason to suspect it was a very dangerous situation. Sterling refused verbal commands to stand down and be searched, no doubt because he knew if they found his weapon he'd be going back to jail. Police used Tasers on Sterling to little effect. Seeing that, they attempted to restrain him physically. He fought them, no doubt because he knew he was headed to jail if they succeeded. During the fight he was pinned to the ground, his left arm was pinned, but his right arm -- the arm nearest his gun -- was free. Sterling was verbally ordered not to use his hands. Sterling instead moved his hand towards his waistband, this even after the cop had pulled his weapon and had it point blank on Sterling. Cops had every reason to suspect they had an armed, belligerent suspect who was going for his weapon. Lethal force was called for.
The moral of Sterling's story is he acted stupidly and is dead because of it. DON'T fight with police, especially when you have a weapon on you, legally or otherwise. I'm not arguing people need to knuckle under to bullying cops, but it's important to consider the situation from the cop's perspective. If you have a weapon on you -- or they have strong suspicion you have one on you -- any threatening move you make can look like you're preparing to escalate. Do everything you can to assure the cop you're NOT a threat. If you have a weapon, state that fact clearly. Tell the officer where the gun is while your hands are in plain view. Offer to temporarily give up the weapon while you're being questioned. Make no sudden moves, especially if they involve moving your hands out of view of the officer. None of this is "being a pussy." It's acknowledging the cop DOESN'T know your intentions and, like all of us, would like to go home to his/her family at the end of the day alive instead of to the morgue.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I've been stopped for speeding on more than one occasion and I carry at all times. Each time, as soon as the officer approaches, I make sure both hands are on the wheel and announce I am carrying. I tell the officer where my weapon is and offer to let them take possession of it for the duration of the stop if it will make THEM feel safer. I'm neither rich nor delusional. It's simply a matter of understanding the cop doesn't know me, doesn't know my intentions, and doesn't want to be shot in the line of duty. Since I'm not a fool like Sterling (who, as a convicted felon, illegally possessed a firearm), I don't want to be shot either. Simple communication and respect for both sides of the situation keeps things from escalating. Sterling knew if he complied with the cops he'd be searched, they'd find his weapon, and he'd be headed to jail again. Like I said, he was stupid and now he's dead because of it.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Try digging into the case a little more than watching the video. Sterling was a convicted felon. He had a gun on him, which is illegal for a convicted felon. He knew if he was caught and searched, they'd find it and he'd be headed back to jail.
When police are struggling with a person who has a gun, they have every right to assume that person intends to use it. The escalation to lethal force was due to Sterling's actions. No prosecutor is going to make murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or anything else stick because none of it is true. Sterling was armed, fighting with police, and reached for his weapon. Shooting him at that point was justified NO MATTER WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
We have had similar incidents in the UK where the police have killed people they thought were probably armed, but it later turned out they were not.
We've had a famous incident where the police killed a boy they thought was holding a gun, who turned out to be holding a candy bar. Assuming they thought he had a gun to begin with, which is probably bollocks.
Cops are taught in school (two-year college, mind you) that there is a war on cops. Then they go out and proceed to kill several times as many of us as we kill of them... sometimes with cause, to be sure, but often without.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They probably had it in their minds that this was a guy with a gun, and a black guy with a gun, therefore they felt he MUST be arrested or shot with no other alternatives allowed.
Umm...he DID have a gun. That's why the cops were called in the first place, as he was reported to be threatening people with it. At that point it didn't matter whether he was black, white, red, yellow, or indigo. An armed person confronting police automatically brings lethal force into the situation. Police tried every non-lethal method available to them to subdue Sterling, including physical restraint. During the attempt to restrain him, Sterling disobeyed commands to keep his hands away from his weapon and gave every appearance of reaching for it. In such a situation, lethal force is authorized and legal.
Moral of the story: don't be a fucking idiot. Don't be a felon with an illegal firearm. Don't wave it around at people. Don't fight with police. Don't reach for your weapon when the cops have drawn on you and have you at point blank range. Sterling is dead because he took MULTIPLE steps to create the situation.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If it's the next house that's well within their 50% CEP, so it might be your door that's getting smashed in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am going to re quote myself because I don't think you read it.
"I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
Added emphasis. The facts of these shootings and previous shootings have been specious at best when they first come out, yet people let their emotions run. It's better to hear about how The Man keeps you down and the cops will shoot an innocent black man on sight rather than hear about the individual circumstance.
Go ahead though, put all the blame on one party. I am sure that isn't over simplifying the problem at all.
The police did not at that point need to escalate the situation. They were in a ground struggle with the two of them on top. Sterlings left arm was completely immobilized and pinned by the officers legs. That left the officer physically on top of him with two free hands to deal with the other arm. At that point it should be impossible for Sterling to draw his firearm let alone actually point it at anyone. All they had to do at that point was continue to restrain Sterling, instead they jumped up the escalation and shot him multiple times. Sterling never did actually get his firearm out as evidenced by the store clerk witnessing the police later removing it from his pocket.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.
Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.
Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?
Ironically, you said it yourself: a situation they are responsible for. And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations. I don't want them creating situations. I want them defusing them. Now, we all know the danger of treating anecdotes like data, but I'm pretty damned white (until you get my ID in hand, anyway) and I personally have seen the cops misbehave as least as much as do anything useful. My first cop interaction was getting pulled over for nothing on Mission St. in Santa Cruz at 2am, not being able to see any alleged lights from their cruiser due to the streetlights and traffic lights in that area, and having two guns with fingers on triggers pointed at my face as soon as I got the window down — which is completely unacceptable behavior in literally every way. If they felt unsafe, procedure is to radio for another cruiser before pulling me over, not threatening my life with shit trigger and muzzle discipline. I've been pulled over for not having a bumper when I (temporarily) had no bumper cover, been pulled over for not stopping at a stop sign before which I clearly came to a full and deliberate stop, blah blah blah. The primary purpose of the cops is to harass and intimidate. The second purpose is to generate revenue. Maintaining public safety can't be higher than third.
So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.
A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.*
So say the cops whose body cameras were mysteriously pointed in the wrong direction. You're going to have to forgive me for not taking their words for it, because there's no reason to believe that they are above lying since they are still [nominally] human.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times?
It's not clear that they actually stunned him once, let alone correctly and competently.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When the beggar persisted, and continued to molest the murder victim, they allegedly presented their firearm in a non-threatening manner to warn them off.
That doesn't make sense.
It's the difference between pulling up your shirt to show that you have a gun in your wasteband, and pointing a gun at someone's face with your finger on the trigger like what happened to me during my first traffic stop. Then they made me sit on the curb for an hour at 2am with no shoes on (it's legal to drive without shoes in Santa Cruz, so get over it — I was in a semi-hippie phase, no patchouli or tie dye though) while they searched my shitbox, which was just full of crap, no drugs or guns or fireworks or banned books.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Who says there isn't a war on cops?
There's a few isolated actions. You can't call it a war, at least, not without being full of shit. Besides, the numbers say that the war is on us, by them.
That doesn't excuse senseless acts of violence. At minimum, if you're going to be violent, you should actually accomplish something. But also, I really do believe that violence begets violence. People have tried responding to the cops with violence before, and it produces more cops and more violence. Nothing produces more funding for cops than killing them. If you want less war on the people by the cops, you won't get it by killing a handful of cops.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So your definition of a rough ride is wide turns and no sudden stops?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What are they protecting, serving?
Themselves, is that not obvious?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If police are raiding a home, they are, in theory, protecting the community at large from the people and activities going on in the home. Sorry, but I don't want people manufacturing meth in the Condo or even house next to me.
What if they just have a tor exit node?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What are you talking about, none of what you wrote makes any sense. He was responding to the comment saying that Alton should have declared the existence of his gun at the start by linking to the other incident where the guy did exactly that and was shot anyway. Nothing you say refutes that.
... never... first responders and aid workers first priority is their own safety. if they aren't looking out for number one, often it means that's one more person that the rest will need to save.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Because police academies teach that there is a war on cops, when the opposite is true; police are the front-line warriors in the corporatocracy's (you can just read "oligarchy's" here, if that word offends you) war on The People, and most of them don't even know it.
If you want to argue the efficacy of the War on Drugs by all means I will probably agree with you. However, you said it best "front-line warriors". The police are the front-line of tyranny, emergency response, and everything in between. That means they occupy the extremes of "the boot on your face" to "the face who saved your life by risking their own life". That "war on us" mentality cuts both ways. There is a huge culture of distrust around the police with the "why you snitchin" attitude in poor communities. Don't shovel all of the blame on one side when there is shit on both sides.
And what I want is for them not to be responsible for situations
Right, up until "What have the police done to prevent the travesty?" we keep hearing from various segments of society. So, if a man brandishes a weapon outside of your business and you call the police, what you are saying is that you do not want them to gain control of the situation to assess what the problem may or may not be? You want them to arrive with teddy bears and blankets with warm milk so everyone can have a nap and get along?
A cop shouldn't get out of being judged by a jury; they shouldn't just have a right to a jury trial, they should have to have one. They are supposed to be beholden to their community, and if they aren't, then what good are they?
They are a citizen with rights just like you. They and you can waive rights. They choose a dispassionate judge over the hyper-emotionally charged mob. I am glad your opinion on the law doesn't matter because your ideas of how the law should be is scary. i.e. Rights apply to everyone except this group of people. They have different rights because reasons.
"You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
I've noticed that when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians, some people say we're quick to blame the cops, even though there's a pile of evidence of police wrongdoing. Then, without a shred of evidence to support it, they cast aspersions on the victim. Suddenly, there's no problem with being quick to blame. It quickly becomes clear that tribal, us-v-them thinking is really what's at play, here, not evidence or the presumption of innocence.
There also seems to be no connection between the control the police claim they must maintain, and responsibility for outcomes. "I did this thing to maintain control of the situation, but cannot be blamed for its outcome, because I did not control the situation. Pin a medal on me."
It's certainly true that many cops put their own safety at risk in order to serve their communities day in and day out, often working some pretty rough overtime. They will arrest the guy who burglarized your home, they will investigate your brother's murder, they will speak to you with respect, and you will be inclined to respect them in return, both for their hard work and professional behaviour. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead, and both will claim that you put your hands in your pockets and sprinted straight at them. Neither will be punished with anything worse than a paid vacation, but your loved ones will be told that you're a violent criminal who deserved to be put down for attacking a police officer. The cops who murdered you and defamed your memory will go on to take dangerous criminals off the streets, and maybe also murder a few more innocent civilians.
We'll continue to be protected from the worst of society, by the worst of society, until we learn how to hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
I know its fashionable to hate on the police but if you don't think they serve or protect you are a moron and blind to reality. There are plenty of stories that show police caring about their communities just like there are plenty of stories about police brutality.
the courts ruled that cops have no obligation to PROTECT you.
The police risk their lives by nature of their job and in some circumstances that risk is incredibly high. If you were in a dangerous situation would you A) try to ensure you go home at the end of the day or B) do what the arm-chair-general thinks on the internet to uphold some vague concept of police duty?
Have some fucking nuance in your life.
Right, up until "What have the police done to prevent the travesty?" we keep hearing from various segments of society. So, if a man brandishes a weapon outside of your business and you call the police, what you are saying is that you do not want them to gain control of the situation to assess what the problem may or may not be? You want them to arrive with teddy bears and blankets with warm milk so everyone can have a nap and get along?
If it works, why not teddy bears, blankets and warm milk?
committing violent felonies against defenseless civilians
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless". You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law. Sure, the officers could have been wrong in Louisiana and Minnesota but we wont' know that until a fair trial. At least there might be some validity to the officers actions as opposed to Dallas where they were murdered without provocation. My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence. I don't know and I am sure we will find out but we know for a fact the officers in Dallas didn't have even the slightest opportunity to avoid that situation. I have sympathy for innocent victims.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those because the media and people like you want to focus on "police murder defenseless black person". When in reality it isn't that simple. Get some fucking nuance in your life.
. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead,
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed? I have and been pulled over by the police multiple times while armed concealed. When I was getting my concealed weapons permit I had to take a class that taught you the laws associated with carrying. One of the discussions that was brought up was how to behave with police if you are armed. There are actions you take to ensure that the investigation goes smoothly for you and the officer. For example, when pulled over and armed put both hands on the wheel to be plainly visible. When asked "license and registration" respond "I am armed with a concealed permit how would you like me to proceed.". At this point police get a little jumpy. I have seen this personally, they step back with one hand on their weapon. They will ask where the weapon is located. They may ask to confiscate the weapon during the investigation (a traffic stop is an investigation) depending on the state and their laws or if the officer feels the need. Give up your weapon and proceed with the orders from the officer. Speak plainly with yes and no answers and don't move unless directed so. It sounds like bending over to authority but they have a high stress job that is dangerous and the last thing I want to do is increase their stress level by acting like a damned fool with a lethal weapon.
hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
They are that is why we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
First off, thank you for serving in the police - I like the answer you give for why you joined. It is sad you felt the need to post AC, but on this thread I can certainly understand it.
Second, serious question - like someone posed higher up in the thread, you, I, and two of your fellow police officers are alone in a room. One of the other two just pulls his weapon and shoots me in the head. The question, and I'd like an honest answer: Do you cover for him?
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless".
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law.
The main thrust of my first paragraph was that tribal affiliation tends to drive our judgement of how many facts are sufficient to reach a conclusion. "None" isn't good enough, and "all" is too much to expect. Where to draw the line in between is the point of contention.
My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
I have sympathy for innocent victims.
Of course you do. Everyone does. Unfortunately, you also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those ...
Of course we don't care about those. Of course we don't criticize justified use of force. Of course we focus on the UNjustified use of force. Does something about that seem inappropriate to you?
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed?
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
Yes, I'm sure they can justify it. Basically if the police attempt to arrest you and you resist and have a weapon they are free to kill you. That's a basic fact. But was it necessary? I watched the video a dozen times and I don't believe they had to kill him. He was resisting and so they were okay to kill him. I remember cops when I was a kid and I saw one take a night stick to a guy that tried to pull a gun on him disarm the guy and then proceed to whip his ass silly with the stick. Hardly anyone talked about police brutality in those days but regardless the guy lived to get sentenced for resisting arrest. Police used to have balls.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even you admit they couldn't control his hands.
Uh, no I didn't. That's what we call a "rhetorical question." If 3 men couldn't control his arms then they probably don't need to be doing that job. If 3 police can't control 1 man then that's the problem, that's not a reason to just blast the guy.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Police dogs are trained to "alert" on command.
Breakfast served all day!
Is that how they train the police now?
Assess the situation. Is the person 300 pounds? Is there a gun in his pocket? Are there 2 officers laying on him and another standing over him? OK, then shoot him 4 times in the chest. This will be on the test.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are suggesting that when you say "when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians" in the context of Baton Rouge and Minnesota. It is a fact the guy in Baton Rouge was armed and resisting arrest, he was not defenseless.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
No, if you misunderstand actions to prevent a certain outcome as "guilty until proven innocent" is your problem. See suicide by cop.
u also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
You are quick to use the term murderer which is guilty until proven innocent. I do not assume anything. I acknowledge there are facts unknown but recognize the nature of police work being high stress. In high stress environments it is easy for poor judgement and I acknowledge the fact that the job of police is to enter into a situation with unknown risks. It seems that you believe police have to be like robots and perfect in their judgement and execution. Hate to break it to you but humans make mistakes.
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
Because it is obvious you are speaking out of your ass and being a pedantic sophist.
Of course we don't care about those.
Obviously, because if we were to look at the raw data we would see that just because the media over covers these and other gun related incidents does not mean that these are common occurrences. Especially when many of those that are parroted by media sources turn out to be false accusations of brutality. Violent crime is down across the board. The media seems to only care if it is a white officer with a black civilian.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.
If you want to post specific incidents where no investigation into police behavior occurred I will wait. If you want to try and illustrate how the few claims you can google alludes to a larger trend, go for it. I am not saying they don't occur but I don't think they are as common as you make them sound.
As I've already pointed out, at the risk of being repetitive, this is NOT about punishment, and any attempt to introduce that as an argument is disingenuous and a really dick move.
What's making the world more dangerous isn't people like me arguing that thugs are a problem, it's the thugs themselves. As a convicted felon, he was not allowed to have a gun. And waving around a gun while threatening a homeless man is not something that we can just ignore, no matter what the color of a person's skin.
When the grannies are acting like thugs and going around waving guns and threatening homeless people, get back to me.
And as you said, Fuck You.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Whatever works. Are you going to volunteer to be in the pilot program?
They had already tazed him, and he continued to resist arrest, so they tackled him. I guess you missed that video.
Also, only 2 officers, not 3.
News Flash: It's not a peaceful situation when someone is threatening a homeless man while waving a gun around.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes. When he's used it to threaten a homeless man, you're certain he has is on him (the cops immediately removed it from his pocket after the shooting, no need to search him), he refuses to cooperate, tazing him doesn't work, and he's strongly resisting being handcuffed and you're losing control of him - remember, you know for certain he has a gun, as these cops did.
Heck, you don't even need to remove the gun from your pocket to shoot it, or you can do like he did in a previous incident, try to grab the gun.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Look at the video. There was no question he was armed - the cops went right for the gun in his pocket immediately after the shooting, no frisking required. This was a good shoot. Someone who has been waving a gun around making threats, refuses to cooperate, tazing doesn't affect them, tackling him and not being able to get the cuffs on him - what were they supposed to do - let him get up and walk away, or maybe start shooting?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Waving around a gun and threatening a homeless man, refusing to cooperate with the police, tazing doesn't work, you can't get the cuffs on him and you are certain he has the gun in his pocket (see how they immediately removed the gun from him without having to search to see if he had a gun - they knew he was armed).
That's not "summary execution." At that point it's self-defense.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The police knew he was armed, stupid. The video shows that they didn't have to search him when they took the gun from him - they knew exactly where it was.
So yes, someone who is an immediate threat to the police while trying and failing to get him under control (tazer didn't work, he was armed and they couldn't get him under control), at that point the shooting is self defense. What do you think Sterling would have done if they had said "gee, tazer didn't work - have a nice day?" Just walked away? In your dreams.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They are trained to use necessary force. Usually it doesn't go beyond a tazer. This guy didn't stop after being tazed. They were fully aware he was armed. Look at the video - they knew exactly where his gun was because they didn't have to search to find it.
At that point, what were they supposed to do - just get up and let the guy shoot them?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm about as far left as you can get
the hell you are.
Of course. Heaven is very right-wing. Just a bunch of religious people doing their thing.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Not this shooting. Not all shootings are racially motivated. Just most of them.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of course he was getting yelled at. They weren't going to whisper "stop struggling and let me get the cuffs on you" into his ear. Did YOU watch the video. They KNEW he was armed. They didn't have to search him to find the gun, they knew exactly where it was.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He was waving a gun around making threats, refused to cooperate, tazing didn't do it, they forced him to the ground but weren't able to get the cuffs on him, and they knew he had the gun on him, and where he had it. The video shows that they immediately took it off him without having to search him. These are valid reasons for shooting an armed man who, if you let him, will shoot you. Self-defense is a reason for death.
No need to know his record to justify the shoot.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes I understand that hence the quotes. I really wish that for the dog alerting that it wasn't considered to be probabal cause unless the dog had a substantially higher true positive rate than false positive rate. I would also like to know about their true negative and false negative rates as well.
Time to offend someone
First, I never said that there was no racism in the US. Racism is endemic - you just have to look at both the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of blacks in US jails. Or the number of blacks shot by cops.
However, not all shootings are racially motivated. Otherwise, more than half of police shootings wouldn't end up with a white person dead.
Racism is built into the US culture, has been since before the country's founding. Only a fool would say otherwise, and I'm no fool, nor a racist.
Look at the video - the police knew he was armed. Otherwise they would have had to search him to find out if he had a gun instead of immediately after shooting taking it off him.
But if you think it's okay for police to ignore a gun-waving asshole threatening a homeless man at half-past midnight, you are part of the violence problem.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They knew that the guy was armed. Watch the video - they immediately took it from his pocket after shooting him. Tazing didn't work. Physical force didn't work, and they knew he had a gun.
Also, your comment is VERY sexist, disqualifying almost all women from police work. This isn't the 19th, or even the 20th, century any more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
My original one was before I transitioned, so my old name didn't really suit. I've been using this one since I forgot the password I used with the replacement one because I couldn't see well enough to use a computer for quite a while. I've been using this one for quite some time. It's not a "new account", moron.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The store owner's own testimony in the video interview is self-contradictory.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They knew that the guy was armed.
I know.
Watch the video
I've watched both of them, actually.
they immediately took it from his pocket after shooting him.
Maybe they should have taken it from his pocket before shooting him. Maybe that should have been their priority if they felt like their lives were in danger. That third guy standing there with his gun drawn could have been disarming the guy.
Also, your comment is VERY sexist
Why, because you're assuming that women are weaker than men? Which one of us is sexist? I don't care if it's men or women, if 3 people cannot control the hands of 1 person after getting all of the training that they do, then they're probably in the wrong job. You have 1 person per hand, plus an additional person. Surely someone wearing a badge on their chest should be expected to know how and be able to control 1 arm or hand. If 3 people can't figure out how to disable someone who's not even high on PCP or whatever else without shooting them 4 times then we've got problems.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes, I saw both videos. And how the f*ck do you expect them to take it from his pocket when he's resisting arrest? I hope you're being purposefully stupid, because the alternative ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
now size is a measure of guilt and punishable by death
No, size is a factor in trying to decide if you are at risk while fighting with someone who has demonstrated that he will not stop fighting with police, even after being tazed twice. Do you consider all acts of self defense to be "punishment?" If I break into your house and come at you with a kitchen knife, and you kill me because you're defending yourself, do you consider that punishment because I'm 6'-2"? No? I see.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
'nuff said.
stop being corrupt and people will stop hating you.
its really simple. too simple for the low-IQ types that inhabit the police force, sadly.
...or the lower IQs of the people that get caught-up in these incidents. If a cop tells you to get down, get the hell down! You will get a chance to explain.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
All the facts were out there. Only the lazy and those who make assumptions wouldn't find them - in other words the herds of MOO-sayers who just repeat whatever they heard reflexively.
Where's the MOO guy when you really need him?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Context counts. This provided context. We were dealing with someone who the world is now a bit safer because they are no longer around, and he got his Darwin fair and square. Amazing it didn't happen sooner ..
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Which part of the process of taking something from someone else are you having a hard time understanding? If you've got 3 people and you want to take an object from someone else's pocket, what do you do? Should we have a brainstorming session to figure out ideas? Here, I'll start: person 1 uses both hands to secure the guy's left arm. Person 2 uses both hands to secure the guy's right arm. I'll let you come up with some options for person 3.
Actually, you know what? Fuck it, this is a stupid exercise. Let's just simplify the whole fucking thing and come up with some new guidelines for police training that actually reflect what they do now, that way there's no reason to try and make any changes. Let's just "streamline" the officer interaction experience.
1. Police officer approaches someone (anyone, a suspect, someone not suspected of anything, a child, soldier, old person, whoever the fuck, it doesn't matter, approach anyone and everyone regardless of a reason).
2. Immediately escalate the situation. Order them to do something (it doesn't matter what, just immediately start barking orders at them; they need to understand from the outset that you have authority, and they need to shut the fuck up and kiss their own ass if that's what you tell them to do; if they complain about "they have rights" or some bullshit just fucking taze them).
3. Whenever they refuse an order or in any way question your authority, shoot them in the face.
There you go, some clear and simple guidelines for how police should interact with people, so that we don't need to get into stupid fucking arguments about "but how the fuck were the 3 cops supposed to disarm the guy? There were only fucking 3 of them!" No need for police to try and understand any situation around them, no need for them to treat others like they're actually fucking people instead of just a shitbag who needs to submit to authority, and no need to try to figure out how you and your 2 friends are going to get something out of someone's pocket or otherwise de-escalate a situation instead of just spraying bullets.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And all this is supposed to happen instantly? Fuck you back. Can't be done with someone resisting.
I can reduce your 3 simple rules to streamline the process to one - don't do illegal shit. Most people manage to, most of their lives. Then again, the US is the exception, with crazy numbers of people, of all races, with records. You guys just love your thug life. That's why you've got twice as many people with criminal records as the entire population of Canada, more than the population of France, and more than 2-1/2 times the population of the entire continent of Australia. And that's before throwing in those with arrest records.
You have a problem, and you're not fixing it. A good start would be getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Other countries don't need it, and they're a lot safer than the USA.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Awesome, we have major problems with police training and behavior and you want to get everyone to just not break the law. That's the Canadian solution, isn't it? How about if we also got cops to stop breaking the law? How about if we had a little bit of accountability for when police fuck up? Naw, just get 320 million people to hold hands and sing.
You guys just love your thug life.
I'm going to say something, and I just want to make a note that I really mean it from the heart: go fuck yourself.
That's why you've got twice as many people with criminal records as the entire population of Canada
You're an idiot. The reason why the US has an incarcerated population larger than the rest of the world does not mean that we behave differently. It means we have fucked up laws which punish people harshly for trivial shit. Thank the for-profit prison industry for that, and keep your smug bullshit to yourself.
I'll note that you've now derailed the original conversation.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
When someone continues to resists arrest and they're known to be armed, they deserve to collect their Darwin. Plain and simple.
Also, you better check your stats. Your murder rate per capita is 3.9 per 100,000. Canada is 1.4 per 100,000. Murder is not a trivial crime, You fuckheads just like your guns too much to realize that the 2nd Amendment is a danger to everyone's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Doesn't matter - within 50 years the USA won't exist. The rot is irreversible. That's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Oh, yeah, I guess I read that wrong. When you said "you've got twice as many people with criminal records as the entire population of Canada", you meant "your murder rate is a little under 3x that of Canada". It was an honest mistake, hopefully you understand my confusion.
When someone continues to resists arrest and they're known to be armed, they deserve to collect their Darwin. Plain and simple.
Right, and that's exactly what always happens in this country, isn't it? Like Philando Castile, just another black guy who was known to be armed and resisting arrest, right? No problem with the police here, just a bunch of armed niggers. Whoa, shit, wait no I meant "thugs". Yeah, that's it. "Thugs".
You're not here to have any decent sort of conversation, you're just a troll. So, again, go fuck yourself. I'll leave you to work on finding yet another update to your sig that somehow points out that you're transgender.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I only commented on Sterling. The video makes it obvious that (1) he was continuing the resist and (2) the police knew exactly where he had stashed the gun on himself because they removed it from his pocket immediately after shots were fired.
There was no "maybe he has a gun on him" question. The video shows they were certain he was armed, with the gun within inches of the hand they were unable to cuff. I would have shot him, and so would you, under those circumstances.
He was a thug, he got his Darwin fair and square.
So, when you try to confabulate what I'm saying, with sufficient video proof that there is no question that it was a good shoot, with Castile, you're intentionally trolling - and you've been caught.
As for being an amicus of anything, fuck you. You're a phony through and through.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I only commented on Sterling.
Oh, ok. So all of the blanket generalizations that you're making about my country apply to a single situation. I'm not sure how that works, but I guess you'll find a way to rationalize your argument somehow.
There was no "maybe he has a gun on him" question.
Right, the only question was "is it absolutely necessary to shoot him." Obviously you and I don't agree on that point, because this country is full of "thugs" or however you want to phrase your word for "black people who scare me." The police go into any situation scared of armed black people. Castile is a perfect example. They shoot first, and get acquitted later. Sterling is another example. They *could have* subdued him, but it was easier to just shoot the black guy. Resisting arrest while armed is not a crime that is punishable by death.
So, when you try to confabulate what I'm saying, with sufficient video proof that there is no question that it was a good shoot
Haha, which one of us is trolling? "My opinion is fact, therefore you're a troll." OK, honey.
You're a phony through and through.
While I understand that you know everything about me, I hope you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinion of me any weight at all.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The comments I made specifically about Sterling apply only to Sterling. The comments I made specifically about the USA only apply to the USA.
You keep bringing up Castile - why? It has nothing to do with Sterling. Sterling was a thug, he got his Darwin, end of story.
As for the "black people scare me" - they don't. Ask my neighbors. Ask my black muslim friend who I met while walking the dogs this morning. You're projecting because black people scare USA residents, and you think that people in other countries should feel the same. Like I said, stupid Americans.
Like I said, you keep on trying to make this about something it isn't, because like many Americans, you're as dumb as you sound. And you're proving it to the world with your current presidential election. The main difference between Hitler and Trump is that Hitler wasn't showing signs of Alzheimers.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You keep bringing up Castile - why?
I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you, my mistake. You're talking about how the US is full of "thugs" (you've used that word repeatedly), how many criminals we have, how we love guns, etc. You seem to imply that this kind of "thug culture" is a reason why the police were right in shooting Sterling. I bring up Castile to highlight an example of a black guy who legally owns a gun, is not a thug, and is not a danger to the police but the cop still just murders him anyway. So, is "thug culture" really the only problem in the US, like you want to believe, or is there also a problem with the police behavior? If you think these 2 events are unrelated then you're not paying attention.
Sterling was a thug, he got his Darwin, end of story.
Fuck, OK, enough, I get it, armed niggers deserve death. You've made your point.
As for the "black people scare me" - they don't. Ask my neighbors.
You're one of those people, huh? Have you had a discussion with all of your black friends about the things you talk about online?
You're projecting because black people scare USA residents, and you think that people in other countries should feel the same. Like I said, stupid Americans.
No, fuckwit, it's because you keep referring to these people as "thugs". I realize that "nigger" isn't socially acceptable anymore, I'm glad you've got a new term. You're scared of Americans, that much is obvious.
As for "dumb American", seriously go fuck yourself. Seriously. I mean that. I want to you actually have sexual intercourse with yourself. Right now, just bend over and jam that fist right in. You know fuck-all about me, but you're going to judge me? Yeah, armed black guys in the US are thugs, we're stupid, and you're just the fucking cream of Canada's crop, aren't you? Fuck you and all of your personal insults.
And you're proving it to the world with your current presidential election.
Great fucking example. 2 candidates who are each disliked by a majority of Americans are somehow representative of all of us. Yeah, you're showing yourself to be a real braniac.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Why bring in extraneous stuff when I am referring to easily verifiable information that the Sterling shooting was a good shoot, and the guy was your typical thug.. You have presented NO evidence to refute my claim that the world is a better place without thugs like him. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Absolument Rien.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, thug has nothing to do with race. Except if you're a stupid American like you, where everything is tinged with racial overtones, so you project that onto others because you're a sick fuck.
And yes, these two candidates are representative of what is wrong with America. The fact that this is the best you can produce is un-fucking-believable. The whole world is laughing at you over Donald Trump. The GOP is now an openly racist white supremacist party. The mere fact that this election has unfolded as it has shows that the majority of Americans will vote for shit as long as the right letter is after the name on the ballot. Your political machinery is resembling a banana republic - what the corporations want, the corporations get. Oh wait, you've been doing that all over the world since 1870.
Banana republic:
Banana republic or banana state is a political science term for politically unstable countries in Latin America whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country's economy.[
Stratified social class: check.
Large impoverished working class (and getting larger): check
Ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites: check.
Congratulations. In 50 years, you've turned the world's premiere example of a democratic society into another banana republic, and the process is now irreversible because the social buy-in from the population, that change is possible through the system, has eroded too far.
It will be interesting to see what arises from the ashes. Kind of looking forward to it (though there is an unfortunate distinct possibility that nukes will be part of it).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Not for convicted felons sentenced t more than 2 years jail time - which Sterling was. No automatic recovery of a right to carry.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Actually, I meant what I said. You have twice as many people with criminal records as the entire population of Canada. AND your murder rate is much higher than ours. Learn to read.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You have presented NO evidence to refute my claim that the world is a better place without thugs like him.
You have correctly identified the argument that I am not attempting to refute, so well done. I'm talking about police training and behavior, and due process, not whether or not any one person was a model citizen.
Except if you're a stupid American like you
Right, because for some reason America has a higher proportion of stupid people than anywhere else. We're a country of immigrants, and for some reason it's only the stupid people who keep showing up, right? That's why we're the only superpower left. That's why we have the largest economy in the world and why our companies produce products and services which set the standard. Every country with a private space program, raise your hand. Not so fast, Canada, maybe before you think about something like a space program you should consider whether or not you want a head of state that doesn't want to live in your country.
Out of curiosity, what other nationalities do you have a problem with? Would you say that you hate "most" or "many" people based on where they're from?
And yes, these two candidates are representative of what is wrong with America.
I think that's the single most intelligent thing I've heard you say.
The fact that this is the best you can produce
... and then you immediately slide backward. You think those people are nominated because they're "the best we can produce", huh? You think that's why Hillary is up there? Which one of us is stupid?
The whole world is laughing at you over Donald Trump.
Yes, the rest of the rational world is laughing WITH us at Trump. Everyone sees what is going on, except the people that managed to propel him to where he is. Those people don't understand the problems with this country and don't understand Trump's motivation, they just like what he says. He managed to get 13.3 million people to vote for him in the primary. That's 4.1% of our population, but don't let things like that stop you from assuming he represents everyone, or even half the country for that matter. Not even his own party wants him there, but really, don't let reality get in the way of your hate. Trump didn't even get over half the votes in the Republican primary, more people voted for Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio combined than Trump (and that leaves out the other 50 or whatever candidates like Jeb! and Carly). Clinton also got more votes than Trump (by 2.5 million), and over 12 million people (like me!) voted for Sanders. Over 27 million people voted for a Democratic candidate, but you're going to sit there and act like Trump represents the United States. Like an idiot. Again, which one of us is stupid?
The mere fact that this election has unfolded as it has shows that the majority of Americans will vote for shit
Hey Barb, what, specifically, has the majority of Americans voted for? The majority of Americans DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING VOTE. Why do you think that is, because they feel like some candidate represents what they believe so much that they aren't going to bother to vote for them?
what the corporations want, the corporations get.
Yeah, and it's a hell of a fight to try to get that changed. You know what? I have an idea. Instead of trying to change it, let's sit online and post idiotic comments. The problem will work itself out I'm sure.
In 50 years, you've turned the world's premiere example of a democratic society into another banana republic
Fuck, that was my fault? Goddamn it, I thought the "greatest generation" decided to inject money into every fucking place imaginable, especially politics, and caused the problems we have now. I didn't realize it was my fault. Fuck, I'm so glad that I have you to lay all of t
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Police training was not the problem here, as I've pointed out many times, with evidence.
And why would I want to go to the US? Global warming is going to make it less livable as it makes Canada more livable. Back in the early '70s they were predicting up to 150 million fleeing to the north as global warming kicks in, and we're already seeing the consequences in other countries forcing people to flee.
We may have to build a wall ...
As for racism, you're projecting again because you're pissed off that I've exposed your stupidity.
Race was not the reason Sterling was shit. And the world is better off without thugs like him, of any colour.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Police training was not the problem here, as I've pointed out many times, with evidence.
I understand that's your opinion, you've made that clear. That doesn't make it any more correct, but at least you believe in something.
And why would I want to go to the US?
We have over 800,000 Canadian immigrants living here, I guess they know something you don't. You have just over 250,000 Americans living there. That seems weird, you guys have only around 11% of the population that we have, but we have 3 times as many of you living here than you have of us. Wonder why that is. Is it because you guys have restrictive immigration policies? What, do you hate immigrants or something? That can't be right, around 20% of your population is immigrants and only about 12% of ours is (even though our immigrant population is larger than your total population). Is it because people don't bother living in America Lite when they could live in America?
Global warming is going to make it less livable as it makes Canada more livable.
Thanks to the older generation for that one, also. What can't the now-retired screw up when they put their minds to it? In a couple decades they'll be dead and they won't be able to vote any more, and we'll clean up their mess and get back to it. Sadly, I don't think you're going to be able to see us rise from their ashes, but best of luck with your health issues.
We may have to build a wall ...
Yes, your impressive compliment of 29 warships, 64 attack aircraft, and 181 tanks should fare nicely when you decide to get aggressive. Maybe you're better off with your "apologize first" doctrine and leaving the hard work to us, as is your tradition. Don't worry though, we all know that war does not determine who is right, only who is left.
In the meantime, feel free to STFU regarding US domestic issues.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There will be no "rise up from the ashes" after global warming in a couple of decades. Even if we just stayed at levels of a decade ago, there would be several decades of continued warming because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. And the world is not going to stay at those levels. It's likely that nobody alive today will see global warming end.
Also, building a wall to keep someone out isn't aggressive. Ever hear of "good fences make good neighbors"? Then again, if you tried to invade, Russia and China would also step in. Neither one can afford to see the US control most of the northern continent.
The real risk is a nuclear exchange because, unlike after the cold war, both east and west are arming up again, and there are other players as well.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And yes, I have health problems. Tey put restrictions on what I can and can't do. That doesn't mean I will die younger - everyone is an individual. I could make it past 100, who knows?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There will be no "rise up from the ashes" after global warming in a couple of decades.
We'll see.
Anyway, hope your generation enjoyed the last few decades of the 20th century, I'm sure all that consumption was a blast.
Ever hear of "good fences make good neighbors"?
Therefore, vote Trump? No thanks.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Did you see the latest case of cops who found a thug out living the thug life, just thugging away and needed to get shot like a thug? I'm glad that guy's off the streets, who knows what thug stuff he gets up to in his thug time. I need to send those cops some flowers and congratulate them on the fact that police in this country have no problems with their training or behavior.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black