here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
the stat's ????? how about giving us the whole truth in the "stat's" why are black men more likely to be shot by police and please don't tell me it's the color of their skin because that's straight up bullshit. Godfather.
I'm not even going to try and argue scientific findings and numbers with someone who's barely literate......and can suspend logical thought enough to vote for Trump.
scientific findings ? suspend logical thought ? dude you and a few others are living a fairy tale dream of self pity, are you one of those guy's who wears a t shirt that has "I'm so sorry" printed on the front ? your using race baiting babble and half truths to push a point that has no real logic to back it up.....fuck man just look at the news streaming any riot, notice anything similar about every friggin one ? you do the math on that one..why would anybody destroy their own neighborhood ? why are stores always looted at these "protest's" then they have the ball to chant kill white people...I just can't imagine anybody being that stupid...but every time there they are.
Godfather.
Godfather, you appear to be dealing w/ someone who has stage 4 liberalism. Common sense is futile....
Ahhh. Two of the spades found each other.....
Ahhh, now this is really interesting. Calling someone a Spade is especially Racist where I come from.
I haven't heard that term used in a way referring to race in ages. Is that common knowledge here? Isn't it sort of like referring to someones coiffure as a "DA haircut"?
I'm guessing musky might be from the Midwest, given his name. I'm originally from Indiana and used to hear that term. My guess is that it's still used on occasion.
I'm wondering what that cop in Tulsa was supposed to do. The guy did have his hands up, but continued to back up towards his vehicle, then turns his back to the officer while reaching into the vehicle, no?
Taser? 4 vs 1? lots of stuff.
But you're right, shooting dead was probably the only option.
A man who backs up 20 feet back towards HIS vehicle and reaches inside all while the police are telling him to stop. All comes down to following simple instruction.
Taser him somwhere in that 20 feet. pretty simple.
Again, you're probably right. Shooting people dead should always be option #1
I'm convinced I did not say,that was option number 1. I know I'm right when I said the bottom line is if he had followed a simple instruction, he would not have been shot at all.
We get it, you are right, he should have followed commands, but that apparently didn't happen and now another black man is dead. Who wasn't armed, and wasn't reaching for a gun. So now how do we move forward so less people die? Just saying he should have followed orders does not offer any kind of solution to this problem. We will get no where if we keep blaming the victim.
Does the fact he was black matter? Do you think he wouldn't have been shot if he was white?
I don't see how this has anything to do with my comment, but I will answer your question. We will never know for sure, but the stats show that he was more likely to be shot because of the colour of his skin.
Care to address anything else I mentioned in my comment?
I will. I think saying he should have followed orders does present a solution. Kids in minority communities are often taught to not obey cops, and as a result are getting shot more. They are being told to not obey cops, teachers, or almost anyone else of authority. so they have a higher drop out rate, arrest rate, getting-shot-by-cops rate.
These are bold claims. Care to provide any evidence to back up this assertion that minorities are told to not obey anyone?
Everyone knows that us wholesome white folks always teach our kids to obey authority.
the stat's ????? how about giving us the whole truth in the "stat's" why are black men more likely to be shot by police and please don't tell me it's the color of their skin because that's straight up bullshit. Godfather.
I'm not even going to try and argue scientific findings and numbers with someone who's barely literate......and can suspend logical thought enough to vote for Trump.
scientific findings ? suspend logical thought ? dude you and a few others are living a fairy tale dream of self pity, are you one of those guy's who wears a t shirt that has "I'm so sorry" printed on the front ? your using race baiting babble and half truths to push a point that has no real logic to back it up.....fuck man just look at the news streaming any riot, notice anything similar about every friggin one ? you do the math on that one..why would anybody destroy their own neighborhood ? why are stores always looted at these "protest's" then they have the ball to chant kill white people...I just can't imagine anybody being that stupid...but every time there they are.
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand why black people might fear police and I understand why police might fear black people. It's a crappy situation and it doesn't appear to be getting better: there is no hope for some inner city youth and without hope... hostility and defiance grows within many.
Meaningful social programs might be the answer- I don't know for sure, but the status quo must change.
On the front (in the streets)... I anticipate a significant demand for law enforcement across the US in the coming years. I would hope that at least a few of the finger pointers around here might consider a career in the profession. Hell, they seem to talk as if they have ice running through their veins. I'd be curious to know if 2-3 years on the job might change their perspectives at all?
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand that perspective but if the gun isn't in the hands of the person in a threatening manner don't you think there is another way? Now if its in the perps hands then yeah that changes everything...im just trying to grasp the whole situation...tough
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer September 22 at 7:35 PM
If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal. You might think the National Rifle Association and its amen chorus would be outraged, but apparently they believe Second Amendment rights are for whites only.
In reaching that conclusion I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the account given by the Charlotte police of how they came to fatally shoot Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday. Scott’s killing prompted two nights of violent protests that led North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) to declare a state of emergency. Last Friday, police in Tulsa shot and killed Terence Crutcher — an unarmed black man — and the two incidents gave tragic new impetus to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Scott’s relatives claim he was unarmed as well. But let’s assume that police are telling the truth and he had a handgun. What reason was there for officers to confront him?
North Carolina, after all, is an open-carry state. A citizen has the right to walk around armed if he or she chooses to do so. The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take action.
This is crazy, in my humble opinion. I believe that we should try to save some of the 30,000-plus lives lost each year to gun violence by enacting sensible firearms restrictions — and that the more people who walk around packing heat like Wild West desperados, the more deaths we will inevitably have to mourn. In its wisdom, however, the state of North Carolina disagrees.
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand that perspective but if the gun isn't in the hands of the person in a threatening manner don't you think there is another way? Now if its in the perps hands then yeah that changes everything...im just trying to grasp the whole situation...tough
It gets even tougher when you consider that many of these shootings are occurring in states where it is legal to openly carry a gun around.
The irony is that the loudest advocates for open-carry are usually the folks who refuse to question the judgement of officers who shoot open carriers!
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
PJ21 nice to hear your sincerity on this matter. Yes it seems when there's a gun on the scene or even the report of a gun emotions and adrenaline is raised to the point of shot first ask the necessary questions later. However, it appears officers can't seem to win even when they seem to TRYING to do the right thing. As it is here in this story of what an officer thought that he was doing at the time for himself and the suspect.
West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun.
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand that perspective but if the gun isn't in the hands of the person in a threatening manner don't you think there is another way? Now if its in the perps hands then yeah that changes everything...im just trying to grasp the whole situation...tough
It gets even tougher when you consider that many of these shootings are occurring in states where it is legal to openly carry a gun around.
The irony is that the loudest advocates for open-carry are usually the folks who refuse to question the judgement of officers who shoot open carriers!
Second part of your comment is pure speculation based on your own views
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand that perspective but if the gun isn't in the hands of the person in a threatening manner don't you think there is another way? Now if its in the perps hands then yeah that changes everything...im just trying to grasp the whole situation...tough
It gets even tougher when you consider that many of these shootings are occurring in states where it is legal to openly carry a gun around.
The irony is that the loudest advocates for open-carry are usually the folks who refuse to question the judgement of officers who shoot open carriers!
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
agree but the fact that a 2nd officer took action at the same moment helps her case. it is going to be very difficult to get a conviction in this case if in fact he was holding a gun.
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
I wouldn't personally wait for the guy to shoot me. nor should anyone. deescalate if the guy has any other type of weapon, but a gun? nope.
I understand that perspective but if the gun isn't in the hands of the person in a threatening manner don't you think there is another way? Now if its in the perps hands then yeah that changes everything...im just trying to grasp the whole situation...tough
It gets even tougher when you consider that many of these shootings are occurring in states where it is legal to openly carry a gun around.
The irony is that the loudest advocates for open-carry are usually the folks who refuse to question the judgement of officers who shoot open carriers!
Second part of your comment is pure speculation based on your own views
You would have to be blind not to see the right-wing connection there. Of course there are exceptions and anomalies, but the overlap is obvious.
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
agree but the fact that a 2nd officer took action at the same moment helps her case. it is going to be very difficult to get a conviction in this case if in fact he was holding a gun.
Folks like myself see the very fact that she was charged as a victory for police reform in itself. In many cases like this, I would just like to see officers who use poor judgement like her find a new career and move on with their lives. Mistakes get made and we can't hang everyone out to dry for their mistakes, it is a dangerous job, after all. Her mistake removed a person who was loved by many from the planet, and that is a permanent patch of shittiness, putting her in jail won't change that at all. The question for me is whether there is malicious intent in these shootings, that's when people should be locked away. It certainly happens, and every case should be investigated to make sure that intent wasn't present.
I don't think there was any malicious intent, I think she was (overly) scared and made a split second mistake that proved fatal, it was only the one shot. It may even have been an accidental discharge, in my eyes.
I feel like releasing her photo may have swayed me on that account, sexist though it may be. She is a pretty woman and has what I would call a kind, or sweet face. She looks like a swell gal and it is hard to imagine she wanted that man to die at any point in the confrontation.
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
PJ21 nice to hear your sincerity on this matter. Yes it seems when there's a gun on the scene or even the report of a gun emotions and adrenaline is raised to the point of shot first ask the necessary questions later. However, it appears officers can't seem to win even when they seem to TRYING to do the right thing. As it is here in this story of what an officer thought that he was doing at the time for himself and the suspect.
West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun.
Yeah they are damned either way it seems...I have numerous friends that are cops and they are concerned for their safety with all that is going on right now so that adds to the element in situations now...do they wait seconds longer to react thinking about the what ifs and lose their life? or do they become itch with the trigger finger fearing for their life? (these are my own assumption, not what they have told me)
I got all philosophical on this last night having a few adult beverages after I laid my daughter down to bed and just wondered what her life was going to be like and the world she was going to be surrounded by as she grew older...kind of made me reevaluate everything I thought I knew
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
agree but the fact that a 2nd officer took action at the same moment helps her case. it is going to be very difficult to get a conviction in this case if in fact he was holding a gun.
Folks like myself see the very fact that she was charged as a victory for police reform in itself. In many cases like this, I would just like to see officers who use poor judgement like her find a new career and move on with their lives. Mistakes get made and we can't hang everyone out to dry for their mistakes, it is a dangerous job, after all. Her mistake removed a person who was loved by many from the planet, and that is a permanent patch of shittiness, putting her in jail won't change that at all. The question for me is whether there is malicious intent in these shootings, that's when people should be locked away. It certainly happens, and every case should be investigated to make sure that intent wasn't present.
I don't think there was any malicious intent, I think she was (overly) scared and made a split second mistake that proved fatal, it was only the one shot. It may even have been an accidental discharge, in my eyes.
I feel like releasing her photo may have swayed me on that account, sexist though it may be. She is a pretty woman and has what I would call a kind, or sweet face. She looks like a swell gal and it is hard to imagine she wanted that man to die at any point in the confrontation.
first, if malicious intent is your cutoff do you really think there have been many police shootings that are done with malicious intent? Secondly a positive that comes from charging her is it takes the review process out of the hands of the police themselves. that has always been an issue in these types of cases i think.
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer September 22 at 7:35 PM
If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal. You might think the National Rifle Association and its amen chorus would be outraged, but apparently they believe Second Amendment rights are for whites only.
In reaching that conclusion I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the account given by the Charlotte police of how they came to fatally shoot Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday. Scott’s killing prompted two nights of violent protests that led North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) to declare a state of emergency. Last Friday, police in Tulsa shot and killed Terence Crutcher — an unarmed black man — and the two incidents gave tragic new impetus to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Scott’s relatives claim he was unarmed as well. But let’s assume that police are telling the truth and he had a handgun. What reason was there for officers to confront him?
North Carolina, after all, is an open-carry state. A citizen has the right to walk around armed if he or she chooses to do so. The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take action.
This is crazy, in my humble opinion. I believe that we should try to save some of the 30,000-plus lives lost each year to gun violence by enacting sensible firearms restrictions — and that the more people who walk around packing heat like Wild West desperados, the more deaths we will inevitably have to mourn. In its wisdom, however, the state of North Carolina disagrees.
His opinion seems completely valid to me... But I would suggest not starting with the comment about 2nd amendment rights are for whites only... Seems easy for some to discuss problems with racism, while in tern using racially motivated comments as that. Just counterintuitive. Just my opinion. Hard to stop racism with hearing comments like protestors saying to kill white people... Just doesn't really drum up more support from reasonable people of any color...
I would say pointing fingers towards who's to blame doesn't solve problems... Of course neither does pointing guns...
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
agree but the fact that a 2nd officer took action at the same moment helps her case. it is going to be very difficult to get a conviction in this case if in fact he was holding a gun.
Folks like myself see the very fact that she was charged as a victory for police reform in itself. In many cases like this, I would just like to see officers who use poor judgement like her find a new career and move on with their lives. Mistakes get made and we can't hang everyone out to dry for their mistakes, it is a dangerous job, after all. Her mistake removed a person who was loved by many from the planet, and that is a permanent patch of shittiness, putting her in jail won't change that at all. The question for me is whether there is malicious intent in these shootings, that's when people should be locked away. It certainly happens, and every case should be investigated to make sure that intent wasn't present.
I don't think there was any malicious intent, I think she was (overly) scared and made a split second mistake that proved fatal, it was only the one shot. It may even have been an accidental discharge, in my eyes.
I feel like releasing her photo may have swayed me on that account, sexist though it may be. She is a pretty woman and has what I would call a kind, or sweet face. She looks like a swell gal and it is hard to imagine she wanted that man to die at any point in the confrontation.
first, if malicious intent is your cutoff do you really think there have been many police shootings that are done with malicious intent? Secondly a positive that comes from charging her is it takes the review process out of the hands of the police themselves. that has always been an issue in these types of cases i think.
Yeah, I KNOW there are plenty of cops walking around with malicious intent, I have seen it with my own eyes. Cops with history of more minor abuses should be removed before they can encounter such dire situations. Like the cop that had "You're fucked" stamped on his service gun, some folks lamented his firing, but I see that as a serious warning sign of a temperament that is unfit for duty. The same with the NYC cop busted with the Aryan Nation tattoo.
To the second part, yeah, I would like to see it reversed, where that outside review process is applied to all instances of a firearm discharge, then charges to follow if necessary.
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
"Felt threatened" and "were threatened" are different things, failing to make a distinction is the reason people are seeking redress on the issue to begin with. If an officer's judgement is never questioned they are effectively Judge Dredd.
agree but the fact that a 2nd officer took action at the same moment helps her case. it is going to be very difficult to get a conviction in this case if in fact he was holding a gun.
Folks like myself see the very fact that she was charged as a victory for police reform in itself. In many cases like this, I would just like to see officers who use poor judgement like her find a new career and move on with their lives. Mistakes get made and we can't hang everyone out to dry for their mistakes, it is a dangerous job, after all. Her mistake removed a person who was loved by many from the planet, and that is a permanent patch of shittiness, putting her in jail won't change that at all. The question for me is whether there is malicious intent in these shootings, that's when people should be locked away. It certainly happens, and every case should be investigated to make sure that intent wasn't present.
I don't think there was any malicious intent, I think she was (overly) scared and made a split second mistake that proved fatal, it was only the one shot. It may even have been an accidental discharge, in my eyes.
I feel like releasing her photo may have swayed me on that account, sexist though it may be. She is a pretty woman and has what I would call a kind, or sweet face. She looks like a swell gal and it is hard to imagine she wanted that man to die at any point in the confrontation.
first, if malicious intent is your cutoff do you really think there have been many police shootings that are done with malicious intent? Secondly a positive that comes from charging her is it takes the review process out of the hands of the police themselves. that has always been an issue in these types of cases i think.
Yeah, I KNOW there are plenty of cops walking around with malicious intent, I have seen it with my own eyes. Cops with history of more minor abuses should be removed before they can encounter such dire situations. Like the cop that had "You're fucked" stamped on his service gun, some folks lamented his firing, but I see that as a serious warning sign of a temperament that is unfit for duty. The same with the NYC cop busted with the Aryan Nation tattoo.
To the second part, yeah, I would like to see it reversed, where that outside review process is applied to all instances of a firearm discharge, then charges to follow if necessary.
With any grouping you will have some bad actors. So you will have some awesome cops and some douches. It's unfortunate the douchebags are the ones in the spotlight
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
Thats the problem..one pulled a tazer and the other pulled a gun..one felt a tazer was enough...doesnt look good for the cop that pulled the gun
here's the thing. if a 2nd cop fired a tasered which means he felt at least somewhat threatened how can a jury honestly convict the officer in the killing? 2 different police officers felt threatened at the exact same moment, not just one. it seems like they charged this woman in a haste to quell the growing firestorm but sadly it will most likely lead to another firestorm if/when she is found not guilty.
Thats the problem..one pulled a tazer and the other pulled a gun..one felt a tazer was enough...doesnt look good for the cop that pulled the gun
Still why the shoot to kill mentality with cops??? They train hard and spend plenty of time at the gun ranges... So why not aim to stop and not immediately kill??? It's really not that hard to aim for a shoulder, hip, or knee, is it???
Whites who open carry are proud, second amendment loving freedom fighters. Blacks who open carry are terrifying and a threat to everyone's safety. </blockquote
If that's how the media portrays it and majority of society believes then it has to absolutely true, right???
So I sat up all night thinking about these shootings and really putting any bias i may have for whatever reason aside and just looked at it from a respect of life perspective.
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
Great stuff pjalive21. I really appreciate your honesty here and the fact you have given it a lot of thought. I agree that there has to be another way.
Whites who open carry are proud, second amendment loving freedom fighters. Blacks who open carry are terrifying and a threat to everyone's safety.
It's a theme I pick up on. Watch reactions and pay attention to what specific events the NRA puts their energy into.
You'd be surprised that not all NRA members are open carry, gun toting, hillbilly, shoot em up, cowboy, freedom fighter, USA anthem praising, God fearing crazy conservatives, as the stereotype might suggest. I'm not in the NRA , but know people who are and you would never have suspected... Just saying. But, yes. The commercials and interviews with the NRA leaders are ridiculous...
Whites who open carry are proud, second amendment loving freedom fighters. Blacks who open carry are terrifying and a threat to everyone's safety.
It's a theme I pick up on. Watch reactions and pay attention to what specific events the NRA puts their energy into.
You'd be surprised that not all NRA members are open carry, gun toting, hillbilly, shoot em up, cowboy, freedom fighter, USA anthem praising, God fearing crazy conservatives, as the stereotype might suggest. I'm not in the NRA , but know people who are and you would never have suspected... Just saying. But, yes. The commercials and interviews with the NRA leaders are ridiculous...
That doesn't surprise me because I know several. I'm talking more about cases the nra gets involved in, who they advocate for, and images and themes they use in their delivery. This also guides public response and attitudes with regard to motivations and reasons to have a gun.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Since when has just the appearance of a gun reason to shoot someone? I have to retract previous statements of mine saying the Charlotte shooting may have been justified hearing reports come out from what is on the tape. My point is this can police not deescalate a situation with the presence of a gun from what im hearing wasn't in the guys hands or even being pointed at them? I understand everyone wants to go home, including police, and I wasnt in that situation (nor any situation like that for the matter) but there has to be another way
www.headstonesband.com
I understand why black people might fear police and I understand why police might fear black people. It's a crappy situation and it doesn't appear to be getting better: there is no hope for some inner city youth and without hope... hostility and defiance grows within many.
Meaningful social programs might be the answer- I don't know for sure, but the status quo must change.
On the front (in the streets)... I anticipate a significant demand for law enforcement across the US in the coming years. I would hope that at least a few of the finger pointers around here might consider a career in the profession. Hell, they seem to talk as if they have ice running through their veins. I'd be curious to know if 2-3 years on the job might change their perspectives at all?
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer September 22 at 7:35 PM
If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal. You might think the National Rifle Association and its amen chorus would be outraged, but apparently they believe Second Amendment rights are for whites only.
In reaching that conclusion I am accepting, for the sake of argument, the account given by the Charlotte police of how they came to fatally shoot Keith Lamont Scott on Tuesday. Scott’s killing prompted two nights of violent protests that led North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) to declare a state of emergency. Last Friday, police in Tulsa shot and killed Terence Crutcher — an unarmed black man — and the two incidents gave tragic new impetus to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Scott’s relatives claim he was unarmed as well. But let’s assume that police are telling the truth and he had a handgun. What reason was there for officers to confront him?
North Carolina, after all, is an open-carry state. A citizen has the right to walk around armed if he or she chooses to do so. The mere fact that someone has a firearm is no reason for police to take action.
This is crazy, in my humble opinion. I believe that we should try to save some of the 30,000-plus lives lost each year to gun violence by enacting sensible firearms restrictions — and that the more people who walk around packing heat like Wild West desperados, the more deaths we will inevitably have to mourn. In its wisdom, however, the state of North Carolina disagrees.
Full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-america-gun-rights-are-for-whites-only/2016/09/22/3990d370-80f2-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html?utm_term=.5d367e0e3b5f
The irony is that the loudest advocates for open-carry are usually the folks who refuse to question the judgement of officers who shoot open carriers!
West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/12/west-virginia-cop-fired-for-not-killing-a-man-with-an-unloaded-gun/?utm_term=.7e540fc4793c
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Her mistake removed a person who was loved by many from the planet, and that is a permanent patch of shittiness, putting her in jail won't change that at all.
The question for me is whether there is malicious intent in these shootings, that's when people should be locked away. It certainly happens, and every case should be investigated to make sure that intent wasn't present.
I don't think there was any malicious intent, I think she was (overly) scared and made a split second mistake that proved fatal, it was only the one shot. It may even have been an accidental discharge, in my eyes.
I feel like releasing her photo may have swayed me on that account, sexist though it may be. She is a pretty woman and has what I would call a kind, or sweet face. She looks like a swell gal and it is hard to imagine she wanted that man to die at any point in the confrontation.
I got all philosophical on this last night having a few adult beverages after I laid my daughter down to bed and just wondered what her life was going to be like and the world she was going to be surrounded by as she grew older...kind of made me reevaluate everything I thought I knew
I would say pointing fingers towards who's to blame doesn't solve problems...
Of course neither does pointing guns...
To the second part, yeah, I would like to see it reversed, where that outside review process is applied to all instances of a firearm discharge, then charges to follow if necessary.
Hampton 2016