Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:12 PM
42 online now:
Diomedes, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,554 Year: 3,591/19,786 Month: 586/1,087 Week: 176/212 Day: 18/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 196 of 211 (849100)
02-24-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 10:31 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyroglyphx writes:

Police murder the person being wellness-checked, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed, and your defense is that it's not because of the possibility of serious misconduct but that we're overly litigious? Seriously? Again, you're not even trying. You're not thinking, just typing.

I told you when that story broke that I wouldn't speak to details that are unknown to me and said that, in general, if you reach or point a weapon at an officer that its pretty cut and dry as to what the ramifications can be.

You're working hard at maintaining ignorance. Again: NEW INFORMATION: Witnesses, Police Provide Details into the Shooting Death of Actress Vanessa Marquez

But you mentioned that the family is now suing, as if to insinuate that it alone proves or disproves anything of evidentiary value when it doesn't. People sue the police, they sue the government, they sue corporations, they sue everyone. The act of pursuing a lawsuit is not in and of itself evidence of anything except our litigious nature.

I didn't insinuate anything. I predicted the family would win and be awarded $3 million. What's your prediction?

Here's a nifty quote from Family of actress Vanessa Marquez files $20 million wrongful death claim against South Pasadena that speaks for several issues we've been discussing:

quote:
The claim mentions that the names of officers involved in the shooting, their body cam footage, and coroner reports have been kept under wraps by city officials.

This ties into our discussion in these ways:

  • The South Pasadena Police Department is being secretive by not mentioning the names of any involved officers, by not releasing any body cam footing, and by not releasing the coroner reports.

  • This is closely related to the first point, but I mention it separately because it is so important: the South Pasadena Police Department has been sitting on this information for months.

  • There is body cam footage. This should be revealing, especially since Marquez is unable to testify. We'll get to see to what degree police reports agree with body cam footage.

How does this response even make sense? Six months ago my responses to your arguments were right before your very eyes and you ignored them. That's a fact. Deal with it.

We rehashed the same topic until it was dead, with neither side conceding a single point to the other. So what would you have us do? Go on for 10 more pages in the exact same vein endlessly? I'll disappear again and pop up a month or two from now. I don't have time or give that much of a shit to argue with anyone endlessly.

How does this explain how "Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago" even makes any sense?

Anyway, so now you're claiming discussion was at an impasse. That's incorrect, not to mention a cop out. You made one incorrect statement after another, then simply abandoned defending them and disappeared for six months.

I pretty much meant what I said and implied, that I would like you to behave as an honest debater, if that's not asking too much, and address responses to your arguments, or at least say that you have no response.

I have always been very open, honest, and candid about things I believe I have gotten wrong. I have apologized at times and have been very forthright in being introspective, have I not? .... especially when compared to some of the blowhards there are on this forum.

If you do say so yourself.

About blowhards at the forum, there isn't a lot of that these days. There is one guy who comes back at long intervals named Big_Al who's pretty much a blowhard. What you're doing isn't being a blowhard. You're raising false and/or spurious arguments, pretending they have merit, then abandoning discussion as if our arguments were equally meritorious and cancelled each other out.

Look, we get it, you like the police, you're police affiliated in some way that if you've made clear I don't happen to recall, and it feels to you like this group you feel close to is being unfairly attacked.

I look at it the same way I would if someone made a racial comment based upon a stereotype. It's not fair to make assumptions about people based upon their race alone. Well, I happen to think its not fair nor productive to make assumptions about cops based solely on their profession.

What a horribly chosen analogy, and what a mistaken characterization. There are no assumptions here. The police killed the subject of a wellness check. No assumptions necessary. It's not as bad as the babysitter murdering the baby, but it's pretty close.

I'll be the first one to throw a criminal cop under the bus...

If you want to argue that when things go wrong it's a bad cop then you're on your own. It's not an argument I'm making and not one I accept. Not that bad cops don't exist, but for the most part rank and file cops are just doing their job the best they can, and they could do it best without guns.

...but this festering mentality as of late that is incredibly hostile towards police in general is becoming dangerous dogma.

There is no hostility toward the police. My consistent stance has always been that firearms are far too dangerous to be entrusted to people, and police are people. Of course someone in enforcement has to be armed, and I've proposed that firearms only be entrusted to specially trained units.

But a large number of specific incidents have been entered into evidence in this thread, and they're all indefensible. Defending the indefensible is a losing battle every time. Murdering a 12-year old with a toy gun? Murdering someone who reports a rape? Murdering a person being wellness checked? You're defending these police murders - what is wrong with you?

When in the fuck have I ever "defended" ANY of those specific cases???

You're the one defending police use of guns, so when you accused me of hanging my entire thesis on the Marquez case I reminded you that the thread is full of cases and suggested we switch to the Tamir Rice case. Your response? Crickets. What am I supposed to think? If you want to offer no defense when your claims are shown false then that's your choice, but don't blame others for reading into it that you have no defense, and that your knee jerk response will always be one of a) the police are not at fault; b) it was a bad cop; c) all the facts aren't in yet.

The only case we discussed was the wellness check and you insisted on rushing to judgment. I said I don't have all the facts. You then provided some alleged facts. One of the facts that you alleged was that she pointed a gun at officers.

Based on the police account I said Marquez reached for a gun, not pointed a gun.

I said if that's true, then its pretty open and shut...

You said it was open and shut when she reached for a gun. Is that still your opinion, or has your opinion changed and now it's only open and shut if she pointed a gun?

BUT, again, I don't know if any of those are facts, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.

You're so predictable. We know with full certainty that the police killed the subject of a wellness check. It doesn't get much more indefensible than that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 10:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 197 of 211 (849249)
03-01-2019 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
02-24-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
You're having trouble remembering again, because I have described police trying to maintain secrecy in this thread. There are many cases of police departments sitting on video evidence for months, in some cases not even admitting that it exists, and I've entered evidence of some of them into this thread. There's the blue wall of secrecy where police lie and cover for each other, and I've described some of those too.

I would never say that none of that has ever happened, because 100% it has happened. My contention is that you seem to think its the rule when I think its the exception.

Were you born yesterday? Portable video cameras became widely available in the 1970's (VHS and BetaMax), smart phones not until 2007 about 35 years later.

And those portable cameras were not designed with the intent to document police interactions, quite unlike the in-car camera which was ONLY designed to document police interactions. Seriously, are you gonna try to argue the point? What other reason do the police have to document their interactions if not separate fact from allegation?

And then, if that wasn't enough they implemented Body Worn Camera systems to document when the officer is out of the vehicle. Why do you suppose they exist and departments purchase them, which is incredibly expensive to maintain and support long-term? Because it keeps cops honest, it proves if the criminal did what they say (s)he did, and most importantly, prevents people like you that has fostered such a negative attitude towards law enforcement that your default judgment is one of constant suspicion.

And all of that is supported by data.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3

Who do you think wants all interactions with police taped more: the police or your average citizen.

My answer to that question: Who gives a fuck? Reason: Both sides benefit. It's irrelevant as to who you or I think benefits or desires it most... what's important is that it exists.

Nobody's complaining about cameras not rolling while police cars are parked in the compound or police officers are off duty. They're complaining about the audio being cut off or the camera being shut off at critical points during interactions and arrests.

Oh, cool, so when that happens .000000003% of the time, then go after them.

Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations.

Well, therein lies the problem... you think guns are bad on an inherent level, so go figure that you would think all police shootings are unjustified. Go figure, the guy who thinks cops shouldn't have guns, believes that most officer involved shootings are unjustified. As I said, the fact that these go to a Grand Jury and THEY decide, is part and parcel how all trials go.... if you don't like the outcome, then go talk to the jurors.

Let's introduce a new name: Daniel Hambrick. He was running away from Nashville police officer Andrew Delke when he was shot three times and killed. Delke was cleared of any wrongdoing: it was ruled a good kill. Subsequent events led to reconsideration, and Delke now faces a murder trial. The legal process is ongoing at this time, but regardless of the outcome there is still this unequivocal video (you only have to watch the first 30 seconds or so)

Oh, so, in other words it's likely to go to a Grand Jury who, based on the evidence, will either acquit or convict the officer? You mean, like that?

my objection is very simple: rank and file police with guns are a menace because they too often injure or kill people. It's not hard to understand.

Yeah, what for, eh?

You're repeating your mistake over and over again in one post after another, denigrating auditors without evidence. Again, it is time (way past time) for you to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors. How do you know that mostly their goal is to instigate confrontations? I think you've been taken in by the stuff you're reading on the Internet.

There's literally hundreds upon hundreds of them. I've watched countless hours of them and some of them are good and some of them are awful.

But let's say you're absolutely right. Let's say the First Amendment Auditors are trying to manufacture an outcome, that they're trying to instigate an inappropriate police response. What does it say about our police if instigating inappropriate police responses only requires taking video? What kind of inappropriate police response might wearing a hoodie on a hot day instigate? And God forbid don't try to pull out a cell phone, we all know they're indistinguishable from guns.

I'm not defending the cops that are stupid enough to get baited in by that bullshit. I said many of the auditors instigate confrontations and its not just cops... mailmen, private security, fast food workers, corporation headquarters, Scientologists, etc....


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 02-24-2019 2:09 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 03-02-2019 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 198 of 211 (849259)
03-02-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2019 10:15 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:

Hyroglyphx writes:

You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify.

You're having trouble remembering again, because I have described police trying to maintain secrecy in this thread. There are many cases of police departments sitting on video evidence for months, in some cases not even admitting that it exists, and I've entered evidence of some of them into this thread. There's the blue wall of secrecy where police lie and cover for each other, and I've described some of those too.

I would never say that none of that has ever happened, because 100% it has happened.

First you say I "have yet to qualify" my claims of police secrecy (implying it doesn't happen), then you say "I would never say that...because 100% it has happened." You have to make up your mind. Right now you're making no sense by ping-ponging between the opposite viewpoints of (paraphrasing) "it doesn't happen" and "I of course acknowledge it happens."

My contention is that you seem to think its the rule when I think it's the exception.

Police abuse of power and authority is rampant. Until recently New York City was a shining example of abuse with their "stop and frisk" policy. DC is still doing it. Secrecy is all part of the mix. The police don't want transparency in how they perform their jobs.

Were you born yesterday? Portable video cameras became widely available in the 1970's (VHS and BetaMax), smart phones not until 2007 about 35 years later.

And those portable cameras were not designed with the intent to document police interactions, quite unlike the in-car camera which was ONLY designed to document police interactions. Seriously, are you gonna try to argue the point?

You're not responding to what I said. I was responding to what you said, and I quoted what you said. Here it is again: "If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them."

The answer is what I already said and that you seem to be ignoring. There have been in-car cameras far longer than smart phones because THEY WERE INVENTED 35 YEARS BEFORE SMART PHONES. Sorry to shout, but you seem to be having trouble grasping a trivially simple point. Your claim of in-car cameras being around far longer than smart phones has absolutely nothing do with their "evidentiary value" and that "departments want them." It has to do with when they were invented.

What other reason do the police have to document their interactions if not to separate fact from allegation?

Looked at from above through rose-colored glasses this is of course the justification, but once police turn the video on it captures all of reality, not just the parts that back up the police. Video is proving to a major embarrassment to police forces all across the country as it capture one police misbehavior after another.

And then, if that wasn't enough they implemented Body Worn Camera systems to document when the officer is out of the vehicle. Why do you suppose they exist and departments purchase them, which is incredibly expensive to maintain and support long-term? Because it keeps cops honest,...

Except it doesn't keep cops honest. Seriously, do you ever vet anything you say, or does it all come off the top of your head. Try this headline: Body Cameras Have Little Effect on Police Behavior, Study Says. Or how about Do body cameras affect police officers’ behavior? Not so much:

quote:
The study, which involved about 2,200 officers, found that the cameras did not change officer behavior, casting doubt on the devices’ ability to prevent abuse.

Or how about Why Don't Police Body Cameras Work Like We Expected?:

quote:
Police-worn body cameras do not reduce the instances of police use of force. Nor do they reduce citizen complaints about excessive force.

More research is needed, but it does seem safe to say that video documentation shows police in the wrong far more often than they ever expected, and for this reason police enthusiasm for them is waning, particularly since they also incur significant overhead of about $1000 per officer, more in smaller jurisdictions where there are no economies of scale.

...it proves if the criminal did what they say (s)he did, and most importantly, prevents people like you that has fostered such a negative attitude towards law enforcement that your default judgment is one of constant suspicion.

It also frequently proves that the police did what they tried to hide they did.

My "default judgment" is not "constant suspicion." It is prudence. When a gun enters the vicinity I exit the vicinity, including an armed policeman. Guns are not safe, no matter whose hands they're in. I see no reason to trust an armed policeman to safely employ his firearm. I refer you back just a couple posts to the incident where five bystanders at a bus stop were injured when police tried to arrest an armed robbery suspect. It should come as no surprise that even though this happened two weeks ago we still have no information about whether the bystanders were injured by police or by the suspect. Do you really think they don't know by now? Do you really believe that if the bystanders had been shot by the suspect that the information wouldn't have already been released? More police secrecy protecting their own. Someone's going to have to get a court injunction before the police start releasing information. Typical.

And all of that is supported by data.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3

That's a 2014 study with flaws because officers were each day randomly assigned cameras or not. The just released study I mentioned above fixes this flaw and the results contradict the earlier study. When officers wear cameras every day they become accustomed to them in a short time and revert to normal behavior.

Who do you think wants all interactions with police taped more: the police or your average citizen.

My answer to that question: Who gives a fuck? Reason: Both sides benefit. It's irrelevant as to who you or I think benefits or desires it most... what's important is that it exists.

If who benefits the most is a "who gives a fuck" question, then why did you spend so much time claiming the police had the most to benefit?

Nobody's complaining about cameras not rolling while police cars are parked in the compound or police officers are off duty. They're complaining about the audio being cut off or the camera being shut off at critical points during interactions and arrests.

Oh, cool, so when that happens .000000003% of the time, then go after them.

Your figure is made up. You never seem able to bring real data into the discussion. I never mentioned any figure, but however often it happens it turns up in story after story that the video or audio was off during crucial points.

Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations.

Well, therein lies the problem... you think guns are bad on an inherent level, so go figure that you would think all police shootings are unjustified.

You continue to be unable to respond to what I actually say. You instead make up things I didn't say and then respond to that. You do this so frequently that I'm going to have to call you a liar. I never said all police shootings are unjustified. What I said was that the police rule almost all police shootings justified, which is absurd on its face and obviously can't be true. And when there's video it turns out it's not true a lot of the time. That's why rank-and-file police should not have guns.

Go figure, the guy who thinks cops shouldn't have guns, believes that most officer involved shootings are unjustified.

You are repeating a lie. Again, I never said that. If the only way you can win an argument is to make up what the other guy said then you may as well give up in a forum such as this, because what I actually said is right there in my posts.

As I said, the fact that these go to a Grand Jury and THEY decide, is part and parcel how all trials go.... if you don't like the outcome, then go talk to the jurors.

You're talking nonsense. Rulings concerning whether a police shooting is justified don't come from grand juries. You're again making stuff up off the top of your head. Jurisdictional attorneys or review boards make the decisions about whether the shooting was justified, and only when they conclude it was unjustified would it go to a grand jury.

Let's introduce a new name: Daniel Hambrick. He was running away from Nashville police officer Andrew Delke when he was shot three times and killed. Delke was cleared of any wrongdoing: it was ruled a good kill. Subsequent events led to reconsideration, and Delke now faces a murder trial. The legal process is ongoing at this time, but regardless of the outcome there is still this unequivocal video (you only have to watch the first 30 seconds or so)

Oh, so, in other words it's likely to go to a Grand Jury who, based on the evidence, will either acquit or convict the officer? You mean, like that?

What is the matter with you? Just how ignorant of the law are you? Delke is facing a murder trial, so obviously it's already gone through the grand jury. What's actually relevant is that video was helpful in changing what was initially ruled a justifiable homicide into a charge of murder.

my objection is very simple: rank and file police with guns are a menace because they too often injure or kill people. It's not hard to understand.

Yeah, what for, eh?

How does that response even make any sense? And why did you post those YouTube videos as if they somehow contradict the fact that police too often injure or kill people. If you're just trying to say that there are times the police need guns then I agree with you. It's just that it shouldn't be rank and file police who have guns, only specially trained units.

You're repeating your mistake over and over again in one post after another, denigrating auditors without evidence. Again, it is time (way past time) for you to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors. How do you know that mostly their goal is to instigate confrontations? I think you've been taken in by the stuff you're reading on the Internet.

There's literally hundreds upon hundreds of them. I've watched countless hours of them and some of them are good and some of them are awful.

Makes sense. Bell shaped curve.

Is the bell shaped curve meaningful for you, or should I stop mentioning it and take another tack?

But let's say you're absolutely right. Let's say the First Amendment Auditors are trying to manufacture an outcome, that they're trying to instigate an inappropriate police response. What does it say about our police if instigating inappropriate police responses only requires taking video? What kind of inappropriate police response might wearing a hoodie on a hot day instigate? And God forbid don't try to pull out a cell phone, we all know they're indistinguishable from guns.

I'm not defending the cops that are stupid enough to get baited in by that bullshit.

And I'm not saying that cops are stupid at all. I'm saying that the vast majority of police lie under the huge belly of the bell shaped curve and are somewhere around average, which isn't good enough to be carrying a gun.

I said many of the auditors instigate confrontations and its not just cops... mailmen, private security, fast food workers, corporation headquarters, Scientologists, etc....

Yeah, okay, we get it, you don't like First Amendment Auditors. Not the topic.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2019 10:15 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2019 2:00 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 199 of 211 (849273)
03-02-2019 6:10 PM


More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
The police shooting that opened this thread (see Message 1) is back in the news: Sacramento police officers who fatally shot Stephon Clark will not be charged

On March 18 of last year Stephon Clark was breaking car windows. Two officers cornered him in his grandmother's backyard. The two officers then fired 20 shots at him when they observed him holding a cell phone that they thought was a gun. Clark was hit eight times, all but one in the back. The one shot in the front was thought to have occurred after he was already lying on the ground.

Both officers had body cams. When other officers arrived all hit mute. What were they talking about? Reports don't say.

Drivers who refuse a breathalyzer are automatically charged with DWI. Officers muting their body cams in the aftermath of a crime should also be automatically charged, perhaps with destruction of evidence.

Also, and of course, these officers should not have had guns. Anyone who is going to fire 10 or 20 shots in response to a glint of light off a cellphone shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a gun.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 03-03-2019 1:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 03-06-2019 7:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16231
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 200 of 211 (849282)
03-03-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
03-02-2019 6:10 PM


Percy writes:

Anyone who is going to fire 10 or 20 shots in response to a glint of light off a cellphone shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a gun.


Not to mention that anybody who only hits a human-sized target 8 out of twenty times shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a gun.

In another city near where I live, a few years ago there was a "shootout" in which two police officers and one suspect apparently fired one shot each. Only one of the bullets hit its target, the suspect, non-fatally. My first thought was, "What a waste of two bullets". My second thought was that the officer whose bullet did find the target needs a refresher course on the gun range.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 03-02-2019 6:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 201 of 211 (849328)
03-06-2019 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Percy
03-02-2019 6:10 PM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
Rolling Stone has an article that contains a little more information about how it was decided not to charge the officers in the Stephon Clark shooting. It says that the district attorney, Anne Marie Schubert, implied that Clark was suicidal that day, making "suicide by cop" an element in absolving the two officers.

Rolling Stone also writes about other ways Schubert may have been influenced:

quote:
The district attorney’s decision was the result of an unjust process: Cops investigate other cops, then a prosecutor — who works with those cops all the time on cases — relies upon their judgment. This one also relied upon their cash: Schubert took in $13,000 in campaign donations from law enforcement last March less than a week after Clark was shot. No matter how many outside experts she lined up to bolster her decision, the D.A.’s Sunday announcement not to prosecute the officers with murder or another related crime was injury enough. This is a Sacramento community that has seen the newly re-elected Schubert investigate more than 30 such police shootings and not file a single charge. It was an insult to African-Americans throughout the nation who have seen district attorneys give cops a pass for these types of incidents all too regularly.

This is precisely the situation I've been complaining about. It happens again and again. The police conduct the investigation and then are absolved by people who work closely with the police, and who in this case donate money to elect the people who absolve them. While the Rolling Stone article only mentions Sacramento, the entire country is the same: police are almost never charged when they injure or kill someone. Almost all shootings are judged to have been justified. How lucky we are to have a very nearly perfect police force in this country.

Source: The Sacramento Cop-Out

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 03-02-2019 6:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2019 9:03 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 202 of 211 (849385)
03-07-2019 11:47 AM


Sometimes Your Win One
ABC News is reporting that a Florida police officer has been convicted of manslaughter.

Fired Florida police officer Nouman Raja was today convicted of the 2015 manslaughter and attempted murder of a black man whose van had broken down by the side of a highway. An audio recording shows that Raja, in plainclothes and driving an unmarked white van, never identified himself. Corey Jones, a musician with $10,000 in drums in the back of his vehicle, pulled a licensed gun to defend himself from what he thought was a robbery. Raja fired his own weapon a number of times, striking Jones three times, once fatally through the heart.

Raja's sentencing has been set for April 26.

Until Raja, no Florida officer has been tried for homicide since 1989. Amazing.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 03-07-2019 11:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16231
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 203 of 211 (849386)
03-07-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
03-07-2019 11:47 AM


Re: Sometimes Your Win One
Corey Jones, a musician with $10,000 in drums in the back of his vehicle, pulled a licensed gun to defend himself from what he thought was a robbery.

Illustrating how useful guns are for "self-defense".

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-07-2019 11:47 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 204 of 211 (849397)
03-07-2019 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
03-06-2019 7:45 AM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
Unlike the hard-hitting data offered by the music-oriented magazine, Rolling Stone, an actual properly sourced, properly cited, detailed and painstakingly thorough analysis looks like this. And this is the kind of care and attention to detail that I'd like to see concerning your welfare check case in order to come to a proper deliberation.... and quite honestly, so should you.

https://cbssacramento.files.wordpress.com/...3/ois_clark.pdf


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 03-06-2019 7:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Theodoric, posted 03-08-2019 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 03-09-2019 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 205 of 211 (849410)
03-08-2019 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Percy
03-02-2019 11:11 AM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
First you say I "have yet to qualify" my claims of police secrecy (implying it doesn't happen), then you say "I would never say that...because 100% it has happened." You have to make up your mind. Right now you're making no sense by ping-ponging between the opposite viewpoints of (paraphrasing) "it doesn't happen" and "I of course acknowledge it happens."

You make it seem that this line of "secrecy" is so prevalent that its basically part and parcel a function of law enforcement itself. That's the qualification I'm looking for, because you have a tendency to paint with the broadest strokes possible. Just because there's evidence of, say, 10 boxing matches being fixed in human history does not equal that all boxing matches are fixed.

You're not responding to what I said. I was responding to what you said, and I quoted what you said. Here it is again: "If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them."

And you are conveniently omitting relevant information to the overall CONTEXT of the discussion.... rather underhandedly, I might add. Your ENTIRE point was that the police are so secret and want to bury the light as often as possible... my retort was then why did they specifically create in-car and bodyworn cameras? You still haven't answered it because its rather obvious at this point that you're wrong and you are aware of it. So instead you attack strawmen to deflect away from it.

Looked at from above through rose-colored glasses this is of course the justification, but once police turn the video on it captures all of reality, not just the parts that back up the police. Video is proving to a major embarrassment to police forces all across the country as it capture one police misbehavior after another.

Yeah, its called "accountability." You should be leaping with joy that the non-transparent police force not only has such technology at its disposal but that you, the common citizen, can open-records request any footage you want and scour it for unnoticed malfeasance.

My "default judgment" is not "constant suspicion." It is prudence. When a gun enters the vicinity I exit the vicinity, including an armed policeman. Guns are not safe, no matter whose hands they're in. I see no reason to trust an armed policeman to safely employ his firearm.

Thank you for regaling us with anecdotes that represent .0002% of the entire population, but again, your infinitesimally minute number does not and cannot compare to the billions of incidents that don't happen. Its a question of utility. Does the utility of this object outweigh the potential harm it could create. Answer: yes.

And for curiosities sake, what is your gameplan to defend your home, your wife, and little dog Pluto against armed intruders? Are you gonna read passages about non-violence from Ghandi and hope they stop?

That's a 2014 study with flaws because officers were each day randomly assigned cameras or not. The just released study I mentioned above fixes this flaw and the results contradict the earlier study. When officers wear cameras every day they become accustomed to them in a short time and revert to normal behavior.

Oh, and what is that normal behavior? What's your baseline?

If who benefits the most is a "who gives a fuck" question, then why did you spend so much time claiming the police had the most to benefit?

I very clearly indicated that everyone benefits, Percy. The police have vested interests in it just as the general public does.

Your figure is made up. You never seem able to bring real data into the discussion. I never mentioned any figure, but however often it happens it turns up in story after story that the video or audio was off during crucial points.

Yeah, just like the figure that exists about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Because those figures don't exist, but you seem to think that police conveniently turning off cameras is so problematic. So the onus is on you to prevent the evidence, otherwise you're just making shit up as you go.

You continue to be unable to respond to what I actually say. You instead make up things I didn't say and then respond to that. You do this so frequently that I'm going to have to call you a liar. I never said all police shootings are unjustified. What I said was that the police rule almost all police shootings justified, which is absurd on its face and obviously can't be true. And when there's video it turns out it's not true a lot of the time. That's why rank-and-file police should not have guns.

And I am saying that YOUR metric as a DIRECT RESULT of your fear of guns taints your judgment on how most courts decide in terms of justified or unjustified shootings. You seem to think someone needs to actually fire a weapon at an officer before they can lawfully return fire... Your severe lack of objectivity is what's in question.

You are repeating a lie. Again, I never said that. If the only way you can win an argument is to make up what the other guy said then you may as well give up in a forum such as this, because what I actually said is right there in my posts.

I wonder how on Earth I could have arrived at such a conclusion. It might have something to do with page after page of commentary you've elucidated thus far.

You're talking nonsense. Rulings concerning whether a police shooting is justified don't come from grand juries. You're again making stuff up off the top of your head. Jurisdictional attorneys or review boards make the decisions about whether the shooting was justified, and only when they conclude it was unjustified would it go to a grand jury.

Departments investigate internally and decide whether or not an officer's actions were criminal in nature or not criminal. They may arrive to a decision that while not explicitly criminal, they may still feel the need to fire that employee. But make no mistake that all shootings go far beyond the department or even the District Attorney's Office. Shootings are scrutinized by civilian review boards. Officers can be indicted on charges. The departments can be sued civilly. The officer themselves can be sued civilly. And it can and does go to a Grand Jury if there's even a hint of impropriety.

This isn't "The Shield," Percy... this is how it works in the real world, not your fictionalized, far-removed Hollywood version of reality.

If you're just trying to say that there are times the police need guns then I agree with you. It's just that it shouldn't be rank and file police who have guns, only specially trained units.

Those officers in the videos are rank and file police. Patrol officers, which is the lifeblood of every single department and are the one's on the front lines are the one's who need them more than anyone else because its they statistically encounter the highest frequency of deadly force scenarios.

I'm not saying that cops are stupid at all. I'm saying that the vast majority of police lie under the huge belly of the bell shaped curve and are somewhere around average, which isn't good enough to be carrying a gun.

Says you... the guy who doesn't even know the measure deadly force shootings are based upon.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 03-02-2019 11:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 11:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 206 of 211 (849420)
03-08-2019 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Hyroglyphx
03-07-2019 9:03 PM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
This is the DA's report. It is not an independent investigation. Rolling Stone has been known to do very fine investigative reporting. It is actually something they are known for.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2019 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 207 of 211 (849426)
03-09-2019 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Hyroglyphx
03-07-2019 9:03 PM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
Hyroglyphx writes:

Unlike the hard-hitting data offered by the music-oriented magazine, Rolling Stone, an actual properly sourced, properly cited, detailed and painstakingly thorough analysis looks like this. And this is the kind of care and attention to detail that I'd like to see concerning your welfare check case in order to come to a proper deliberation.... and quite honestly, so should you.

Report of the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office on the Stephon Clark Shooting

The report is 61 pages long. I assume you've read it cover to cover. Can you please bring the information you found forward into this discussion and quote the portion where it contradicts Rolling Stone's characterization in the The Sacramento Cop-Out article that the district attorney's office, including the prosecutor, routinely work closely with cops, and that it's basically just cops investigating cops (I already quoted it in Message 201)? Does the district attorney report offer some other explanation for why cops are exonerated in shootings like 99% of the time? Does it explain why it is okay to mistake cell phones for guns? Does it explain why it is okay to let a shooting victim bleed out while police watch? Here's a chilling quote from the district attorney:

quote:
While it is tragic that Clark in fact was holding a cellular phone, the law judges the officers’ actions based upon the reasonable perception of the threat. The evidence proves that Officers Mercadal and Robinet acted lawfully under the circumstances.

Keep those phones in your pocket, folks, else the folks charged with protecting you will shoot you. This is chilling, too:

quote:
Furthermore, Clark took a shooting position while holding a metallic object out in front of his body. Clark did not have this phone in his hands moments before, as can clearly be seen in the STAR video as he jumped the fence and walked up to the vehicle in the side yard.

Clark took a shooting position with a cell phone? Yeah, sure. Cops panicked and murdered a common non-violent criminal and father of two, then said what they knew from experience they had to say to justify their shooting. They knew just saying they saw a glint of light wouldn't cut it, so they said Clark took a shooting position. With a cell phone. Yeah, sure. But it helped the district attorney argue for a "suicide by cop" theory.

These cool, calm, collected, expert, professional police officers each estimated they fired around 5 times, for a total of 10 or 12. Actual number of shots fired was 20. Studies have shown it is common for cops to get into an emotional state where they simply empty and reload until they no longer feel threatened.

Each case where police get away with murder will have its own specifics. The one constant is that in almost all cases they *will* get away with it. These police, like most others, should not have had guns.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2019 9:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2019 11:49 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 208 of 211 (849436)
03-09-2019 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Percy
03-09-2019 11:06 AM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
quote the portion where it contradicts Rolling Stone's characterization in the The Sacramento Cop-Out article that the district attorney's office, including the prosecutor, routinely work closely with cops, and that it's basically just cops investigating cops (I already quoted it in Message 201)? Does the district attorney report offer some other explanation for why cops are exonerated in shootings like 99% of the time? Does it explain why it is okay to mistake cell phones for guns? Does it explain why it is okay to let a shooting victim bleed out while police watch?

So in regards to Rolling Stone's objections, I read the objection that they took against SPD formulating the opinion that Clark was suicidal. SPD offered that Clark intentionally held his cellphone in a manner purposefully intended to mimic a handgun and stood in an isosceles shooting stance. Rolling Stone said there was little to insinuate that Clark behaving irrationally. Also there was the assertion that you also made which is cops investigating cops.

From the DA report:

quote:
The iPhone was sent to Cellebrite, a company that specializes in data extraction, transfer, and analysis of cellular phones and mobile devices, so it could be unlocked and downloaded. The contents of the phone provided by Cellebrite were forensically analyzed by SPD investigators. CAL DOJ investigators conducted an additional download of the phone itself. The redundant examination of the phone was done to ensure accuracy.

This is a third party vendor extracting the message exchanges from Clark's phone starting on page 34.

Further down is a series of web searches where Clark looks up different ways to commit suicide, all because he is despondent over an argument with his girlfriend.

Then you have the toxicology report which shows certain chemicals he ingested that he just so happened to take after searching the web for, such as, how much Oxy can kill you? How much Xanax can kill you. And if you think, oh, he just wants to make sure he's not going to overdose, then why does he additionally lookup Carbon Monoxide poisonings?

And then of course there is the deliberate attempt to whitewash Clark and exlude all of his behaviors... as if he was just a guy senselessly standing in his backyard minding his own business. He just got done beating the fuck out of his girlfriend, breaking car windows, hopping from backyard to backyard, in an obvious attempt to get away from the police who were called on account of his actions.

So, Rolling Stone's reliance on incredulity, here are actual and measurable facts.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 03-09-2019 11:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 11:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 209 of 211 (849442)
03-10-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hyroglyphx
03-08-2019 2:00 AM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:

First you say I "have yet to qualify" my claims of police secrecy (implying it doesn't happen), then you say "I would never say that...because 100% it has happened." You have to make up your mind. Right now you're making no sense by ping-ponging between the opposite viewpoints of (paraphrasing) "it doesn't happen" and "I of course acknowledge it happens."

You make it seem that this line of "secrecy" is so prevalent that its basically part and parcel a function of law enforcement itself.

Yes, it's built in. It's structural. That's what happens when the agency doing the investigating isn't independent of those being investigated.

That's the qualification I'm looking for, because you have a tendency to paint with the broadest strokes possible. Just because there's evidence of, say, 10 boxing matches being fixed in human history does not equal that all boxing matches are fixed.

If during a police homicide the police are frequently found to have done something wrong when there's a camera present, that's pretty conclusive.

You're not responding to what I said. I was responding to what you said, and I quoted what you said. Here it is again: "If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them."

And you are conveniently omitting relevant information to the overall CONTEXT of the discussion.... rather underhandedly, I might add.

Ah, I see, quoting your words is underhanded to you. Your entire Message 193 is still there for everyone to see, including the entire context. People can see that your accusations of underhanded dealing are false, and you must also know they're false.

Your ENTIRE point was that the police are so secret and want to bury the light as often as possible... my retort was then why did they specifically create in-car and bodyworn cameras?

I've never said anything like that. The comment that I would make is that the police are secretive when they have to be.

You still haven't answered it because it's rather obvious at this point that you're wrong and you are aware of it. So instead you attack strawmen to deflect away from it.

But I did answer you, and there's no strawman. You quoted my answer, here it is:

Looked at from above through rose-colored glasses this is of course the justification, but once police turn the video on it captures all of reality, not just the parts that back up the police. Video is proving to a major embarrassment to police forces all across the country as it capture one police misbehavior after another.

Yeah, its called "accountability." You should be leaping with joy that the non-transparent police force not only has such technology at its disposal but that you, the common citizen, can open-records request any footage you want and scour it for unnoticed malfeasance.

All good, but you're ignoring what that information already tells us: rank-and-file police shouldn't have guns.

My "default judgment" is not "constant suspicion." It is prudence. When a gun enters the vicinity I exit the vicinity, including an armed policeman. Guns are not safe, no matter whose hands they're in. I see no reason to trust an armed policeman to safely employ his firearm.

Thank you for regaling us with anecdotes that represent .0002% of the entire population,...

If you're again implying that police who make mistakes are bad apples, then again, not only am I not saying that, I reject it. You don't understand bell shaped curves, do you?

...but again, your infinitesimally minute number does not and cannot compare to the billions of incidents that don't happen.

Just as the billions of passenger miles driven by cars and airplanes where no accident happens do not mean they're as safe as we can make them or as they need to be, the large number of police interactions where nothing goes wrong does not mean the job is being done as properly and safe as it needs to be.

Its a question of utility. Does the utility of this object outweigh the potential harm it could create. Answer: yes.

How do you know "yes" is correct? There were 3.22 trillion passenger miles in the US in 2016. How do you decide whether that's so many that 40,200 vehicle fatalities is acceptable? When you can answer that question then you should be able to tell me whether the number of police/public interactions justifies the number of police homicides.

And for curiosities sake, what is your gameplan to defend your home, your wife, and little dog Pluto against armed intruders? Are you gonna read passages about non-violence from Ghandi and hope they stop?

You're scaremongering again. It's already been pointed out that a gun in the home is far more likely to be used against family, friends or others nearby than against a criminal.

That's a 2014 study with flaws because officers were each day randomly assigned cameras or not. The just released study I mentioned above fixes this flaw and the results contradict the earlier study. When officers wear cameras every day they become accustomed to them in a short time and revert to normal behavior.

Oh, and what is that normal behavior? What's your baseline?

The study shows that complaints about police misbehavior against the public revert to pre-camera levels (i.e., "normal behavior" or the "baseline") after they've been wearing the camera for a little while. Once the body cam becomes familiar and just settles into the background of the rest of the police uniform it no longer affects police behavior.

If who benefits the most is a "who gives a fuck" question, then why did you spend so much time claiming the police had the most to benefit?

I very clearly indicated that everyone benefits, Percy. The police have vested interests in it just as the general public does.

Have you ever heard the parable of the chicken and the pig? When making a breakfast of bacon and eggs, the chicken is making a mere contribution while the pig is sacrificing its entire life. The level of sacrifice of the police versus a largely unarmed public is also on completely different levels. The police are only subject to possible discipline while the public sacrifices their entire lives. When the police pulled their guns on an unarmed Stephon Clark they risked a disciplinary hearing and possible legal charges, while Stephon Clark risked his entire life. The "vested interests" are not the same.

Imagine how many police shootings there would be if everyone were armed. The police wouldn't have to see a gun, they could just assume everyone has one.

Your figure is made up. You never seem able to bring real data into the discussion. I never mentioned any figure, but however often it happens it turns up in story after story that the video or audio was off during crucial points.

Yeah, just like the figure that exists about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

That's a very poor analogy, but I sense that what you're trying to say is that you're going to ignore all the news reports and footage examples of body cam audio and video being turned off.

Because those figures don't exist,...

I don't have figures for how many leaves fall on my lawn every year, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just as I have video of leaves falling from the trees, there is body cam footage where audio and/or video cuts out. I just provided you a couple examples, like the murder of Justine Damond in Message 191, and the murder of Stephon Clark. "Omigod, what did we just do? Mics off, everyone. Okay, now we can get our story straight."

There's another case I'm not going to look up right now, but it's upthread, where the policeman didn't realize that while his camera was turned off that it still kept a 30-second audio record prior to being turned on, so when he turned his camera on after everything had already gone down there was still that incriminating audio record. Those who don't learn the nuances of the body cam will possibly be hoisted on their own petard.

...but you seem to think that police conveniently turning off cameras is so problematic.

I'm surprised if everyone didn't think that problematic. Evidently you're an exception - why?

So the onus is on you to prevent the evidence, otherwise you're just making shit up as you go.

Except that I'm not making anything up. I don't have statistics and never claimed to, but those news stories of police turning off the audio and/or video of their body cams do actually exist, as well as the body cam footage itself. You can't pretend they don't.

You continue to be unable to respond to what I actually say. You instead make up things I didn't say and then respond to that. You do this so frequently that I'm going to have to call you a liar. I never said all police shootings are unjustified. What I said was that the police rule almost all police shootings justified, which is absurd on its face and obviously can't be true. And when there's video it turns out it's not true a lot of the time. That's why rank-and-file police should not have guns.

And I am saying that YOUR metric as a DIRECT RESULT of your fear of guns taints your judgment on how most courts decide in terms of justified or unjustified shootings.

We've been over this. I am not the only one who fears guns. The police profoundly fear guns. Just listen to the Stephon Clark footage again. "Gun, gun, gun," then a fusillade of 20 bullets fired at a man armed with a cell phone.

You seem to think someone needs to actually fire a weapon at an officer before they can lawfully return fire... Your severe lack of objectivity is what's in question.

I've been pretty clear about what I think, and your characterizations of it are way off the mark. Obviously I don't think someone needs to actually fire a weapon before police officers can legally return fire. But I do think police officers should only fire their weapons at someone they know is armed. That means not someone they think is armed because they saw a glint of light, but someone they know is armed because they saw an actual gun.

You are repeating a lie. Again, I never said that. If the only way you can win an argument is to make up what the other guy said then you may as well give up in a forum such as this, because what I actually said is right there in my posts.

I wonder how on Earth I could have arrived at such a conclusion. It might have something to do with page after page of commentary you've elucidated thus far.

The thread is an open book, and if I'd said anything like that you would quote it, but you don't. Again, I suggest you respond to what I say, not the things you make up me saying.

You're talking nonsense. Rulings concerning whether a police shooting is justified don't come from grand juries. You're again making stuff up off the top of your head. Jurisdictional attorneys or review boards make the decisions about whether the shooting was justified, and only when they conclude it was unjustified would it go to a grand jury.

Departments investigate internally and decide whether or not an officer's actions were criminal in nature or not criminal.

That's what I just said when I mentioned review boards. What's with you? Do I have to use the identical vocabulary you would use before you can understand what I'm saying?

They may arrive to a decision that while not explicitly criminal, they may still feel the need to fire that employee. But make no mistake that all shootings go far beyond the department or even the District Attorney's Office.

All shootings go beyond the district attorney's office? Really? You mean like the Stephon Clark shooting where the decision that the officers would not be charged was made by the district attorney's office, as linked to by you in Message 204? The same district attorney's report that doesn't even contain the phrase "grand jury?"

Shootings are scrutinized by civilian review boards.

I believe the term "review board" appears verbatim in what I said.

Officers can be indicted on charges.

I've certainly mentioned legal charges, too.

The departments can be sued civilly. The officer themselves can be sued civilly.

These I've mentioned over and over again. In Message 185 I even asked people to pick a number between $0 and $10 million in the Vanessa Marquez case. I picked $3 million. Care to take a chance and pick a number?

And it can and does go to a Grand Jury if there's even a hint of impropriety.

You're making stuff up again, and it's the same stuff. It is very rare for a prosecutor to bring charges against police officers, and unless they do then it isn't going to a grand jury. There are "hints of impropriety" all over the Stephon Clark case, yet that one's' not going to a grand jury. There are "hints of propriety" all over the Vanessa Marquez case, but that one's not going to a grand jury, either.

This isn't "The Shield," Percy... this is how it works in the real world, not your fictionalized, far-removed Hollywood version of reality.

I don't know what "The Shield" is, but you basically repeated what I'd just said, and then for some strange reason known only to yourself claimed that when I said it it was wrong but when you said it it was right. You are very weird.

If you're just trying to say that there are times the police need guns then I agree with you. It's just that it shouldn't be rank and file police who have guns, only specially trained units.

Those officers in the videos are rank and file police. Patrol officers, which is the lifeblood of every single department and are the one's on the front lines are the ones who need them more than anyone else because they statistically encounter the highest frequency of deadly force scenarios.

Of course they do, because they're the ones armed with deadly force. Take their guns away and the number of deadly force scenarios will go way down.

I'm not saying that cops are stupid at all. I'm saying that the vast majority of police lie under the huge belly of the bell shaped curve and are somewhere around average, which isn't good enough to be carrying a gun.

Says you... the guy who doesn't even know the measure deadly force shootings are based upon.

Says me? Are you daft? You really have no clue how a bell shaped curve works, do you? That's okay, I can say the same thing a different way.

The majority of those in our nation's police forces are just average. The very best and the very worst represent a very small proportion. On average your average police person is just average and doesn't have the skills, knowledge or judgment to be armed with a deadly weapon.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-08-2019 2:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 210 of 211 (849443)
03-10-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Hyroglyphx
03-09-2019 11:49 PM


Re: More on the Stephon Clark Shooting
Those are all post facto rationalizations for why the police were justified in firing 20 shots at a man armed with a cell phone, and all these rationalizations fail. Stephon Clark was a criminal, ill-tempered and confused person. That's not a capital offense, just as needing a wellness check is not a capital offense, nor is calling 911 a capital offense, nor is running away from cops a capital offense, nor is being obnoxious when placed in a police van a capital offense.

You need to find reasons why armed police are not a public safety hazard. So far you're not finding any.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-09-2019 11:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019