Police shooting people.....

Cliffy6745

muskydan said:

Bentleyspop said:

muskydan said:

rgambs said:

muskydan said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Go Beavers said:

EM194007 said:

Go Beavers said:

If the rate of cops killing whites was the same as cops killing blacks, then we'd have a different story, the problem is, cops kill blacks at about 3x the rate they kill whites. And maybe I made an assumption about race when you referred to the people protesting and gang violence.

More whites were shot and killed by the police then blacks last year. Where are you coming up with more blacks were shot and killed?

I didn't say more blacks were shot than whites. You're three times more likely to be shot by a cop if you're black than if you're white.

Unarmed black men are actually 7 times more likely to be killed by a cop than Unarmed white men.

wow that's a pretty insane statistic.
blacks are also 13% of the overall population but account for 40% of the total number of people in prison. craziness. Nationally, according to the U.S. Census, Blacks are incarcerated five times more than Whites are, and Hispanics are nearly twice as likely to be incarcerated as Whites.

Just remember those stats when you want to have that REAL conversation all the politicians and "community activists" blabber about Race relations in the USA . Thank God there is the other side of the street.

You are confused again, the stats relate incarceration rates, not crime rates. Big difference.

Oh yes, I am confused as always. The mush brains of the world would really be confused if the majority of liberal judges in big cities sentenced this demografic appropriately.

There is a lot of vaguely racist (and occasionally anti-semitic) comments made on this board.

Nothing vague about the above quoted post

Confusing Racism w/ Realism I see...
In my Confused Libby town offenders do roughly between 25-35% of their sentence. The county used to blame budgetary reasons, but the big one now is to push "black and brown" people out since they are disproportionately being incarcerated. Ask The County Comish Toni Preckwickle...it's her mission.

If you WAna do some research look up black on black homcides. You will find a vast majority of the offenders are on parole, many for UUW...unlawful use of weapon. Many shooting/homocides in my town would not happen if the bleeding heart judges charged these offenders accordingly and make them do atleast 90% of their bit like they do in the federal system...but what the fuck do I know??

Perhaps if our jails weren't filled with non-violent drug offenders there would be more room to properly sentence the folks who are a threat to society. I know your job is not to create laws, but enforce them, but perhaps if more of the "bleeding heart" policies were put into place, we'd have more room to lock up the folks you reference...

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Degeneratefk

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

I've been saying that about the Minnesota shooting since the day that video was released. I disagree with you on the NO shooting. It really doesn't matter how many cops are on him when he's resisting and possibly reaching for a weapon. One thing is for sure, if he doesn't resist, he doesn't die. That's the bottom line.

HughFreakingDillon

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

I've been saying that about the Minnesota shooting since the day that video was released. I disagree with you on the NO shooting. It really doesn't matter how many cops are on him when he's resisting and possibly reaching for a weapon. One thing is for sure, if he doesn't resist, he doesn't die. That's the bottom line.

yes, generally speaking, he wouldn't be dead. but even in a split second, why can't they just pistol whip him, or shoot him in the arm, or something that MAY not be lethal? shooting him in the torso is a guaranteed result.

Degeneratefk

HughFreakingDillon said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

I've been saying that about the Minnesota shooting since the day that video was released. I disagree with you on the NO shooting. It really doesn't matter how many cops are on him when he's resisting and possibly reaching for a weapon. One thing is for sure, if he doesn't resist, he doesn't die. That's the bottom line.

yes, generally speaking, he wouldn't be dead. but even in a split second, why can't they just pistol whip him, or shoot him in the arm, or something that MAY not be lethal? shooting him in the torso is a guaranteed result.

Simple answer is no. That could easily result in the death of a cop. It's been repeated here a hundred times, if you're going to make the decision to shoot, you don't shoot to injure.

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

Good post, Hugh.

I'm not inclined to agree with you regarding the NO case, but you have served up the common sense aspect to the Minny case with regards to how the officer 'might' have perceived things.

Begs the question: why no body cam?

It's just so easy to speak from the sidelines after the fact. I imagine it's a hell of a lot more intense in the moment.

HughFreakingDillon

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

I've been saying that about the Minnesota shooting since the day that video was released. I disagree with you on the NO shooting. It really doesn't matter how many cops are on him when he's resisting and possibly reaching for a weapon. One thing is for sure, if he doesn't resist, he doesn't die. That's the bottom line.

yes, generally speaking, he wouldn't be dead. but even in a split second, why can't they just pistol whip him, or shoot him in the arm, or something that MAY not be lethal? shooting him in the torso is a guaranteed result.

Simple answer is no. That could easily result in the death of a cop. It's been repeated here a hundred times, if you're going to make the decision to shoot, you don't shoot to injure.

I only watched the video of Baton Rouge once, but even though he was struggling, it looked to me like they had it under control and lethal force was not warranted. I could be wrong, however.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Degeneratefk said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it's not a race issue. it's a class issue. every capitalist society has different classes. the lowest class tends to commit the most violent crime. it's difficult, as a flawed human, to not let our experiences guide our reactions; when the majority of the people you deal with as a cop are of one ethnicity, you tend to start reacting differently to that ethnicity. it's human nature. it's our defence mechanisms working the way they should. especially with everyone and their dog owning a gun. I can't imagine being a cop and knowing that the dude might have a firearm, LEGALLY, under his jacket.

the video of the guy in minnesota only began after the guy got shot. the cop was saying he told him NOT to go for his ID, and he was obviously distressed at shooting the guy. the girlfriend said he told him to do it. it's one word against another. why would the cop ask him for his ID then shoot him? that doesn't make sense. does it look bad? damn rights. but without video of the moments leading up to the shooting, none of us can accurately judge it. maybe it was a look on his face. maybe he jerked a bit too much. who the fuck knows. you have literally half a second to make a potentially life or death decision.

now the guy in baton rouge, now to me, that was a different story. you saw the guy resisting arrest, but why the fuck do you need to shoot him in the torso several times? I understand it's a split second decision, but come on, the guy is pretty well detained and you shoot him?

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

I've been saying that about the Minnesota shooting since the day that video was released. I disagree with you on the NO shooting. It really doesn't matter how many cops are on him when he's resisting and possibly reaching for a weapon. One thing is for sure, if he doesn't resist, he doesn't die. That's the bottom line.

yes, generally speaking, he wouldn't be dead. but even in a split second, why can't they just pistol whip him, or shoot him in the arm, or something that MAY not be lethal? shooting him in the torso is a guaranteed result.

Simple answer is no. That could easily result in the death of a cop. It's been repeated here a hundred times, if you're going to make the decision to shoot, you don't shoot to injure.

I only watched the video of Baton Rouge once, but even though he was struggling, it looked to me like they had it under control and lethal force was not warranted. I could be wrong, however.

The cops were saying he had a gun in his pocket and was trying to get it as they tried to subdue him on the ground.

The video is shaky and doesn't definitively show him going for his gun or not... but the video does show him resisting through a couple tactics (including a taser), squirming on the ground and then the cop taking the gun from his pocket after the shots were fired.

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

Where/When did he say this?

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

Where/When did he say this?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

Where/When did he say this?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/

He said "Asian Lives Matter".
I already pointed out what Giuliani said earlier about BLM.
Bruce Springsteen sings about killing the yellow man.

Go Beavers

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

Go Beavers

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

No, the stage isn't the same, and who said he can't talk about color?

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

and I can't believe that Rudy Guiliani actually said "yellow lives matter". YELLOW? SERIOUSLY?

Where/When did he say this?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/

He said "Asian Lives Matter".
I already pointed out what Giuliani said earlier about BLM.
Bruce Springsteen sings about killing the yellow man.

Wrong interview. Tye one I watched....he specifically said "yellow lives matter".

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

Calling Asians yellow is considered racist, is it not?

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

Calling Asians yellow is considered racist, is it not?

I don't know anymore.
What colour are they supposed to be called?
Guiliani did not say yellow did he?

HughFreakingDillon

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

Calling Asians yellow is considered racist, is it not?

I don't know anymore.
What colour are they supposed to be called?
Guiliani did not say yellow did he?

Calling aboriginals red is considered racist. Calling asians yellow is racist. At least where I'm from.

And yes, he absolutely said "black lives matter, white lives matter, yellow lives matter, all lives matter" in the interview I watched. I woukd not make that up.

PJfanwillneverleave1

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

I'm not really going out on a limb to say Guiliani's context and Springsteen's context are different.

I was expressing a thought to HFD.
Yes the context is different but the stage is the same.
Why can some talk about colour and some can't?

Calling Asians yellow is considered racist, is it not?

I don't know anymore.
What colour are they supposed to be called?
Guiliani did not say yellow did he?

Calling aboriginals red is considered racist. Calling asians yellow is racist. At least where I'm from.

And yes, he absolutely said "black lives matter, white lives matter, yellow lives matter, all lives matter" in the interview I watched. I woukd not make that up.

Yes agreed that calling those people that is racist but why can we call a black person black?

I just am really interested in seeing that video or interview because if you google anything about him saying yellow it is nowhere to be found. No you tube, no headlines etc.
If he said yellow it is a pretty big deal and it seems to be buried somewhere.

Every interview or headline I see he says Asian not yellow.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

This story is a year old. It occurred in the UK. Large man menacingly roaming through streets with a big knife. Police helicopter follows him directing officers on the ground to him. Officers on the ground are urged to hasten their approach because the man finally finds a victim- 82 year old woman in her backyard who gets killed and decapitated.

Man is pursued as he continues to roam looking to wreak more havoc and gets tasered six times resisting arrest in what was called a violent and chaotic struggle. He finally is subdued and taken into custody. The courts find him not guilty of the crime by reason of insanity.

The restraint the cops exercised knowing the man had just savagely decapitated an old woman and had now engaged them in a violent struggle must be uplifting and encouraging for some.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/family-of-decapitated-woman-tell-of-despair-as-killer-cleared-of