Stop or I will shoot

[geecue2]

     Wondering what people thoughts are on all these shootings going on in this country, WTF. The two recent ones Tulsa and Charlotte, seen the live videos of both these incidents. The Tulsa incident the man is walking to his car with four or five officers with guns drawn telling him to stop, he continues on and it looks like he reaches into his car. If I had officers with their guns drawn on me and even if I had my finger up my ass and they told me to freeze would not pull my finger out my ass until they told me to remove my finger slowly. Excessive force in my opinion yes, it even looked like in one picture an officer was aiming a tazer at him. But god dam, officers have guns drawn on you telling you to stop, stop what the fuck you are doing.

     The Charlotte incident the wife of the shooting was filming from probably 15 to 20 feet away, he could hear her several times yelling, do not shoot him he does not have a gun. The man was in his vehicle supposedly waiting for his son. You could then here her yelling don't you do it, don't you do it, in the video they asked the reporter who she was yelling this at. She said she was telling her husband to not to get out of the car. You then hear shots and then they have her husband on the ground.

Just curious on what people are thinking about all these shootings present and past.

 

[SabrinaLynn aka KatieCreme]

Well my OPIONION  that's all it is.Is that you follow the law.There officers are not going to shoot you unless you are NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS both these shooting a could have been prevented.

[geecue2]

A lot of these shootings could have been handled better in my opinion.

[MAG]

What's more interesting is that so many shootings are NOT reported.

The media generally covers only incidents where a white cop shoots a minority.  If the Tulsa incident had been white-on-white, it would never have made headlines and the officer probably would not have been charged.

[Vassago]

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/suspected-chicago-gang-member-charged-killing-boy-9-article-1.2556563

 

Interesting that BLM didn't riot over this. That's why I don't put much stock in what I see in the news.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Vassago
Typo

[Lucy Kitten]

25 minutes ago, Vassago said:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/suspected-chicago-gang-member-charged-killing-boy-9-article-1.2556563

 

Interesting that BLM didn't riot over this. That's why I don't put much stock in what I see in the news.

You know there were plenty of rallies for that poor boy right? That also didn't happen yesterday. Just google Tyshawn Lee and you will find tons of outrage. Despicable to use a dead <snip> to be not so subtly racist. This is from Shawn King's Facebook page. He is a writer for the NY Daily News that you linked.

If you ever ask me why Black folk don't care about violence in Chicago, I immediately know 4 things about you:

1. You don't live in Chicago.
2. You aren't in any meaningful relationships with anyone Black in Chicago.
3. You are probably a bigot.
4. You've done NOTHING to make the problem better yourself.

I love Chicago. The people of Chicago care DEEPLY about the violence there. They do march. They do mourn. They do build powerful organizations and coalitions to combat not only violence, but the systemic issues which cause it in the first place.

If you live in Chicago you would know this.
If you knew people there you would know this.
If you sought out ways to help, you would've learned how hard people there are working around the clock for the city and the people they love.

 

 

[Vassago]

I never said anything about Black folk not caring about violence in Chicago. I believe I linked an article about the slaying of Tyshawn, which in itself is dispicable, not my mentiong of it, and mentioned the BLM movement in relation to what they choose to riot over. I believe I attacked the press in their decision to sensationalize one story over the other. 
I don't see how that makes me a bigot.

[jj254-1]

8 hours ago, SabrinaLynn said:

Well my OPIONION  that's all it is.Is that you follow the law.There officers are not going to shoot you unless you are NOT FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS both these shooting a could have been prevented.

Is that worthy of the death penalty?

[Vassago]

55 minutes ago, jj254 said:

Is that worthy of the death penalty?

No it's not. The police officer who shot that man in Tulsa should never have become police. Her gross incompetence was illustrated by the fact that her fellow officer chose to use a tazer while she used lethal force. She's being charged with manslaughter. It's unfortunate that things unfolded the way they did, but I think that's an appropriate charge. The man in North Carolina is harder to determine. I'll wait until further facts get released before deciding how I feel.

[Lucy Kitten]

8 hours ago, Vassago said:

I never said anything about Black folk not caring about violence in Chicago. I believe I linked an article about the slaying of Tyshawn, which in itself is dispicable, not my mentiong of it, and mentioned the BLM movement in relation to what they choose to riot over. I believe I attacked the press in their decision to sensationalize one story over the other. 
I don't see how that makes me a bigot.

Well one you picked a story that was several months old and two you obviously didn't bother to research. You also picked a story about violence in Chicago which has it's own set of problems that their community is working hard to make better. And "how come BLM doesn't care about black on black crime" is the new "all lives matter". What evidence do yo have that the community of Chicago didn't mourn for Tyshawn? I saw the story all over the place. So you're trying to use the media to take a stab at BLM? The story you linked while tragically sad has nothing to do with police brutality. You slip in the media so you can make sly remarks about BLM. How can you blame the media for not covering something you accused BLM of not doing?

And yes it was totally despicable for you to bring it up because it has no place in this conversation.

 

[MAG]

12 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Well one you picked a story that was several months old and two you obviously didn't bother to research. You also picked a story about violence in Chicago which has it's own set of problems that their community is working hard to make better. And "how come BLM doesn't care about black on black crime" is the new "all lives matter". What evidence do yo have that the community of Chicago didn't mourn for Tyshawn? I saw the story all over the place. So you're trying to use the media to take a stab at BLM? The story you linked while tragically sad has nothing to do with police brutality. You slip in the media so you can make sly remarks about BLM. How can you blame the media for not covering something you accused BLM of not doing?

And yes it was totally despicable for you to bring it up because it has no place in this conversation.

 

 

You have a lot of anger, don't you?  Therapy is available for that....

BLM is brain-washed by the media.  In fact, BLM is a media creation.  Were there any rallies or protests over the 5 Dallas officers who were murdered a short time ago?  Does BLM clog the streets every time a minority cop shoots a minority suspect?  Do they cry about racism when a minority cop shoots a white suspect?

Nope, nope, and nope.

[Lucy Kitten]

14 minutes ago, MAG said:

You have a lot of anger, don't you?  Therapy is available for that....

BLM is brain-washed by the media.  In fact, BLM is a media creation.  Were there any rallies or protests over the 5 Dallas officers who were murdered a short time ago?  Does BLM clog the streets every time a minority cop shoots a minority suspect?  Do they cry about racism when a minority cop shoots a white suspect?

Nope, nope, and nope.

Explain what you mean by minority? Philando Castile was shot by a minority, Jeronimo Yanez is Hispanic.

To bring up a horrific unrelated crime when the question was about gun violence from police is pretty tasteless. We don't need any Skittles to prove points. Especially tasteless points irrelevant to the OP.

You seem to have a lot of opinions on what BLM hasn't done but what have you done? What are your opinions on the actual subject? Is police brutality a problem? Is force disproportionately dispensed based on the color of the suspects skin? Is it really up to police officers to decide who gets to die?  Why do you think they always fire so many shots? Isn't one in the right spot enough to temporarily disable a human? I am all for having real conversations, are you?

[MAG]

39 minutes ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Explain what you mean by minority? Philando Castile was shot by a minority, Jeronimo Yanez is Hispanic.

To bring up a horrific unrelated crime when the question was about gun violence from police is pretty tasteless. We don't need any Skittles to prove points. Especially tasteless points irrelevant to the OP.  The issue is and always has been BLM.  

You seem to have a lot of opinions on what BLM hasn't done but what have you done? What are your opinions on the actual subject? I've made my opinions clear.  Is police brutality a problem? Not as much as media/BLM would have us believe Is force disproportionately dispensed based on the color of the suspects skin? No.  Is it really up to police officers to decide who gets to die?  Yes, when a suspect refuses to obey orders and threatens an officer.  Why do you think they always fire so many shots?  Not a single shot was fired at Eric Garner.  Isn't one in the right spot enough to temporarily disable a human? I'd like to see YOU fire once-and-only-once in a situation where you are afraid for your life.  I am all for having real conversations, are you?  No, you're not.  Your style of "conversation" is insulting and belittling.  Provide links to all threads where you've engaged someone respectfully.

 

[Lucy Kitten]

1 hour ago, MAG said:

 

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Your issue is BLM, well that and some of the most deep seeded bitterness I have ever encountered. I can easily list dozens of positive interactions but like BLM you only see what you want to see.

This is a really funny post from someone who is nothing but sunshine and roses.

[Vassago]

1 hour ago, MAG said:

 

"The issue is and always has been BLM."

"No, you're not.  Your style of "conversation" is insulting and belittling.  Provide links to all threads where you've engaged someone respectfully."

Thank You

[MAG]

19 minutes ago, Lucy Kitten said:

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Your issue is BLM, well that and some of the most deep seeded bitterness I have ever encountered. I can easily list dozens of positive interactions but like BLM you only see what you want to see.

This is a really funny post from someone who is nothing but sunshine and roses.

So, go ahead -- show us where you've been respectful to others' opinions during a debate.  I dare you.

Or, you could start now.  Double dare.

[Mr.Pink]

chris rock has some sage advice.

 

[Bit Banger]

10 hours ago, Lucy Kitten said:

...

1) You seem to have a lot of opinions on what BLM hasn't done but what have you done? What are your opinions on the actual subject?

2) Is police brutality a problem?

3) Is force disproportionately dispensed based on the color of the suspects skin?

4) Is it really up to police officers to decide who gets to die? 

5) Why do you think they always fire so many shots? Isn't one in the right spot enough to temporarily disable a human?

1)  Peaceful protests - OK.  Rioting and looting - NO!  BLM seems to foster the later form of illegal activity, with the media fanning the flames.

2)  No, not in the systemic way that BLM and the media would have us believe.  Are there brutal individuals in law enforcement? Sure.  Remember that LE encounter a significant number of 'not nice' individuals, often hopped up on drugs or alcohol, people who's response to pain has been suppressed.  What you consider to be excessive force may not even get their attention.

3)  Yes, but the real question is, "Why?"  Is crime disproportionate in neighborhoods of color?  Are LE disrespected and disobeyed in white neighborhoods?  Statistics tell varied stories without proper context.  The violence in Chicago is not occurring in the European neighborhoods of the N and W sides, but the black South Side is a war zone.

4)  No, it's a consequence of disobeying lawful orders, a choice made by the dead.  It's Darwinism eliminating those too stupid to follow simple instructions.  The assassination of police officers has placed LE on hair triggers; they are fearful for their lives.  They want to go home to their families at the end of shift.  The shooting officers are victims too.  While they remain alive, even if ruled a justified shooting their lives are disrupted, their careers tarnished if not destroyed, their future filled with 'what if's and bad dreams.

5)  NEVER SHOOT TO WOUND!  For a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it's a more difficult shot, more likely to miss and cause collateral damage (i.e. wound or innocents). Always shoot for center of mass.  Another reason is that a wounded animal can still kill you.  Why so many shots? Because in the heat of combat - despite hours of range training and most LE don't do a lot of range training - accuracy is not that great.  The more lead downrange, the more likely the threat to the officers' lives is eliminated.  Warning shots have also been eliminated because they may wound or kill innocents; that bullet has to go someplace.  (Side note: The US Military switched from 38 revolvers to 45's in the Philippines because troops were emptying their 38's into an Moro warrior, only to be killed by a bolo knife.  The 45 knocked a man down, allowing a more accurate 2nd shot on a stationary target.  They are now considering switching from the 9mm back to 45's for the same reason.)

It would be nice if we had a reliable, non-lethal means of incapacitating recalcitrant individuals.  Some means of instantly restraining them, eliminating the threat to the lives of LE and others.  Tasers sometimes work, however they are short range and sometimes lethal.  But we don't.  So for now, lethal force is what we have for disobedient individuals.  The alternative is lawlessness and anarchy. 

I heard a proposal a few months ago to change the paradigm of law enforcement from one of patrol and crime prevention to one of response, similar to the fire department.  Call them when you have a problem and they will come from the station to investigate after the incident.

 

[MAG]

Excellent post, Bit.  A terrific example of thoughtful debate, respectfully and intelligently stated.

 

[jj254-1]

55 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

1)  Peaceful protests - OK.  Rioting and looting - NO!  BLM seems to foster the later form of illegal activity, with the media fanning the flames.

2)  No, not in the systemic way that BLM and the media would have us believe.  Are there brutal individuals in law enforcement? Sure.  Remember that LE encounter a significant number of 'not nice' individuals, often hopped up on drugs or alcohol, people who's response to pain has been suppressed.  What you consider to be excessive force may not even get their attention.

3)  Yes, but the real question is, "Why?"  Is crime disproportionate in neighborhoods of color?  Are LE disrespected and disobeyed in white neighborhoods?  Statistics tell varied stories without proper context.  The violence in Chicago is not occurring in the European neighborhoods of the N and W sides, but the black South Side is a war zone.

4)  No, it's a consequence of disobeying lawful orders, a choice made by the dead.  It's Darwinism eliminating those too stupid to follow simple instructions.  The assassination of police officers has placed LE on hair triggers; they are fearful for their lives.  They want to go home to their families at the end of shift.  The shooting officers are victims too.  While they remain alive, even if ruled a justified shooting their lives are disrupted, their careers tarnished if not destroyed, their future filled with 'what if's and bad dreams.

5)  NEVER SHOOT TO WOUND!  For a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it's a more difficult shot, more likely to miss and cause collateral damage (i.e. wound or innocents). Always shoot for center of mass.  Another reason is that a wounded animal can still kill you.  Why so many shots? Because in the heat of combat - despite hours of range training and most LE don't do a lot of range training - accuracy is not that great.  The more lead downrange, the more likely the threat to the officers' lives is eliminated.  Warning shots have also been eliminated because they may wound or kill innocents; that bullet has to go someplace.  (Side note: The US Military switched from 38 revolvers to 45's in the Philippines because troops were emptying their 38's into an Moro warrior, only to be killed by a bolo knife.  The 45 knocked a man down, allowing a more accurate 2nd shot on a stationary target.  They are now considering switching from the 9mm back to 45's for the same reason.)

It would be nice if we had a reliable, non-lethal means of incapacitating recalcitrant individuals.  Some means of instantly restraining them, eliminating the threat to the lives of LE and others.  Tasers sometimes work, however they are short range and sometimes lethal.  But we don't.  So for now, lethal force is what we have for disobedient individuals.  The alternative is lawlessness and anarchy. 

I heard a proposal a few months ago to change the paradigm of law enforcement from one of patrol and crime prevention to one of response, similar to the fire department.  Call them when you have a problem and they will come from the station to investigate after the incident.

 

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

 

--Excerpt from Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963

[MAG]

How is a 53+ year old quote relevant today?

[Lucy Kitten]

38 minutes ago, MAG said:

How is a 53+ year old quote relevant today?

Because all that Civil Rights promised was never delivered. Because BLM and kneeling football players are all doing it wrong. So why not pick a quote from an activist people are aware of? That people (maybe not you) actually admire.

When did MLK quotes become irrelevant? The same imaginary day that racism in America ended?

[MAG]

1 minute ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Because all that Civil Rights promised was never delivered. Because BLM and kneeling football players are all doing it wrong. So why not pick a quote from an activist people are aware of? That people (maybe not you) actually admire.

When did MLK quotes become irrelevant? The same imaginary day that racism in America ended?

I noticed you didn't respond to my challenge to debate respectfully.  You could take a lesson from Bit.  Something to think about, while you're stewing in bitterness over the plight of BLM.

[Lucy Kitten]

18 hours ago, Vassago said:

"The issue is and always has been BLM."

"No, you're not.  Your style of "conversation" is insulting and belittling.  Provide links to all threads where you've engaged someone respectfully."

Thank You

Little boys get their fee fees hurt, you could follow MAGs advice for me, there is always therapy.

Tell me again why you felt the need to post that shit about Chicago when it had nothing to do with the question?

[Lucy Kitten]

18 hours ago, MAG said:

So, go ahead -- show us where you've been respectful to others' opinions during a debate.  I dare you.

Or, you could start now.  Double dare.

It's called burned of proof. It's on you. You want to make the accusation have your evidence to back it up.

[MAG]

The evidence is your entire posting history.

Want to refute the accusation?  Show me ONE post that is entirely respectful.

[Vassago]

50 minutes ago, Lucy Kitten said:

Little boys get their fee fees hurt, you could follow MAGs advice for me, there is always therapy.

Tell me again why you felt the need to post that shit about Chicago when it had nothing to do with the question?

The story about the kid in Chicago in relation to BLM is not an original connection. It's been brought up in several national news outlets. If that offends. Don't watch the news. Your response only proves MAG right. This isn't court. There is no burden of proof. He was only asking a question, which you still cannot seem to respond to properly. In fact with every response you have given so far, you just keep digging further and further down.

[jj254-1]

2 hours ago, MAG said:

How is a 53+ year old quote relevant today?

It ain't for you. No sense arguing with you. Learned long ago you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. 

[Guest]

So many things going on in this thread.  Let me address what I think is the main problem.

"IS POLICE BRUTALITY A PROBLEM"

This question is really getting to what I think was the center of the OP's question.  I believe that the real problem is GOVERNMENT BRUTALITY THROUGH EXCESSIVE LEGISLATION.  There are sooooo many stupid, burdensome laws out there that people break them every day, just trying to get by.  And when laws get broken, who is the face of the government that people see?  That's right:  cops.   Now, I personally believe that most cops are like you and me.....folks just trying to do their job.  But, like all populations, there will be some percentage that are inclined to make poor decisions and some more that are just assholes.  As the number of restrictive laws go up, so do confrontations with the police and the likelyhood that someone will get hurt.

Put the blame where it belongs:  those who govern us.

[Lucy Kitten]

9 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

 So for now, lethal force is what we have for disobedient individuals.  The alternative is lawlessness and anarchy. 

 

Gross that this is what you think of humans but not surprising. So our judicial system means nothing? Crimes that were not punishable by death now are just because it makes us feel better? You spit on the Constitution and our entire system. Selling cigarettes on the street requires lethal force? Playing with toy guns deserves lethal force? We can go through the whole list of "criminals" that posed ZERO risk and still lost their lives to lethal force. Why was James Holmes taken alive? The shooter in Colorado Springs? The dumpster bomber in NY/NJ? All of those dudes were serious threats and yet were all taken alive. So we know it can be done.

The alternative to lethal force is not lawlessness and anarchy, lethal force leads to anarchy and lawlessness.  What's happening in Charlotte? The same happened in Ferguson and in Louisiana. The looting and rioting is pretty much lawless anarchy. Every presumed needless death just fuels the rage. And will continue to do so until the issue of lethal force is actually addressed.

We have options and lethal force is not at the top of the list. We have the retraining of officers, we have TASER that's responsible for teaching officers how to subdue using their product. We the people can acknowledge that there are absolutely problems with excessive force within the police department. We have hundreds of videos on the internet of cops abusing their power, not even just with shootings but all kinds of encounters. We know this to be true and we still like to pretend that it's not a problem or that things will work themselves out.

Cops are easily one of the tightest knit groups. They protect their own good and bad. Cops who are honest about crooked cops get silenced. Some are silenced to the point of crazy like Christopher Dorner. We need them to break their silence and reevaluate their brotherhood.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/tased-in-the-chest-for-23-seconds-dead-for-8-minutes-now-facing-a-lifetime-of-recovery/

I strongly suggest reading the Bryce Masters story, it's levels of fucked up are kind of hard to comprehend. It's starts a kid who was  pulled over tazed into a coma and was dead for 8 seconds. But as it turns out Bryce was the son of a cop and his father had access to information. Turns out Taser knows their product is lethal but doesn't like to include it in the training. Cops are poorly trained on tasers and deliver the blow not knowing it could kill someone. Bryce's human rights were violated and charges were filed and then the harassment and bullying came from the local police. It's a case that helps highlight all the complications around excessive force and the problems with police.

When you remove race from crime statistics what you're left with is poor, uneducated people. Poor, uneducated people tend to lean towards crime and are more likely to have issues with police. Given that white people are still like %80 of Americans, it shouldn't seem unreasonable to believe that a group of people that makes up %12 of the population is maybe unfairly targeted. 

These kinds of conversations are too big to have here.