Announcement

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+567|3057
In other news, I have to go to a hiring orientation next week for a local police department that expressed interest in making me a cop. The cop I spoke to on the phone seemed completely disinterested in the conversation and was reading off a script. He spoke like he was giving me a ticket. It was the most unenthusiastic hiring person I think I ever talked to.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+567|3057
Life expectancy for American men dropped for a third consecutive year, with the National Center for Health Statistics citing an increase in so-called "deaths of despair," such as the rise in drug overdose deaths.

The average lifespan of men in the U.S. dipped to 76.1 years in 2017 (the latest data available), amounting to a four-month decline in life expectancy since 2014. The findings shed additional light on economic research into the sharp increase in recent years in deaths from overdoses and suicides among white men with less education.
Most cops are white men without educations. The link between poor police performance and white male ennui is obvious.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-06-19 18:47:09)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

1) It really doesn't seem reasonable to shoot someone in the back even if they are running off with your taser. And it's certainly not going to help matters as they currently stand.
Again, this isn't the whole story of what happened.  Brooks wasn't just "running off with" a police taser.  He turned and discharged it at a pursuing officer.  Tasers incapacitate.  Brooks had already demonstrated his willingness to incapacitate an officer.  I would say the pursuing officer was fully entitled to react to Brooks turning, pointing a weapon, and discharging it with a flash and a pop with deadly force.

As for the optics, the last thing I'd be thinking about when someone turns and points a weapon at me is what Al Sharpton is going to say about it.

2) You dodged the meat of the question though. Will you defer to the judgment of the court if it doesn't go the Atlanta officers' way?
If by "defer to the judgment of the court" you really mean "accept the verdict of the jury and not try to break them out of prison," then yes.  If you mean "accept them as guilty of the crimes alleged," then that's a hard no, at least when it comes to the top count.  I haven't taken the time to look into all the charges alleged and reference how Georgia law defines those crimes.  I find it highly unlikely I would be convinced of their legitimacy, however, absent some bombshell new evidence that would have to be literally earth-shaking.  I don't see any plausible scnario in which felony murder is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

3) Is it reasonable for police to shoot people in the face with rubber bullets for peaceful protesting, or other people in the face for just being somewhere in the vicinity of a peaceful protest? Look at all the concussions getting dished out. Sample: Injured and uninsured, protesters get medical aid from LA doctor
What other cops are doing in other jurisdictions (or even in the same jurisdiction) is wholly irrelevant as to the determination of whether or not Brooks' shooting was reasonable.

4) It's partly tongue-in-cheek, but it could still be a valid analogy. Football players get concussed before whistles can be blown. Nobody in a striped shirt is around to blow the whistle on cops in the midst of maiming or killing someone.
Please.  Do you think Brooks would have stopped his felonious behavior and assault if someone blew a whistle?

Death should be the last resort. Not the first. Not somewhere in the middle.
What makes you think deadly force wasn't the last resort?  If it was the first resort, Brooks would've been shot as soon as he started resisting.

5) Does training specifically instruct you to police your brass before rendering aid to a gunshot victim?
Nope, but it's pretty hard to simulate that at the range.

6) Not blaming them seems to be your default state though unless you're left with no possible recourse. I could literally pluck any of these stories out of a hat and accurately guess where you'd stand on it most of the time.
I don't know how you think you're qualified to conclude the above, since I've commented on what, two shootings?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUyWS6j5rS4

Police not triggering onto someone like a pack of feral rottweilers. He even had a gun.
...so what?
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,724|6074|Oxferd Ohire
https://i.redd.it/md3ftlziv1651.jpg

Take that all of us except jay
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,778|5443|eXtreme to the maX
How is oppressing the Palestinians not racist?

Being pro-zionist doesn't mean you're not racist.

All these tropes about D-Day troops being the first antifa, actually it was the Stalinists.
Makes u think

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-20 07:25:47)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+466|2789
i like the idea that by dating a black woman you can't be racist. haha. these pro-trump people are really in tune with sociology. a lot of fucking racist white guys take 'Other' wives precisely because they like feeling the superior and dominant creature.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+567|3057

RTHKI wrote:



Take that all of us except jay
What has he done for the Muslims, Hispanics, and Asians?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+567|3057
Juneteenth is not a real holiday. I resent some Texas Holiday being enforced on the rest of us. I will not celebrate it.

Black people already have MLK day. They shouldn't be allowed to get two Holidays when the Asians, and Arabs don't even have one and the Hispanics all have to share Cinco De Mayo.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-06-20 09:23:55)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

Re: hollis

It's good that you would accept the verdict, though it doesn't seem you would be happy with it. I would be a little surprised even in the current climate if felony murder stuck, though.

What cops are doing in other jurisdictions has big picture bearing on the ongoing issue of police aggression in the country. Of course it's not something you'd care to focus on.

"Felonious behavior" is not a specific enough to validate shooting someone. To answer your "so what," I posted the video of OJ's long chase because it's a famous example of someone surviving to stand trial, nevermind people I watched it with telling the TV to just snipe him from a helicopter. Police didn't go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye and shoot him 50 times. Again, the football thing was supplied as an extreme anecdote, because your excuses are extremely silly. "He tased cops and gave one a concussion!" Please, if tasing and concussions were all that bad, then I'm sure police would be reluctant to pass that nonsense out to innocent bystanders. Oh wait.

I find it difficult to blame "range training" for the police here having trouble deciding on whether to prioritize administering aid or sweep for brass. Don't you think that goes a bit beyond a drilled reflex excuse? Are we training police, or are we training a bunch of sociopaths to pass as human.

You may have commented on "only two shootings," but that's two for two amidst many others you could have weighed on. You've been picky, and so far, it's been very "obey and survive" (again a regrettable state for this country considering policing in other western nations) so I feel quite safe in the supposition that your biases won't change much from one case to the other.

Death should be the last resort. Not the first. Not somewhere in the middle.
What makes you think deadly force wasn't the last resort?  If it was the first resort, Brooks would've been shot as soon as he started resisting.
I maintain there were other options. Also if it really was that easily justifiable, there would be no immediate need for people to pass the dead man off as a scumbag who had it coming.
uziq
Member
+466|2789
you just have to wonder what sort of moral universe we're living in where two guys kill someone, and the cop is here making excuses for each and every phase of it.

'he ran and the taser flashed at them'
'at the point he was running away he was technically a dangerous felon and an imminent and pressing threat to their lives'
'they didn't kick him as he was dying, they were resting their foot on him'
'they shouted "got 'em" because we are basically dealing with a streetfight'
'the reason they didn't administer medical aid to a visibly dying man and spent two minutes picking up their bullets, instead, was because they are over-trained lol'
'it's irrelevant that they have also shot people before and conspicuously not filed the right paperwork afterwards'

sure is very keen to expend a lot of effort on giving these two fellas their fair day in court. meanwhile a guy is dead and i presume will not be appearing for his court date.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-20 12:06:59)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

Don't forget the concussion, because as we know those are really dangerous. That's why LEOs are dutifully avoiding shooting bystanders in the face with rubber bullets.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,778|5443|eXtreme to the maX
Qasim Lozano, 27, said microaggressions that were more subtle and less blatant forms of racism had to be stamped out first.
...
Mr Lozano told BBC Scotland what it was like growing up in Edinburgh with Pakistani origins.
...
Mr Lozano said when he scored two goals in his team's football final, his coach was buying the team pints and asked if he was allowed one because he presumed he might have a religion that banned alcohol consumption.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-ed … ting-story
The horror, the horror

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-20 21:36:34)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+466|2789
you should clearly take a humanities degree, seeing as you have serious trouble with reading multiple sources and weighing evidence. one moron tattling on about his childhood football trauma does not invalidate the point of protests against racism.

it’s pretty funny that you rant on about how multicultural UK is doomed and an abject failure but then link an article where a british-pakistani plays for his local football club and goes out for drinks with the lads. lol. wowsers!

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-20 23:10:05)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,778|5443|eXtreme to the maX
I didn't say it invalidated the protests about racism.

Why is a british-pakistani plays for his local football club and goes out for drinks with the lads complaining about racism when he clearly hasn't suffered any?
Identity-complaining culture has jumped the shark.

You're right, the UK is on a strong upward trajectory, enjoy chlorinated chicken in your next KFC.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+466|2789
i haven’t heard the term ‘micro-aggression’ in discourse since about 2013. it’s even more outmoded a fashion than ‘triggering’, which in itself has been fully co-opted by the alt-right, as it’s been around so long (it’s funny seeing jay talk about ‘triggering the libs’ and complaining about campus marxist-lesbian professors in the same breath, when they probably came up with the concept).

you’re mad about micro-aggressions now? lol. who actually cares?

all i take from his comments is that there’s more to racism than overt hate ideologies, which is so basically true as to be unexceptional. everyone has more work to do if, like larssen, we are to live in a colour-blind post-race society. i’m sure his anecdote about not being offered a beer is a pretty silly example, and perhaps over-sensitivity on his part, but i don’t care about someone’s anecdote. we should all probably try to be more caring, not less, more attentive, not less. i don’t see anything wrong with it.

the only reason you see all these things as portents of doom is because you have some idiosyncratic ideas about racial domination or something and evidently think gays and british-pakistanis are going to try and usurp the leaders of society with their nefarious ‘micro-aggression’ complaints. get real.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-21 00:17:56)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,778|5443|eXtreme to the maX
I'm not mad about anything, its just interesting that the worst incident of racism a British-Pakistani can dredge up is being asked if he would be offended if he were offered a beer.

Seems like everyone has to tip-toe around these guys so they don't blow up.

There was an article a while back about a woman who suffered a dreadful #metoo moment in which a colleague said he thought she was attractive and wondered if she would be interested in going on a date.

Maybe the BBC is trolling, I don't know.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-20 23:40:38)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+466|2789
ok, please go take a humanities degree.

he was making a point that racism comes in many forms and is exhibited in more subtle signals as well as overt hate-speech.

'dredging up the worst incident of racism'. somehow i sincerely doubt that the worst example of racism he has experienced in his life is a clumsy bar encounter. that's your wilful misreading and not what he is saying, and i doubt the reason his example was included in the article by the editors.

white liberal people 'posting black squares' and disavowing the KKK or pulling down statues of 18th century slave-traders is all very fine and well, but he's quite right to state that there's much more to 'systemic racism' than that.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-20 23:43:55)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

The person in dilbert's link also said people set his African friend's hair on fire, and touched on other racist stuff. That was mentioned before the drink thing.
uziq
Member
+466|2789
just remember the next time dilbert starts talking about how 'races are like oil and water, and don't mix' and how 'people are intrinsically racist, it is fate', that he also cites articles where british muslims play football, go to team drinks, and have italian surnames.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,778|5443|eXtreme to the maX
The point is they can integrate if they choose to. If they choose to carry on with some identity and set themselves apart thats when it doesn't work.

That reminds me, we had a black kid at school. I wonder what happened to Fuzzwig.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+466|2789
you think you’re smart, but yore not
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's good that you would accept the verdict, though it doesn't seem you would be happy with it.
I'm not sure what you would define as  not accepting the verdict, then, short of organizing a jailbreak.

What cops are doing in other jurisdictions has big picture bearing on the ongoing issue of police aggression in the country. Of course it's not something you'd care to focus on.
Of course not.  Because, as we are discussing the shooting of Rayshard Brooks, what other police are doing in other jurisdiction is absolutely irrelevant.  What matters in the determination of whether the shooting was reasonable are three things: what was the threat presented, what was the level of resistance, and what was the severity of the crime at issue.  What Barney Fife did last week in Mayberry has nothing to do with this encounter.

"Felonious behavior" is not a specific enough to validate shooting someone.
Golly fuck, you're right.  That's why I made a list for you of the bare minimum crimes Brooks committed.  For your convenience, here it is again: misdemeanor (at least) obstruction, felony theft, felony robbery, felony aggravated assault, felony obstruction, and felony aggravated assault (again!).  All of this goes to the totality of circumstances that are tallied when gauging the reasonableness of the officer's response to the second felony aggravated assault, assuming the second aggravated assault isn't enough on its own to justify the response (and it was enough).

To answer your "so what," I posted the video of OJ's long chase because it's a famous example of someone surviving to stand trial, nevermind people I watched it with telling the TV to just snipe him from a helicopter. Police didn't go from 0 to 100 in the blink of an eye and shoot him 50 times.
And that means what, with regard to this situation?  OJ was brought in alive so deadly force is always unreasonable?

Again, the football thing was supplied as an extreme anecdote, because your excuses are extremely silly. "He tased cops and gave one a concussion!" Please, if tasing and concussions were all that bad, then I'm sure police would be reluctant to pass that nonsense out to innocent bystanders. Oh wait.
Again, what actions police are taking in other encounters doesn't mean shit when it comes to a determination of reasonableness in this scenario.

I find it difficult to blame "range training" for the police here having trouble deciding on whether to prioritize administering aid or sweep for brass. Don't you think that goes a bit beyond a drilled reflex excuse?
I think it's a plausible reason for what they did.  I don't know what they claim is the reason.  We'll have to wait and see.

You may have commented on "only two shootings," but that's two for two amidst many others you could have weighed on.
I "could have" done a lot of things.  Again, if I'm going to be obligated to comment on every use of force incident, you're gonna have to pay me.  And your "two for two" count is confusing, as I faulted the officers in the Shaver incident, even if I can understand why the jury returned the verdict it did.

You've been picky, and so far, it's been very "obey and survive" (again a regrettable state for this country considering policing in other western nations) so I feel quite safe in the supposition that your biases won't change much from one case to the other.
Ignoring that "obey and survive" has never been something I've said or even suggested, the fact that I can and do pick and choose what comments to make and when to make them indicates only that I pick and choose what I say and when I say it.  I don't read every post made on this forum.  I haven't even read every post in this thread.  (It's 103 pages, ffs.)  When I do read posts, I reply if I have something to add.  So any assumptions you've made based on what I haven't said are invalid.

I maintain there were other options.
It's pretty easy to quarterback from your armchair on Monday morning, isn't it?  But when you're facing someone who's pointing a weapon at you and it discharges toward your face, it's entirely reasonable to take action that amounts to deadly force, especially when that person has already displayed a disregard for your own well-being.

Also if it really was that easily justifiable, there would be no immediate need for people to pass the dead man off as a scumbag who had it coming.
A: What people who weren't there claim about the personal attributes of Brooks has nothing to do with what Brooks did the night he was shot.
B: I haven't done that at all, so why are you talking to me about this as if it's some kind of retort to any points I've raised?

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-06-21 05:06:03)

uziq
Member
+466|2789
Golly fuck, you're right.  That's why I made a list for you of the bare minimum crimes Brooks committed.  For your convenience, here it is again: misdemeanor (at least) obstruction, felony theft, felony robbery, felony aggravated assault, felony obstruction, and felony aggravated assault (again!).
none of which, again, quite equal the death penalty. he's not a cop-killer. he took a taser off a cop and ran away.

you are really trivialising life, at the end of the day. a member of the public being shot should be treated with serious scrutiny. and unfortunately for you, there's a lot of things that don't look or play very well with your two guys. a real disregard for life, in fact. and they have an evident record of it. why does none of this catch your attention at all? you seem very keen at stressing the deceased's actions, none of which in any civil society would earn summary execution.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

you just have to wonder what sort of moral universe we're living in where two guys kill someone, and the cop is here making excuses for each and every phase of it.
The kind where we can look at objective facts and make conclusions about what response is reasonable.

'he ran and the taser flashed at them'
More accurately, he turned, pointed a weapon at the pursuing officer, and discharged it.

'at the point he was running away he was technically a dangerous felon and an imminent and pressing threat to their lives'
At the moment Brooks discharged his weapon in the face of the pursuing officer, it was reasonable for the officer to believe Brooks was a deadly threat and respond accordingly.

'they didn't kick him as he was dying, they were resting their foot on him'
I never said anything about the kick beyond the obvious: it's a still image that MIGHT show a kick, but you can't tell with any degree of certainty.  Show me the video of the kick.

'they shouted "got 'em" because we are basically dealing with a streetfight'
Why are you making shit up?  I never said anything about any words spoken by the officers.  However, letting your partner know that you have eliminated the threat is good tactics.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with "got him."

'the reason they didn't administer medical aid to a visibly dying man and spent two minutes picking up their bullets, instead, was because they are over-trained lol'
Again, you are making shit up.  I never said they were overtrained.  I said it is probably a training scar. And that's if they even picked up brass at all.  I've only seen that claim come from the lawyer representing Brooks' family.

'it's irrelevant that they have also shot people before and conspicuously not filed the right paperwork afterwards'
If this is true, yes it is irrelevant.  If you think otherwise, please complete the following: The officer who shot Brooks didn't properly complete some paperwork on another shooting, and that means the shooting of Brooks was unreasonable because   fill in the blank  .

sure is very keen to expend a lot of effort on giving these two fellas their fair day in court. meanwhile a guy is dead and i presume will not be appearing for his court date.
Well, don't fire a weapon in the face of a pursuing officer and you won't have that problem.
uziq
Member
+466|2789
america is fucked. you have a culture that is disproportionately punitive to black folks, who are incarcerated and kept in a felonious underclass, and who subsequently respond to the sound of sirens by fleeing and worrying for their life; and at the same time you have police who aren't willing to back off, maybe not shoot people quite so often, maybe re-think their use of lethal force, etc. your society is only heading one way and it's into further discord.

if all of this is so reasonable, why are white folks not killed as often as other races? why is there such a huge discrepancy between the numbers of white americans killed by police and citizens of other extractions? is it the case that every time the deceased 'asked for it' and 'brought it upon themselves'? why possibly might white people act more calmly and obediently around law enforcement?

i thank fuck every day i come to this forum that i am not american.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard