anybody notice the coverage of this one is different than all the other ones?
nobody is looking into her finances. nobody is looking into her past criminal record. nobody is looking into her social media.
this one is being covered very differently and it is because she is a white woman.
how do you know no one looked into those things? maybe they did and didn't find anything. and don't forget she wasn't accused of doing anything wrong to attract the attention of the police. others were.
anybody notice the coverage of this one is different than all the other ones?
nobody is looking into her finances. nobody is looking into her past criminal record. nobody is looking into her social media.
this one is being covered very differently and it is because she is a white woman.
how do you know no one looked into those things? maybe they did and didn't find anything. and don't forget she wasn't accused of doing anything wrong to attract the attention of the police. others were.
anybody notice the coverage of this one is different than all the other ones?
nobody is looking into her finances. nobody is looking into her past criminal record. nobody is looking into her social media.
this one is being covered very differently and it is because she is a white woman.
how do you know no one looked into those things? maybe they did and didn't find anything. and don't forget she wasn't accused of doing anything wrong to attract the attention of the police. others were.
My thought too. only interesting if there's something to report.
A wet dream would have been police not killing citizens, you go ahead and apologize for the cop though.
It isn't far fetched. Every time a white cop shoots a black kid we hear the cries of racism.
What's to say this pretty blonde, that was in her pajamas, didn't accidentally flash mr. sharia some skin? Triggered. No more unrealistic that that racist white cop that permeates the ranks according to the inner city.
"Mr. Sharia'? That is some serious Islamophobic racism right there. Congrats
Impossible. Islam is not a race.
I think we all understand the difference dude. FWIW, white, black, Asian, etc aren't "races" either. They're ethnicities. The only race is the human race. So since the term "racism" is already completely inaccurate, how about we stop bothering to correct people every they call Islamophobia or xenophobia racism? We all know what the person who said it means I think.
Fine. A goldfish, a largemouth bass, and a Great White are all fish, but I know which I don't want to go swimming with.
The goldfish, I assume. I mean, how could possibly you fit in the bowl?
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
He was banned again so probably won't be able to see your post.
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
He was banned again so probably won't be able to see your post.
You can still read the forums when you're banned - you just can't post.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
You could pm him.
I find it a bit interesting since I've actually listened to the lyrics of Masters of War that PJ covers.......unsung didn't comment on anyone here and did nothing more than what the band (who's website this is) has said about people they feel are similar.
And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead
I personally thought it was a terrible comment, but I'm surprised he wasn't allowed to express it here. But, it's their world, I'm just living in it.
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
You could pm him.
I find it a bit interesting since I've actually listened to the lyrics of Masters of War that PJ covers.......unsung didn't comment on anyone here and did nothing more than what the band (who's website this is) has said about people they feel are similar.
And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead
I personally thought it was a terrible comment, but I'm surprised he wasn't allowed to express it here. But, it's their world, I'm just living in it.
Speaking of lyrics.......Wave to all my friends, yeah
In the banished land they can't wave back. It's hard but do your time and come back w/ grace Unsung.
Unsung, I can't say it there but I bloody well need to say it, your thread on McCain was disgusting. The thread has been closed so this is not an attempt to discuss it, just to express my revulsion. The mods can delete if they must
You could pm him.
I find it a bit interesting since I've actually listened to the lyrics of Masters of War that PJ covers.......unsung didn't comment on anyone here and did nothing more than what the band (who's website this is) has said about people they feel are similar.
And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead
I personally thought it was a terrible comment, but I'm surprised he wasn't allowed to express it here. But, it's their world, I'm just living in it.
Speaking of lyrics.......Wave to all my friends, yeah
In the banished land they can't wave back. It's hard but do your time and come back w/ grace Unsung.
Mr. Zimmerman obviouslu knew what he was doing when he wrote those lyrics. And you're clearly one step away from "banished land" yourself so watch yourself
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
Yeah, I see nothing wrong with this either. Fled police, led them on a chase, refused to get out of the car. The dude had like 100 opportunities to avoid this and chose not you. You can't resist and fight back, then cry foul when the K-9 comes.
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications. He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard. He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands. When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way. Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here. You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications. He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard. He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands. When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way. Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here. You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated. drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications. He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard. He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands. When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way. Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here. You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated. drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason. You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise. Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task. The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position. The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful. That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.
It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force. It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest. There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.
By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest. There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications. He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard. He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands. When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way. Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here. You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated. drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason. You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise. Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task. The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position. The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful. That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.
It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force. It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion. He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics. I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.
By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest. There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.
apologist.
An expansive and impressive addition to the debate! So subtle and full of complex wisdom, I feel the need to use exclamation marks!
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications. He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard. He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands. When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way. Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here. You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated. drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason. You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise. Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task. The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position. The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful. That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.
It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force. It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
I would have to agree with RG on this one. We can speculate all we want, but this seems like a classic case of a drunk who figures that if he just slowly drives to his house then he might be able to just walk away without going to jail and getting his car towed. I agreed it was fleeing, no matter how fast you drive or where you decide to stop, but using the dog seemed pretty pointless. I don't even think the officer used good felony stop practices. Since when do you drive right up next to the door of the suspect vehicle and then immediately approach and open the door to pull them out. That's just plain dumb! That right there shows he knew there wasn't a real threat and that this guy was most likely just drunk. Frustration does seem to be the key determination of getting the K-9 out. This cop should be suspended and lose his K-9.
The dipshit driver deserves to go to jail, but now all this cop has done is make him rich and throw out any criminal charge while the prosecutors slowly back away from his mess of an arrest.
Comments
http://www.kare11.com/mb/news/fiance-of-woman-shot-by-police-we-are-devastated/457399629
nobody is looking into her finances. nobody is looking into her past criminal record. nobody is looking into her social media.
this one is being covered very differently and it is because she is a white woman.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
Like the Pueblo cop, probably no charges. What a joke.
I find it a bit interesting since I've actually listened to the lyrics of Masters of War that PJ covers.......unsung didn't comment on anyone here and did nothing more than what the band (who's website this is) has said about people they feel are similar.
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
I personally thought it was a terrible comment, but I'm surprised he wasn't allowed to express it here. But, it's their world, I'm just living in it.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/minneapolis-police-chief-resigns-following-fatal-shooting-australian-woman.amp.html#ampshare=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/21/minneapolis-police-chief-resigns-following-fatal-shooting-australian-woman.html
Speaking of lyrics.......Wave to all my friends, yeah
In the banished land they can't wave back. It's hard but do your time and come back w/ grace Unsung.
Mr. Zimmerman obviouslu knew what he was doing when he wrote those lyrics. And you're clearly one step away from "banished land" yourself so watch yourself
Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.
Please tell me that is a joke.
Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling. Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
He didn't resist. He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.
He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices? Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer? That's clearly what happened here.
You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.
drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet.
When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task. The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful. That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.
It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force. It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for.
Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.
So subtle and full of complex wisdom, I feel the need to use exclamation marks!
The dipshit driver deserves to go to jail, but now all this cop has done is make him rich and throw out any criminal charge while the prosecutors slowly back away from his mess of an arrest.