Police Shootings

You won't watch a five minute video but you will read a ten minute article. Got it.You also seem to be under the impression that news articles necessarily give credibility to something when its susceptible to a spin. The news articles reported that another pig brutally executed a black man for the crime of blackness... problem is the video, which I have provided but which you can't be bothered to view because it is just soooo laborious, wipes its ass with the articles false narrative. So if I provided you with an article, you would be under a false impression. You could find any arbitrary statistic to justify just about anything. We'll take it a step further based upon statistical analysis: the more people condensed into a single area, the greater the chance of violence. Conclusion: all major cities must be forced to dissolve for the sake of curbing violence.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Police should be armed; here are the reasons why. I made my argument, you made yours. Neither of us found the other compelling. If we can agree to disagree then at least we're in agreement about something. Progress. A little bit. But then Americans don't drink very much tea which may be bizarre to you. Its rare that an armed police officer has to confront a person with a gun, but I'd rather be ready that unready. I'm just pointing out that even in the absence of guns, deadly force still exists. A knife can kill you just as easily as a gun can. Yes, and I'm glad those options are available to handle a multitude of different scenarios.

The advantage of the gun over the knife is that allows for distance. But in terms of lethality, the knife is every bit as dangerous. Better than nothing at all, I suppose.

I would like to remind you that the DA's office went from Manslaughter to Murder. Proving manslaughter is much easier because its only elemental difference is recklessness. They changed the charge to murder... meaning they have sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant knowingly and/or intentionally killed Botham. They also know that once they go down that route and can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire criminal case is in jeopardy. They must know far more than we do to have the confidence in proceeding with the charge of murder while knowing that it could potentially affect the entirety of the case. Its not her fault??? Actually, yes, it is her fault... and even she admits that its her fault that she recklessly killed him. What she hasn't admitted is that she knowingly or intentionally killed him. In either case, yes, it is her fault. Very touching how you erase blame on the individual and lay it at the feet of the gun and culture itself. I guess we should probably let her go then... I mean, she did say she was sorry and, as you pointed out, this is actually the fault of American gun culture.She should be the defendant in this case, regardless of how you feel about guns and regardless of how you feel about policing in America. The rungs of culpability are as follows:1. Guyger, with malice aforethought and premeditation, did knowingly, intentionally, and savagely murder Botham Jean.2. Guyger, in the heat of passion, did knowingly and intentionally murder Botham... for which she may or may not feel remorse after the fact, but is ultimately moot.3. Guyger did recklessly discharge her firearm which caused the death of an innocent man in his residence.In any one of those instances (and it is 100% going to be one of the three) Amber Guyger is at fault. Not gun culture. Not American policing. Amber Guyger. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typo

You don't think any police should have guns and continue to make that the sole feature in any of your rants, so when do any details more than that mean anything? The details are always overshadowed by the gun... Nice work. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

At first I thought you were trolling, but I'm starting to lean towards a genuine delusion on your part. You live in a land of make believe with this kind of naivet.Cops don't need guns to issue traffic tickets, as it were. But traffic stops are among the most dangerous instances where violence is leveled against them. I'm sure in your mind you believe cops are ninjas and can either dodge or outrun bullets, but they can't. Nobody can. Not even a ninja, a Navy Seal, the fastest or most agile human that has ever lived, nor even the fastest animal that has ever lived can do that. Even if they could, police aren't equipped with armored vehicles that withstand even a .22 round, let alone a larger caliber round. But even if they could, do these magical, specialized units have godlike, omnipresent abilities where they can just kind of be everywhere simultaneously at the exact moment they're needed most? Because that's more or less how you've imagined this perfect, foolproof plan in your mind when it is in reality it so far removed from practicability that its laughable.By the way SWAT officers only show up an hour after patrol officers (with guns) have contained a scene where there is 1. subject(s) that are armed and 2. are barricaded.If that wasn't enough, you then said police could have guns in their vehicle, which everyone will now know to be the precedent... just wait for the cop to get up to your vehicle so that (s)he is now away from their weapon. A weapon that is not readily accessible is no weapon at all.Cops don't need guns to issue citations, they need guns to be able to adequately defend themselves in instances where someone chooses to try to kill them or someone else. Those instances can literally happen at any given time. Do British police officers need a baton to write traffic citations? Or do they carry them to defend themselves against aggressors? Maybe they should leave them in the car because they don't need them during traffic stops.Furthermore, police officers handle a very wide variety of calls. You associate police with doing little else than running traffic because that's what you happen to see, but in reality they handle a diverse and wide array of calls for service that you don't see... and perhaps if you did see what they actually do from day to day you might have a more forgiving appreciation for why standard practices are standard. If it makes no sense, its because your nonsensical hypotheticals don't make sense. Name a single time where a police officer gunned down someone for speeding. Never happened. Here's how it actually goes: Officer initiates a traffic stop after having observed a traffic infraction -- driver or some passenger gets pissed off and makes furtive or overt movements that (s)he is trying to kill the officer. Officer responds to what has been presented to them. That's extremely disingenuous and is not the same as getting shot for speeding.You're taking the reason for the stop as being the same as the reason for an officer involved shooting.So, I would agree that it makes no sense... because you have no sense.

Nobody gets a death sentence for murder... the only time they're eligible for the death penalty is for a Capital murder. So your solution to racism is by adding more racism? 5-99 is what is lawfully proscribed in Texas for this level of offense. I think 25 years would have been more appropriate than 10. No wonder the black residents of Dallas' joy over a conviction was short-lived once they heard 10 years. Good departments institute training that uncovers both explicit and implicit biases, which everyone is susceptible to on some level. Lets take your own as a fine example. Your assumption is that White + Police = Racist. In fact, so much so that you would actually disqualify white people from becoming police officers on the sole basis of their race.If Amber Guyger had shot a white person in their own home, the fact that she is a police officer would have garnered some attention. It remains to be seen whether it would have garnered as much attention given the dynamic of white officer and innocent black resident.Seems like you're implying that she was only scared enough to shoot a black guy but wouldn't have been scared enough to shoot a white guy. You've deduced this based on some racist text messages. Was Amber Guyger a racist? Quite possibly. Was Botham Jean killed solely on account of his race? Maybe? I think the bigger problem is that somebody with Guyger's mentality should have never been able to be a police officer. But my even bigger problem is your assertion that if you're white and if you're a police officer that it 100% certifies you as a racist... so much so that it should disqualify you from the profession. That is both remarkable and ironic.

If you're going to make a declaration as poignant as police officers everywhere target "brown and black people," then you should probably have all of the facts.Fact 1: The decedent was a murder suspect whom they have been looking for extensively.Fact 2: They located the subject and initiated a felony traffic stop. The suspect first complied and when he was within about two feet from a cop he then decides it would be an awesome time to run away.Fact 3: The fleeing murder suspect is seen reaching towards his waistband numerous times.Fact 4: The fleeing murder suspect who's reaching in his waistband jumps a fence.... of a preschool... and is now heading straight for it.Fact 5: Police officer takes a single shot that strikes the suspect in the back of the head, killing him.Reviews of the officer's action claim that the shooting is justified.My own take away is that if I was that officer, I almost certainly would not have taken that shot... I don't think anyone would argue the fact that it doesn't look good. The question is what is lawful and was it the most prudent way to handle it?In terms of the legality, it was lawful. Because of the facts outlined (facts that were so curiously omitted when describing the execution of brown and black people everywhere) qualifies the event as a fleeing felon. If the officer can articulate that the general public is in danger of a known and dangerous felon, shooting them is permissive under such circumstances. Would I have pulled the trigger at the instance that officer did? No, I wouldn't have. Is it legal? Yes it is.

I aim to please. I'm glad I was able to exceed your expectations. Thank you for clarifying exactly what I said -- that you are under the fucktarded belief that police officers intentionally and savagely execute brown and black people for the sake of their brownness and blackness. Facts taken in conjunction matter.... which is why I outlined them step by step, so that when conjoined it paints the clearest picture possible. You just didn't know any of those facts because you were too busy jacking off to a liberal rag that mangled the facts to know any different. So what you're left with is more misguided notions about how and why he died. That's right, running away from the cops alone is not a capital offense. However, facts conjoined together change the dynamic: Being wanted for murder, while grabbing your waistband, while fleeing from police, while jumping the fence to a preschool constitutes the fleeing felon defense. They should have a gun pulled on them at the very least. And if you don't know why, there's about a hundred videos online that explains why. Have the balls to at least back up your bullshit. You made the assertion that this kid was shot because he was brown. You painted the bleakest picture possible without offering any context. You dishonestly offered: 16 year old, brown, shot in the back while running away. I'm sorry, what else is left to deduce? You opened the door, all I did was walk in. Then why post it at all? Its done. It was investigated and cleared. You obviously are under the belief that the pretense was premeditated murder of a brown kid. So defend it.

Percy lists lawsuits from different departments, making the insinuation that 1. all police officers are cut from the same cloth and have no agency, and, 2. that paying out a settlement is de facto evidence of guilt.Paying out a settlement is often the cheaper route than fighting it open court. Happens all the time, especially in civil trials.What is your purpose in taking different cases with completely different circumstances?

You may be somewhat pleased to know that I am aware of this incident and that, much like the Amber Guyger case, that I find the actions of the officer to be indefensible. He found an open door and obviously assumed some kind of burglary scenario. While being cautious that this could been the case, he should not have assumed it was necessarily the case. Most departments would have at least two officers in the front and one in the back to ensure no one fleeing from the back. Its protocol that you LOUDLY announce yourself and your intentions. Why? If you get killed by a homeowner without making an announcement, they can legally justify killing a police officer. And why shouldn't they under such a scenario?Because all homeowners, including Atatiana, have the inherent right to defend their home with physical force if necessary. Atatiana clearly saw their flashlights and she too assumed a burglary scenario. She retrieves her gun, which she is well within her rights to do as an American to defend her castle.Had police made the LOUD announcement: "Such-and-such Police Department, make your presence known!!!" This tells the occupants, I am the police, I am on guard, do not attack me. If you attack, I will assume you are not the homeowner but an intruder. In defense of myself and the lawful occupants of this home, I will use force against you.Well, this cop skipped all of that... he saw someone with a gun and shot without ever stopping to think that it might be the homeowner. He said she pointed the weapon at him. Maybe she did, but then you were the one lurking around in her backyard, yeah??? It was dark outside, while well-lit inside of her house. The chance that she could see you was almost nil.So, it was a bad shoot and he needs to pay the piper. Atatiana deserves justice and while I'm sure the officer did not want this outcome, his actions manufactured the outcome. And for that he needs to pay for that outcome. If you look at the ODMP website that chronicles every police death, gunfire leads the method year after year.2019 (thus far): 39
2018: 52
2017: 45
2016: 64
2015: 41
2014: 49
2013: 34
2012: 48
2011: 68
2010: 59I went back all the way to 1987 and gave up trying to find a single year that gunfire wasn't the highest method of killing police officers. The 80's and 90's were particularly bad with an average of about 75 annually. This is just instances where an officer died as a result... it doesn't even go into instances where they were shot at or were shot and survived. Extrapolating, shootings period are obviously much, much higher. You can therefore see that a police officer has substantial reason to be cautious and why they should be armed and are armed.You might argue, okay, fine, whatever, this actually summarizes why guns should be made illegal. We can make that argument. But lets agree that if anyone is being disarmed, then police should be the last to be disarmed. Then nobody should drive cars either if your looking to net .000001% results. That's a ridiculous standard. Do you use the same metrics for deaths at the hands of medical errors?Medical errors are one of the HIGHEST methods of all deaths in the nation when comparing ALL deaths annually. Thousands upon thousands annually. Way under the amount of all police shootings and seriously under unjustified police shootings. Where's your consternation? Where's the moral outrage?

Just a bit of irony given Theo's flair for the dramatic. So then, again, the implication is that police on the whole are racist and that brown and black people on the whole are better served by fleeing police whenever they see them. Somehow I got that wrong? Sorry, but you know good and goddamn well I didn't. You cannot initiate a felony car stop, which can be seen on camera, nor can you temporally deprive people of their civil liberties to ask them questions. Leaving a cornered, desperate and potentially-armed murder suspect to grab a kid in exchange for his own freedom is also dangerous. So my saying that the constant invocation of racism by others is itself racist? Fascinating bit of logic. Lets try this: who believes this kid was shot because he was of Mexican-descent and no other reason? If you are brown or black you have every incentive to run from the police. That's what Theo said. If he doesn't want to defend poisonous nonsense then perhaps he ought not say it. A white guy suspected of homicide, while fleeing from police, while reaching towards his waistband, while entering the grounds of a daycare can also expect the same result. You also forget that the media itself has the bias in the stories they choose to cover. Race topics, endless racially-motivated topics sell clicks, they sell airtime, and they get people watching. All of that converts into cash. We could have identical stories where the officer and the suspect are the same race and we wouldn't hear about it.You, Theo, and many others seem to revel in a world of racism. Nothing happens by chance anymore. It can't just be the kid happened to be Hispanic. The implication is its ONLY because he's Hispanic that he's now dead. Give me a break. Fresno is HALF Hispanic!!! And the police activity in Fresno represents that, proportionately.

You have repeatedly stated that you find it acceptable and preferable to have a highly trained police unit tasked with dealing with instances of this magnitude while having the majority of the police force disarmed. Now you literally get exactly what you asked for but still have a problem with it. Color me shocked. LOL, when??? Who had time to do any of that between random and incredibly brave civilians diving on a knife-wielding man who, only during the tussle, was it revealed had what appeared to be a suicide vest? The police had just arrived at that point. I suppose the man would have just sat quietly as police shut down the bridge awaiting the bomb squad's arrival. You're right, they should have taken him before the judge before using force because he hadn't been convicted of anything yet. There's a reason why the call it "probable cause".... because its probable. So, the guy butchering people wasn't a murderer... the police are the murderers. This guy did everything in his power to manufacture the outcome he received -- an outcome that by all accounts was justifiable given the circumstances that presented themselves. So lets flip it and say the suicide vest was real, he detonates it, killing all of the officers and the civilians on the bridge. Then the police are criticized for not taking decisive and appropriate action by stopping the threat when time permitted. Do you see how this is so often a zero sum game for cops? No matter what you do you're scum pig. What do you mean they didn't know that? Who and what do you think they were responding to? Lets be clear... they didn't kill on the spot because he was suspected of murder. He was killed because they saw a suicide vest on. That it would still be justified. You don't kill someone because they have killed, you kill someone because they have the opportunity and means to kill again. This isn't the first time someone intentionally designed a vest to look like an operational suicide vest. Doesn't matter. He wanted the police to believe it was a legitimate suicide vest and now he got the outcome he was looking for. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Are you done with me on this thread or done with me period? I can always leave the forum if my presence is not welcome. Just say the word and I'll fall on my sword.Before that happens, perhaps you can tell me what I'm saying that's so different from what everyone else is. If I'm arguing through misrepresentation then isn't everyone else? Thus far their arguments seem very rational and reasonable.

How would his standing or lying alter whether or not a bomb would detonate? I don't know how it works in the UK, but I imagine that the rationale is similar if not exact to US methodology -- that the only reason to ever fire your weapon is only if there is a deadly force situation. So if you shot with the intent to maim where there is no justifiable reason to assume a deadly force situation, you're committing a crime. That is what less lethal options are available for.In any event, based upon the way these officers were moving and shot placement they looked very well trained -- probably have cross-trained with the SAS, which tells me they have practiced similar scenario's hundreds of times.As I've said earlier, had the police done nothing substantial and it ended up being a real vest packed with explosives, many more people surely would have been killed. And then the police are placed in a situation where they had the ability to mitigate lives lost and failed to respond appropriately.From a purely utilitarian perspective, most would agree that the lesser of evils was acted upon that day.