Nothing really jumps out at me that screams this would no thappen to white people. Every black incident that is repeated, but it does. Shriver was unarmed. There have been several examples in 2 years, but I can;t recall any names because they get attention for like 2 minutes then its gone. The facts of this case was they (apparently) had good reason to believe they were armed. They fled at speeds over 110 mph. 137 shots does not seem excessive to me when there were a dozen vehicles and more than a dozen police involved in the shooting. You're going to get over 100 rounds fired with that many people involved. Do you expect for them to sit around and coordinate who shoots how many times?
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Nothing wrong? Fleeing at 110 mph is doing nothing wrong? I have no reason to believe the ramming accusations are false, but even if they are they were doing plenty wrong. Speeding through residential and school zones. Speeds exceeding 110 mph. Evading police. The police policy was changed to not pursue suspects in chases like this because they pose such a huge risk to the public. How is that doing nothing wrong?
Nothing really jumps out at me that screams this would no thappen to white people. Every black incident that is repeated, but it does. Shriver was unarmed. There have been several examples in 2 years, but I can;t recall any names because they get attention for like 2 minutes then its gone. The facts of this case was they (apparently) had good reason to believe they were armed. They fled at speeds over 110 mph. 137 shots does not seem excessive to me when there were a dozen vehicles and more than a dozen police involved in the shooting. You're going to get over 100 rounds fired with that many people involved. Do you expect for them to sit around and coordinate who shoots how many times?
Whatever helps you justify it as a reasonable response.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
I would argue that there is inherent bias throughout the criminal justice system, from policing, to arresting and charging, to jury selection and sentencing (rock versus powder cocaine). Check the YouTube video of the white guy walking down the street with a rifle slung over his shoulder and the cop's interaction when he rolls up versus the cop who rolls up on the black guy doing the same. Not a definitive study by any means but there are enough real life examples of how police respond to black perps versus white and statistics to bear out the inherent bias in the other aspects of the criminal justice system. I don't remember too many AMT posters posting the story from Cleveland and lamenting the brutality of the police. Your race makes a difference as to how your viewed and treated, by the police and posters on AMT.
I'm not sure about 'posters on AMT' (outside of a very small few).
I'd ask the question for you regarding the 'racist cop variety': are these cops inherently racist... or do they become racist as a result of doing their job?
Probably a mix of both. I'd be interested in knowing what degree of military training and seeing armed combat influences who shoots first and asks questions later.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." I dare you to color yourself black, if you're not already, and drive around that neighborhood in a car that backfires. Then post your experience. 60 cops can't arrest two individuals? Do the Cleveland Police suck that bad?
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." I dare you to color yourself black, if you're not already, and drive around that neighborhood in a car that backfires. Then post your experience. 60 cops can't arrest two individuals? Do the Cleveland Police suck that bad?
If you;re going to quote me don't slash my comment in half and take it out of context. I went from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "thought involved someone shooting at police." You conveniently left out that important "thought involved" which really made my two statement consistent. The number of police doesn't matter. If they thought these guys were armed and willing to shoot police, what difference does it make if there's 2 cops or 60 in terms of being able to fire back? If 60 cops are present how many have to die before they are allowed to protect themselves?
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Nothing wrong? Fleeing at 110 mph is doing nothing wrong? I have no reason to believe the ramming accusations are false, but even if they are they were doing plenty wrong. Speeding through residential and school zones. Speeds exceeding 110 mph. Evading police. The police policy was changed to not pursue suspects in chases like this because they pose such a huge risk to the public. How is that doing nothing wrong?
I could be mistaken, this case was a long time ago, but my memory is that they fled after they were fired upon.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Nothing wrong? Fleeing at 110 mph is doing nothing wrong? I have no reason to believe the ramming accusations are false, but even if they are they were doing plenty wrong. Speeding through residential and school zones. Speeds exceeding 110 mph. Evading police. The police policy was changed to not pursue suspects in chases like this because they pose such a huge risk to the public. How is that doing nothing wrong?
I could be mistaken, this case was a long time ago, but my memory is that they fled after they were fired upon.
I never heard of it, other than the article that was just linked. What I gathered was a cop thought he heard shots coming from the car. He went to investigate by pulling the car over and they immediately fled through residential and school streets and the highway at speeds 100 mph. It doesn't indicate that any shots were fired prior to the final scene. In fact, that is what one of the arguments is about, that the car came to a stop and cops opened fire. To me, if I thought I heard gun shots and they flee that that, that will only conform my suspicion so I can see why the cops thought they were armed and acted accordingly. We'll never know, but the cop probably would have just asked a few questions, maybe asked to search the car for a weapon,and when he found none sent them on their way. I've had my car searched more than once. No big deal. Once was because someone reported shots being fired in the area, so they pulled me over and asked to search my car. 2 minutes later when they found nothing they let me go. Now I could have decided to say "screw it" and fled at 110 mph, but how do you think that would have ended for me?
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
I like these suggestions. I especially like the idea that settlements come out of the pension fund. When someone's wallet is threatened, I think it dramatically changes their actions. If the general fund was threatened, peer pressure kicks in to protect it. Interesting concept.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
I like these suggestions. I especially like the idea that settlements come out of the pension fund. When someone's wallet is threatened, I think it dramatically changes their actions. If the general fund was threatened, peer pressure kicks in to protect it. Interesting concept.
The problem with that is you would have thousands of cops and their families lose their pension when it goes bankrupt over 1 bad cop, Then they have no means of income, then what? You cant punish thousands of innocent people for 1 bad thing someone does. If the cop is found guilty of a criminal act, then yeah, take it from his pension, but not the general fund,
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." I dare you to color yourself black, if you're not already, and drive around that neighborhood in a car that backfires. Then post your experience. 60 cops can't arrest two individuals? Do the Cleveland Police suck that bad?
This post tends to reflect little awareness for police work. There wasn't a 'great big convoy ain't she a beautiful sight' all en masse following the guys that were racing away at 110mph to elude police.
This was in all likelihood a coordination of several vehicles at various points to keep the subjects in sight and maintain the procedure of apprehending them. At the encounter the last vehicles to be coordinated in the event came to the scene.
* Now if there was a 'great big convoy ain't she a beautiful sight' all following these idiots like the gumball rally... I concede.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
Please explain to me how you open your argument with the first bolded section and conclude it with the second bolded section. And how does that differ from how I quoted you? Is the "out of context" part the difference between your bolded statements or in what happened between "heard" and "shooting at police?"
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
I like these suggestions. I especially like the idea that settlements come out of the pension fund. When someone's wallet is threatened, I think it dramatically changes their actions. If the general fund was threatened, peer pressure kicks in to protect it. Interesting concept.
Here's the issue, right now these claims are settled with the insurance company. Premiums go up, taxes go up to pay for premiums.
If you change these claims to be settled out of the pension fund. Taxes still go up to pay for pensions.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
I like these suggestions. I especially like the idea that settlements come out of the pension fund. When someone's wallet is threatened, I think it dramatically changes their actions. If the general fund was threatened, peer pressure kicks in to protect it. Interesting concept.
Here's the issue, right now these claims are settled with the insurance company. Premiums go up, taxes go up to pay for premiums.
If you change these claims to be settled out of the pension fund. Taxes still go up to pay for pensions.
Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I'm just looking for creative ideas to have cops better police themselves. To exert peer pressure on each other to do the right thing, rather than have cops be protected by the blue code of silence. If cops had a personal stake in the game, they would care more about what other cops were doing and be less inclined to bury things behind the blue shield. They'd see unstable/rogue/racist cops as personal liabilities rather than someone else's problem.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Are you seriously suggesting your police force should be armed with a billy club and some pepper spray? Don't you think that places them at a disadvantage? .
Yes, that is what I am saying, maybe a taser. As I have been informed by the 2A crowd, police are only there to clean up the mess after the damage has been already done. Otherwise, police have proven themselves trigger happy at the drop of a hat. The police have been militarized and we are the enemy.
... the country initiated and supported sweeping gun reform to safeguard their country a few decades back and now they are reaping the benefits for doing so (you guys still need to evolve to such a state of mind).
won't get any arguments from me there.
Geez, I almost completely agree.
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
I like these suggestions. I especially like the idea that settlements come out of the pension fund. When someone's wallet is threatened, I think it dramatically changes their actions. If the general fund was threatened, peer pressure kicks in to protect it. Interesting concept.
The problem with that is you would have thousands of cops and their families lose their pension when it goes bankrupt over 1 bad cop, Then they have no means of income, then what? You cant punish thousands of innocent people for 1 bad thing someone does. If the cop is found guilty of a criminal act, then yeah, take it from his pension, but not the general fund,
Yeah, I don't want to bankrupt good cops. I just want good cops to be more motivated to do the right thing and speak up. Impact to the wallet tends to be a good motivator, which is why I thought this was an interesting idea. But I can see how it could ultimately punish the wrong cops.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
Please explain to me how you open your argument with the first bolded section and conclude it with the second bolded section. And how does that differ from how I quoted you? Is the "out of context" part the difference between your bolded statements or in what happened between "heard" and "shooting at police?"
It was out of context because you quoted me as saying and criticized it as me going from "thought they heard gunshots" to "shooting at cops." I never made that leap from an assumption to a fact, but you made that leap for me.
I neveer said police did everything correctly. I just don;t agree with the statement that this would have ended differently if they were white. If you have 15 cops who all feel threatened, and they each fir 8 or 9 rounds, you can get to your 137 shots fired. And with the exception of 1 cop, that sounds like it is the case. It is completely acceptable to fire 8-10 rounds to eliminate what you perceive to be a threat, and everyone else has that right to. 1 cop fired 40-something rounds, but from what I gathered it sounds like most from a distance, only 15 close up at two different targets. Again, if you are under the impression they are armed and willing to kill, completely acceptable. If it comes out that the police version is wrong then that is a completely different story. But from the facts and information available there is no reason to believe these people were shot due to racial bias.
If I'm reading this graph correctly... of 926 shootings so far this year:
440 victims were white... I says 'pardon'? 543 victims had a gun (149 had a knife)... potentially threats to the responding officers.
Why the “pardon?” Does that surprise you given that whites make up 76% of the population?
No, it doesn't surprise me. Let's be honest... the running MT narrative is that the nation's police force had gone rogue and is executing black people during encounters that go slightly awry.
It's still slightly disproportionate (76% of the population accounting for roughly 55% of the killings) don't exactly support the aforementioned belief set.
That graph only tells a portion of the story. For example, link in all the other variables such as socioeconomics and how that relates to race... and how that lends itself to criminal activities.
Don't get me wrong... I believe there is an element of racial bias within policie departments. I just don't think it's on the scale many would like me to believe.
Do you think this would have happened had the perps been white?
Probably. According to that article they tried to ram police. And the chase started because they thought they heard shots coming from the car, so they assumed they were armed. The fact that they not only fled when they tried to investigate, but also tried to kill police in the process only made them further believe they were armed and dangerous. What was it about color that made them shoot in this case? A white dude tries to kill police he's likely to get shot too. Not to mention fleeing at speeds of 110 mph. Not every case of a black person who gets killed while trying to kill police is the result of racists cops.
"Tried to ram" is a trigger phrase used to justify force, it's often shown to be bullshit.
Well when you flea at 110 mph, you lose all benefit of the doubt in my mind.
And I'm sure you wouldn't flee when you did nothing wrong and you were being shot at. I'm sure you would sit tight and save that benefit of doubt for the cops trying to kill you for no reason.
Wow.
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I'm with Thirty on this. I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted. But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others. The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
Please explain to me how you open your argument with the first bolded section and conclude it with the second bolded section. And how does that differ from how I quoted you? Is the "out of context" part the difference between your bolded statements or in what happened between "heard" and "shooting at police?"
It was out of context because you quoted me as saying and criticized it as me going from "thought they heard gunshots" to "shooting at cops." I never made that leap from an assumption to a fact, but you made that leap for me.
I neveer said police did everything correctly. I just don;t agree with the statement that this would have ended differently if they were white. If you have 15 cops who all feel threatened, and they each fir 8 or 9 rounds, you can get to your 137 shots fired. And with the exception of 1 cop, that sounds like it is the case. It is completely acceptable to fire 8-10 rounds to eliminate what you perceive to be a threat, and everyone else has that right to. 1 cop fired 40-something rounds, but from what I gathered it sounds like most from a distance, only 15 close up at two different targets. Again, if you are under the impression they are armed and willing to kill, completely acceptable. If it comes out that the police version is wrong then that is a completely different story. But from the facts and information available there is no reason to believe these people were shot due to racial bias.
Did you not type those words? What other conclusion can I draw? Why the second bolded part if you only meant the first and vice versa? You started out by stating, "It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car." You didn't say, "It all started because a cop thought he was being shot at from the car," but thats what you insinuate with the second bolded part. Its like you're mincing your words to justify the unjustifiable. The car chase, speeding through a school zone, fleeing from the cops, all should result in death, no trial by jury, no legal defense. 137 shots at a car that's boxed in and there's at least 60 cops with guns drawn surrounding them. Think maybe they could have waited them out? I'd still argue that if the perps were white, they would have.
yes I typed those words. I have a hard time believing you don't know what taking something out of context is, but I'll explain it anyway since you pretend to have accurately quoted me. You intentionally omitted other words in the same sentence that drastically changed the meaning from what you quoted. That is taking something out of context. that is no different than me quoting you above and saying well you wrote "speeding through a school zone, fleeing from cops all should result in death" and then criticizing you for your beliefs. Did you type those words? Yes you did. Wouldn't it be accurate to claim that Ian what you believe? See the difference there? Just because I can quote you on something doesn't mean anything without the entire quote. i hope we can at least agree on what is taking something's out of context now.
yes I typed those words. I have a hard time believing you don't know what taking something out of context is, but I'll explain it anyway since you pretend to have accurately quoted me. You intentionally omitted other words in the same sentence that drastically changed the meaning from what you quoted. That is taking something out of context. that is no different than me quoting you above and saying well you wrote "speeding through a school zone, fleeing from cops all should result in death" and then criticizing you for your beliefs. Did you type those words? Yes you did. Wouldn't it be accurate to claim that Ian what you believe? See the difference there? Just because I can quote you on something doesn't mean anything without the entire quote. i hope we can at least agree on what is taking something's out of context now.
yes I typed those words. I have a hard time believing you don't know what taking something out of context is, but I'll explain it anyway since you pretend to have accurately quoted me. You intentionally omitted other words in the same sentence that drastically changed the meaning from what you quoted. That is taking something out of context. that is no different than me quoting you above and saying well you wrote "speeding through a school zone, fleeing from cops all should result in death" and then criticizing you for your beliefs. Did you type those words? Yes you did. Wouldn't it be accurate to claim that Ian what you believe? See the difference there? Just because I can quote you on something doesn't mean anything without the entire quote. i hope we can at least agree on what is taking something's out of context now.
Ever hear of paraphrasing?
I have, yes. Quoting my line of "a cop thought he heard gun shots" and "they thought involved someone shooting at police." to your quote of "You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." "
That isn't paraphrasing. That is intentionally taking something out of context, omitting essentially parts of the sentence and accusing me of contradicting myself. You accused me of stating they shot at police, which they never did and I never said happened. That isn't paraphrasing. When you paraphrase, you still get the facts correct, you just summarize them. Well...I guess you don't, but that's what everyone does. Your reluctance to admit you misquoted me and and intentionally twisted around what I said into something completely different even after being shown the original post several times and how you omitted key words to change the meaning of the sentence is almost impressive. I don;t know anyone else that stubborn, except maybe my dad.
yes I typed those words. I have a hard time believing you don't know what taking something out of context is, but I'll explain it anyway since you pretend to have accurately quoted me. You intentionally omitted other words in the same sentence that drastically changed the meaning from what you quoted. That is taking something out of context. that is no different than me quoting you above and saying well you wrote "speeding through a school zone, fleeing from cops all should result in death" and then criticizing you for your beliefs. Did you type those words? Yes you did. Wouldn't it be accurate to claim that Ian what you believe? See the difference there? Just because I can quote you on something doesn't mean anything without the entire quote. i hope we can at least agree on what is taking something's out of context now.
Ever hear of paraphrasing?
I have, yes. Quoting my line of "a cop thought he heard gun shots" and "they thought involved someone shooting at police." to your quote of "You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." "
That isn't paraphrasing. That is intentionally taking something out of context, omitting essentially parts of the sentence and accusing me of contradicting myself. You accused me of stating they shot at police, which they never did and I never said happened. That isn't paraphrasing. When you paraphrase, you still get the facts correct, you just summarize them. Well...I guess you don't, but that's what everyone does. Your reluctance to admit you misquoted me and and intentionally twisted around what I said into something completely different even after being shown the original post several times and how you omitted key words to change the meaning of the sentence is almost impressive. I don;t know anyone else that stubborn, except maybe my dad.
Re-read your full on sentences that I bolded and tell me how the context is different from my paraphrasing? You started with "heard" and finished with "shot at." which was it? Talk about twisting words and confusing the issue. Its like dealing with a two year old.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
It's not often when you can't decide whether to put a link in the Police Abuse thread, the Idiot thread, or the AMT Marijuana thread.
Allegedly these police officers got high on duty by eating edibles they confiscated from a dispensary. They apparently began to hallucinate, and one climbed a tree. The only thing they did right was to call fellow officers for backup. Now off work, with pay, while investigation ensues.
Anyone interested in giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's not often when you can't decide whether to put a link in the Police Abuse thread, the Idiot thread, or the AMT Marijuana thread.
Allegedly these police officers got high on duty by eating edibles they confiscated from a dispensary. They apparently began to hallucinate, and one climbed a tree. The only thing they did right was to call fellow officers for backup. Now off work, with pay, while investigation ensues.
Anyone interested in giving them the benefit of the doubt?
No, no benefit of the doubt. WIll probably be fired. But leave with pay is common practice in all fields. Typically they don't withhold pay until they are officially.formally fired, and that is after the investigation is complete. I see nothing wrong with that part of it.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I do. Suspend them. Don't give them a paid vacation, if they are found not guilty then give them backpay.
Comments
The facts of this case was they (apparently) had good reason to believe they were armed. They fled at speeds over 110 mph. 137 shots does not seem excessive to me when there were a dozen vehicles and more than a dozen police involved in the shooting. You're going to get over 100 rounds fired with that many people involved. Do you expect for them to sit around and coordinate who shoots how many times?
You're really stretching things to lend credibility to these guys. Are you saying they were unnecessarily detained? I might have to re-read, but didn't they also have a laundry list of priors that might have made the officers wary? And where did it say they fled to avoid the storm of bullets?
I understand you are of the mentality to just let them go, but I'm not.
* And Halifax... you asked me whether I thought that might have happened if they were white? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. What about these guys being 'black' made this a racially exclusive case?
I don't care if they are armed though. I would change two things, I'd stop letting them have "weapons of war" like you all enjoy saying and I would make wrongful death settlements come out of the shooter's pension fund. If the balance wasn't high enough then it would come out of the general pension fund. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if they knew they would have to pay.
A little accountability as it were.
Fleeing at 110 mph is doing nothing wrong?
I have no reason to believe the ramming accusations are false, but even if they are they were doing plenty wrong.
Speeding through residential and school zones. Speeds exceeding 110 mph. Evading police.
The police policy was changed to not pursue suspects in chases like this because they pose such a huge risk to the public. How is that doing nothing wrong?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I don;t think the police did a great job, which is why many were disciplined, including several demoted.
But there's no indication this is racially motivated.
It all started because a cop thought he heard gun shots coming from the car. When he tried to pull it over it speed away. To me, any doubts I had would be gone when the car would prefer a 110 mph chase over being pulled over. The completely thought these guys were armed, and at the speeds they were going they clearly had little or no care about the lives of others.
The article said 5 dozen cars were involved. So only 137 being fired seems like a small number given the amount of people involved in what they thought involved someone shooting at police. Change the color of the driver and I doubt much changes in this scenario.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I went from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "thought involved someone shooting at police." You conveniently left out that important "thought involved" which really made my two statement consistent.
The number of police doesn't matter. If they thought these guys were armed and willing to shoot police, what difference does it make if there's 2 cops or 60 in terms of being able to fire back? If 60 cops are present how many have to die before they are allowed to protect themselves?
What I gathered was a cop thought he heard shots coming from the car. He went to investigate by pulling the car over and they immediately fled through residential and school streets and the highway at speeds 100 mph. It doesn't indicate that any shots were fired prior to the final scene. In fact, that is what one of the arguments is about, that the car came to a stop and cops opened fire.
To me, if I thought I heard gun shots and they flee that that, that will only conform my suspicion so I can see why the cops thought they were armed and acted accordingly.
We'll never know, but the cop probably would have just asked a few questions, maybe asked to search the car for a weapon,and when he found none sent them on their way.
I've had my car searched more than once. No big deal.
Once was because someone reported shots being fired in the area, so they pulled me over and asked to search my car. 2 minutes later when they found nothing they let me go.
Now I could have decided to say "screw it" and fled at 110 mph, but how do you think that would have ended for me?
If the cop is found guilty of a criminal act, then yeah, take it from his pension, but not the general fund,
This was in all likelihood a coordination of several vehicles at various points to keep the subjects in sight and maintain the procedure of apprehending them. At the encounter the last vehicles to be coordinated in the event came to the scene.
* Now if there was a 'great big convoy ain't she a beautiful sight' all following these idiots like the gumball rally... I concede.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Here's the issue, right now these claims are settled with the insurance company. Premiums go up, taxes go up to pay for premiums.
If you change these claims to be settled out of the pension fund. Taxes still go up to pay for pensions.
Yeah, I don't want to bankrupt good cops. I just want good cops to be more motivated to do the right thing and speak up. Impact to the wallet tends to be a good motivator, which is why I thought this was an interesting idea. But I can see how it could ultimately punish the wrong cops.
I neveer said police did everything correctly. I just don;t agree with the statement that this would have ended differently if they were white. If you have 15 cops who all feel threatened, and they each fir 8 or 9 rounds, you can get to your 137 shots fired. And with the exception of 1 cop, that sounds like it is the case. It is completely acceptable to fire 8-10 rounds to eliminate what you perceive to be a threat, and everyone else has that right to.
1 cop fired 40-something rounds, but from what I gathered it sounds like most from a distance, only 15 close up at two different targets. Again, if you are under the impression they are armed and willing to kill, completely acceptable.
If it comes out that the police version is wrong then that is a completely different story. But from the facts and information available there is no reason to believe these people were shot due to racial bias.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
that is no different than me quoting you above and saying well you wrote "speeding through a school zone, fleeing from cops all should result in death" and then criticizing you for your beliefs. Did you type those words? Yes you did. Wouldn't it be accurate to claim that Ian what you believe? See the difference there? Just because I can quote you on something doesn't mean anything without the entire quote.
i hope we can at least agree on what is taking something's out of context now.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Quoting my line of "a cop thought he heard gun shots" and "they thought involved someone shooting at police." to your quote of
"You go from "thought they heard gun shots fired" to "shooting at police." "
That isn't paraphrasing. That is intentionally taking something out of context, omitting essentially parts of the sentence and accusing me of contradicting myself. You accused me of stating they shot at police, which they never did and I never said happened. That isn't paraphrasing. When you paraphrase, you still get the facts correct, you just summarize them.
Well...I guess you don't, but that's what everyone does.
Your reluctance to admit you misquoted me and and intentionally twisted around what I said into something completely different even after being shown the original post several times and how you omitted key words to change the meaning of the sentence is almost impressive. I don;t know anyone else that stubborn, except maybe my dad.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Allegedly these police officers got high on duty by eating edibles they confiscated from a dispensary. They apparently began to hallucinate, and one climbed a tree. The only thing they did right was to call fellow officers for backup. Now off work, with pay, while investigation ensues.
Anyone interested in giving them the benefit of the doubt?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/29/toronto-police-officers-call-for-backup-after-reportedly-getting-high-on-edibles_a_23347190/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/baltimore-gun-trace-task-force-abuses/551663/
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But leave with pay is common practice in all fields. Typically they don't withhold pay until they are officially.formally fired, and that is after the investigation is complete. I see nothing wrong with that part of it.