police bias against Blacks, what do you think accounts for the fact that Black cops are involved here and in Baltimore? Why would the Black cops be biased against Black citizens?
WCCB witnessed protesters try to throw still photographer into fire in Uptown #Charlotte. http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/live-streaming/ #CharlotteProtest #news
It's a shame that the protestors always screw themselves over and dilute their own message, because clearly, something does have to change, but this isn't going to do it. Ugh.
African american citizens have their grievances ruined by these ignorant coons with their typical gibs me dat bullshit.
I genuinely love this post simply because it allows me to picture a truly pathetic and cowardly human being setting up this dupe profile (you don't have the balls to post this under your regular username on a fucking anonymous message board??) while simultaneously racking your hilarious brain to come up with such a clever username
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
How do you know all of these details happened as reported? Just as it's faulty to take social media accounts as cold hard facts, it seems like you have taken the police report as the absolute truth.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
Are diluting and distracting the core message of nonviolent protestors. Its too bad Charlotte is not benefiting from the same racial unity we saw in Charleston after the church shooting.
How do you know all of these details happened as reported? Just as it's faulty to take social media accounts as cold hard facts, it seems like you have taken the police report as the absolute truth.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Those were my preliminary thoughts and not to be taken as true or fact. Just what makes sense to me up until now and subject to change.
I haven't even read it yet, but here is a link to her side of the story and I have no idea of its credibility or what it says.
Police are legally required to call for first aid, but usually do not administer it themselves in Arizona. How long was he lying there? Usually there would be fire staging to the area almost immediately.
but apparently so is the fact that he had a gun and wouldn't drop it. I don't condone rioting, but I can see protests for a case like the one in Tulsa. But this? This is not about the police. I am sure there are outside agitators there stirring things up.
This site has pictures of the gun laying next to the body....
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Do you really need to ask this. You know why.
Here was my post in the National Anthem thread:
Quote:
Depends on your personal slant and what you (colloquially) are predisposed to believe or want to believe.
Any time there is a police officer involved shooting with a black victim, many people will begin their opinion that race was a factor and the main factor. sometimes it is. Many times it's not, but many people don't believe it's not no matter the circumstances.
Any time there is a bombing conducted by someone with a Muslim sounding name, many people assume terrorism, however the rub is that many of the same people in the first group will urge caution before jumping to conclusions about the details of the second type of incident urging people to not make assumptions about the motive and classifying likely terrorist activities as workplace violence.
It's very obvious if you try and view things objectively from afar (not that I can any more than anyone else who tries to have an open mind), it's like the American "incident playbook" based on each person's political/social views.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
your question is based on false premises. People generally don't give Islamic terrorists the benefit of the doubt.
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
generally don't apologize, so the cover all possible bases before saying something they won't be able to take back (which I never and still don't understand, people want honesty, an apology is a good example of honesty).
Personally, I see nothing wrong with calling something an act of terror (it is, a fucking bomb went off, the skin color of the person detonating doesn't matter) without knowing every little detail.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
The leaders are still there calling for patience. The people are too pissed off to listen.
2 grand per body cam. Then they have to pay alot of people to technician it. Then when something does get caught on camera the cop still gets off and people begin to tear shit up anyway so what's the point?
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Very well said and I fear that come November, if a certain person gets elected, it will only pour gasoline on an already raging fire and extinguish any empathy.....of course, this election cycle has already fanned the flames considerably unfortunately.
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
news coverage as the events unfolded last night and even in the different stations, there were different ways the news was handled. ABC and CBS were pretty straightforward in their coverage. The NBC station was the one who kept airing the white devils footage, and would do it every 30 minutes or so as part of the recap of the events.
The local WB station had two black activists as panelists and those people were justifying the actions of the rioters saying they are angry over years of oppression. When the moderator talked about the gun being located and showed the photo of it, the black activists said that the public needs to understand that after years of oppression, you don't believe a word coming from sources. That even seeing a picture of the gun isn't going to change minds. That the riots aren't just about this shooting, but a cumulative anger at shootings of unarmed black men across the country. In effect, they said that the right to violent protest wasn't just OK, it was justified.
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
in the immediate aftermath of a bombing, there are a lot of unknowns - who did it, what was their motivation, etc. but in spite of that, a lot of people do rush to judgement, call for carpet bombings and intermnment camps etc
with a lot of these police shootings, there are less unknowns - we know who the killer is there is usually video footage that is immediately posted and it adds to the tally of dead black men shot by police officers or racists (Dylan roof, George Zimmerman) under either questionable or brutal circumstances. like it or not, after trayvon, Michael brown, the charelston shootings, garner, Miami (where an unarmed black man who was looking after an autistic teen and lying on the ground was shot) the incidents in Minneapolis, baton rouge, Tulsa, the black community is on edge. and rightfully so.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
while I support non violent protests and feel that police forces need to be retrained on deesclation processes to stop their use of excessive force, the violent protests and looting are unacceptable. as angry as the black community is, and I empathize with their anger, causing property destruction or assaulting police officers is not the answer.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
The police shootings or in-custody deaths, with the exception of North Charleston, have in many instances been significantly different from the initial reports, and this after looting and rioting has occurred.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
is that the culprits are "outside agitators"? They continue to say that this morning on CNN, and I recall the same assertions when Baltimore erupted. Is there some dynamic at work that leads to this conclusion? Are people actually traveling from other parts of the country to engage in opportunistic violence? What leads people to believe that the violent protestors aren't from the city involved?
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
Incite posts like that idiot above. And that sentiment.
RE: Here is a question that I think is relevant this week...
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
It's a shame that the protestors always screw themselves over and dilute their own message, because clearly, something does have to change, but this isn't going to do it. Ugh.
I genuinely love this post simply because it allows me to picture a truly pathetic and cowardly human being setting up this dupe profile (you don't have the balls to post this under your regular username on a fucking anonymous message board??) while simultaneously racking your hilarious brain to come up with such a clever username
If police say....drop the gun.....you drop the gun.
Wtf? Police are people who have one of the toughest jobs. High stress environment.....why risk your life.....
To prove the narrative?
Black ...really any....children will continue to die.....if they don't realize police must be respected
My children know.....do not give police any idictcation that they might be in danger.....none. yes sir..no sir.
I suspect.....that is not exactly what some family are taught.
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
- just some preliminary thoughts
PS rioters are assholes.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
I agree, especially with --Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......--
I tried to explain my thoughts on the Tulsa shooting and it is only conjecture....but I didn't see a race component to it. The female cop was the first one there and a drug recognition expert. It wasn't hard to see he was on PCP.
PCP is the nightmare scenario for law enforcement with the ol' naked man on PCP w/ super human strength takes 8 officers to subdue clique. He was running around his car with the doors open saying the vehicle was going to explode.
Since Terance was on PCP and not listening to commands (a normal person probably would at gun point) it was understandable he could be considered to be potential deadly threat to a lone female officer.
The commands at this point would be -stop-don't move-then get on the ground and it would never be "put your hands up and walk back to your car." Maybe put your hands up and then down to each knee with your hands up.
Him getting back to the vehicle would be the last thing a cop would want because that is where the weapons would be.
In fact, a cop could use quite a bit of violence to prevent someone from getting back to their vehicle. (the famous example which is on youtube has someone telling a cop he is going back to his car to get a gun, getting the gun and killing the cop (who was afraid to get into trouble because he was on probation.) (there's the link NSFW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRjqIaYJDAM
This is an example where a cop could have shot an unarmed man in the back and been 100% justified. I know this is long and winded, but I guarantee she was familiar with this and could help to understand the raise in anxiety for him going back to his vehicle.
Since she is the first one on the scene, a taser is out of the question. A non-lethal option is only allowed when a lethal option is available in case the less lethal option didn't work.
Then her back-up arrives and one has his taser out and he is good to go using it. The fatalist in me imagines Terance dying from a medical event caused by the PCP mixed with obesity, and the Taser.
Terance walks to the vehicle with his arms up, but then then it looks like he is reaching in the car for something, but it is hard to see, maybe into his pockets? The helicopter angle is unfortunate here.
If even one 9-11 caller thought they saw a weapon on him, then this would be a lawful shoot and (still a huge riot), but without any prior knowledge of a weapon he is just a potential dangerous threat and not an IMMEDIATE dangerous threat to life and limb.
Even if he didn't have a weapon and fought with his bare hands, a firearm would be justified with a lone female officer, but that wasn't the case.
She most likely acted in good faith and just panicked when she thought he may be going for a weapon. In moments of extreme stress people get tunnel-vision and their ability for critical thinking and fine motor movements is greatly diminish--not a good combination for somebody with a gun. Some people can handle it and some people cannot. Training cannot simulate the real thing so to predict this is difficult and most cops never experience a life or death moment-real or imagined.
Terance was driving a vehicle high on PCP and didn't comply with police, so I don't think he is some tragic figure in all of this. He did present himself as a potential dangerous threat, just not an immediate dangerous threat, but why make another human being believe their life may be in danger and force them to make a split second decision?
He didn't deserve to die, but that really doesn't mean anything in any of these incidents, the important thing is what happened at the time. Most of these cases are slam dunks, but I can see this one go either way--maybe a man2 in Oklahoma and pleas.
People want blood, a murder one charge, and to burn down their Walmart for every case. It has little to do with justice/reason and more to do with race and what stupid political affiliation you have.
You should want the cops to be right because then justice was served as reasonably and swiftly as possible and not hope that somebody got killed so you can claim righteous victimhood.
- just some preliminary thoughts
PS rioters are assholes.
Look at the guy in Charleston that was shot from behind. Thank God a bystander caught it on video (unbeknownst to the officer). The officers had signed off on the flat out lie that the guy stole his taser and was a threat.
Even if what you said is true, when the guy in Tulsa was laying on the ground bleeding the cops all stood around and didn't render any first aid!
In comment 13135456 madgiantscow009 said:
Those were my preliminary thoughts and not to be taken as true or fact. Just what makes sense to me up until now and subject to change.
I haven't even read it yet, but here is a link to her side of the story and I have no idea of its credibility or what it says.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tulsa-police-officer-shares-side-story-terence-crutchers/story?id=42243843
Police are legally required to call for first aid, but usually do not administer it themselves in Arizona. How long was he lying there? Usually there would be fire staging to the area almost immediately.
There is also a video of the brother of the man killed shouting that "all white people are devils".
Link - ( New Window )
There is also a video of the brother of the man killed shouting that "all white people are devils". Link - ( New Window )
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Do you really need to ask this. You know why.
Here was my post in the National Anthem thread:
Any time there is a police officer involved shooting with a black victim, many people will begin their opinion that race was a factor and the main factor. sometimes it is. Many times it's not, but many people don't believe it's not no matter the circumstances.
Any time there is a bombing conducted by someone with a Muslim sounding name, many people assume terrorism, however the rub is that many of the same people in the first group will urge caution before jumping to conclusions about the details of the second type of incident urging people to not make assumptions about the motive and classifying likely terrorist activities as workplace violence.
It's very obvious if you try and view things objectively from afar (not that I can any more than anyone else who tries to have an open mind), it's like the American "incident playbook" based on each person's political/social views.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
cuz he's a liberal
Personally, I see nothing wrong with calling something an act of terror (it is, a fucking bomb went off, the skin color of the person detonating doesn't matter) without knowing every little detail.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
The leaders are still there calling for patience. The people are too pissed off to listen.
Photos were taken by a witness, so they aren't police photos after they had a chance to stage the scene.
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
Quote:
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
The cop was black, the police chief is black. Why would black officers treat black people differently?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
Quote:
I know several wonderful black people that truly believe that police target them and feel they want to harm them.....
I personally think that is just crazy....
Sure police face danger everyday....and make mistakes....and unfortunately a police mistake....could kill someone....that is innocent.
The majority of the 700 or so police shooting....are legit.
Stray bullets from an active legit shootout are by far the majority.
These cases of targeted purposeful shooting of someone that is innocent and without cause.....is less then 10....if not less then 5.
The Charlotte incident .might be innocent but carrying a gun....at least he has a ankle holster....is a shooting with cause.
The Oklahoma seem bad.....that look like a real bad shooting. What the hell was that policewomen thinking.....
Each shooting should be thoroughly explained, talk and explained......
Cops make mistakes....but I have a very hard time believing it is done on purpose.
This is the kind of post that creates good dialogue. Can't say the same for some others in this thread but anyway, I agree that the majority of cops mean well. On the other hand, it's easy to see why this happens when frustration boils over. In this case, the guy had a gun and hey, if you approach a cop with a gun, what the hell is he supposed to do?
Unfortunately, the level of distrust and the anger over so many Black men and women dying at the hands of cops has reached the heavens. So is this case in and of itself a good case to protest? No but that's what happens when these things build up.
As an African, not necessarily an African-American though I was born here, I was raised by parents who told me to pull my pants up and kept me grounded. But living in the U.S., where people distinguish by color moreso than nationality, I truly understand the plight of African-Americans. And I think what disturbs me the most is the lack of empathy from the other side. It really hit home with Trayvon Martin, when a solid portion of the country felt George Zimmerman was justified in instigating a conflict, ignoring commands and then killing an unarmed Black teen. I was appalled that so many somehow felt he was justified. The lack of empathy is disturbing and I think African-Americans realize this and are now saying to hell with discussion. The right way? No. But this has been a problem for years and something's got to give.
Very well said and I fear that come November, if a certain person gets elected, it will only pour gasoline on an already raging fire and extinguish any empathy.....of course, this election cycle has already fanned the flames considerably unfortunately.
Quote:
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
The local WB station had two black activists as panelists and those people were justifying the actions of the rioters saying they are angry over years of oppression. When the moderator talked about the gun being located and showed the photo of it, the black activists said that the public needs to understand that after years of oppression, you don't believe a word coming from sources. That even seeing a picture of the gun isn't going to change minds. That the riots aren't just about this shooting, but a cumulative anger at shootings of unarmed black men across the country. In effect, they said that the right to violent protest wasn't just OK, it was justified.
Quote:
In comment 13135512 Chris684 said:
Quote:
Then why were we told it was bad to call what exploded in NYC a "bomb"?
Why did the mayor of NYC not even call it terrorism?
not immediately labelling something as terrorism does not mean giving anyone the benefit of the doubt
It's the restraint expected and suggested with bombings/incidents of the terrorist nature vs. the rush to judgment in incidents with police violence that demonstrate the juxtaposition. if you don't see it or think there isn't a difference it's because you don't want to see a difference.
with a lot of these police shootings, there are less unknowns - we know who the killer is there is usually video footage that is immediately posted and it adds to the tally of dead black men shot by police officers or racists (Dylan roof, George Zimmerman) under either questionable or brutal circumstances. like it or not, after trayvon, Michael brown, the charelston shootings, garner, Miami (where an unarmed black man who was looking after an autistic teen and lying on the ground was shot) the incidents in Minneapolis, baton rouge, Tulsa, the black community is on edge. and rightfully so.
I belive he had a round to play.
The police shootings or in-custody deaths, with the exception of North Charleston, have in many instances been significantly different from the initial reports, and this after looting and rioting has occurred.
The media is so concerned about backlash in the former category from a rush to judgment, but they don't seem to give a shit about backlash in the latter category from a rush to judgment, even though it is a virtual certainty that there will be violence. They are afraid of backlash from the truth in the first instance but have no regard for the potential for backlash or eruption from a potential lie in the second instance.
Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Keep trying to spin this as a inevitable reaction to historic injustice.
This is TNB, a level 4 chimpout.
I wasn't born racist, i was made racist by prolonged exposure to the black underclass. There is no hope for most of these "people"
No, you were born a colossal moron obviously and racism just comes natural I'd imagine.
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
Quote:
In comment 13135557 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
of terrorism is different from the police shootings.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what type of event would allow racial epithets to be uttered on TV and repeatedly broadcasted?
In the aftermath of a bombing, would the news show footage of people screaming Arabic insults? I don't know what to say that a guy is out there calling the police white devils and a daughter is yelling about Crackers killing her Dad and it isn't only aired, it was aired repeatedly the first night of the incident.
Hell, that's OK because "raw emotions are running high", but people have to remain calm in the face of bombings and wait for the facts to be known? The two situations are definitely handled differently. The question to ask is: Why?
Almost like the media wants to incite something.
They are handled differently because they are trying to create a narrative instead of reporting the truth. The question to ask is why are they doing that...
Incite posts like that idiot above. And that sentiment.
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?