Police involved shootings - numbers

[skycop 0]

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole. Forensics don't lie, of course except in the case of Michael Brown............

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Why have at least two police officers lieing in their statements. Why is the second police officer not being charged?

[skycop 0]

Those are media accounts, you or I have no idea what statements were made.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[normiss 803]

Then cop shops need to stop making a speech at a press conference they call in order to make the public aware of the "facts".

[SkyDekker 1,465]

skycop

Those are media accounts, you or I have no idea what statements were made.

Well, other than the police department saying in their statement that CPR was performed by the officers on the scene.

[kallend 2,027]

skycop

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Past is prologue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kallend

***

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Past is prologue.

Interesting comment, Professor. There were North Charleston folks quoted on the news this morning that there have been several police shootings where the suspect was shot in the back. All were declared "justified." None had video.

Hmmm.
Go figure.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[winsor 236]

wolfriverjoe

******

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Past is prologue.

Interesting comment, Professor. There were North Charleston folks quoted on the news this morning that there have been several police shootings where the suspect was shot in the back. All were declared "justified." None had video.

Hmmm.
Go figure.

In highly charged situations, video is often a good thing.

I have heard claims that an irate female smacked her face into the wall enough to leave a mark, then called 911 to say she had been hit. She may well have been hit, but video would have been of great use if she was simply using the authorities as an instrument of malice.

Similarly, the procedure, after shouting "HALT!" or "FREEZE!," is (generally) to hold fire unless the opponent either attacks or accesses offensive means (axe, flame thrower, firearm, etc.). If the opponent is facing away and keeps their hands in sight, fine. If they reach for something out of sight, waiting for them to turn around to see what it is can be fatal, and shooting to stop is warranted.

In this case, video is critical. If the individual who was shot had their hands in plain sight at all times, the shooting was not justified. If they grabbed for their waist, whether it was to go for a firearm or to divest themselves of some illegal substance, the shooting was justified.

In matters of life and death, hearsay is notoriously unreliable - regardless of the source.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 2,027]

winsor

*********

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Past is prologue.

Interesting comment, Professor. There were North Charleston folks quoted on the news this morning that there have been several police shootings where the suspect was shot in the back. All were declared "justified." None had video.

Hmmm.
Go figure.

In highly charged situations, video is often a good thing.

I have heard claims that an irate female smacked her face into the wall enough to leave a mark, then called 911 to say she had been hit. She may well have been hit, but video would have been of great use if she was simply using the authorities as an instrument of malice.

Similarly, the procedure, after shouting "HALT!" or "FREEZE!," is (generally) to hold fire unless the opponent either attacks or accesses offensive means (axe, flame thrower, firearm, etc.). If the opponent is facing away and keeps their hands in sight, fine. If they reach for something out of sight, waiting for them to turn around to see what it is can be fatal, and shooting to stop is warranted.

In this case, video is critical. If the individual who was shot had their hands in plain sight at all times, the shooting was not justified. If they grabbed for their waist, whether it was to go for a firearm or to divest themselves of some illegal substance, the shooting was justified.

In matters of life and death, hearsay is notoriously unreliable - regardless of the source.


BSBD,

Winsor

Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

kallend

************

Quote

Without the video this would have been just another whitewash.

You have no idea of that outcome, it's an assumption based on hyperbole.

Past is prologue.

Interesting comment, Professor. There were North Charleston folks quoted on the news this morning that there have been several police shootings where the suspect was shot in the back. All were declared "justified." None had video.

Hmmm.
Go figure.

In highly charged situations, video is often a good thing.

I have heard claims that an irate female smacked her face into the wall enough to leave a mark, then called 911 to say she had been hit. She may well have been hit, but video would have been of great use if she was simply using the authorities as an instrument of malice.

Similarly, the procedure, after shouting "HALT!" or "FREEZE!," is (generally) to hold fire unless the opponent either attacks or accesses offensive means (axe, flame thrower, firearm, etc.). If the opponent is facing away and keeps their hands in sight, fine. If they reach for something out of sight, waiting for them to turn around to see what it is can be fatal, and shooting to stop is warranted.

In this case, video is critical. If the individual who was shot had their hands in plain sight at all times, the shooting was not justified. If they grabbed for their waist, whether it was to go for a firearm or to divest themselves of some illegal substance, the shooting was justified.

In matters of life and death, hearsay is notoriously unreliable - regardless of the source.


BSBD,

Winsor

Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Such bills have already been ruled unconstitutional, but it won't top the states from continuing to pass them...

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Anvilbrother 0]

It's pretty fucking smart if a cop is drawn down on someone with a weapon, or on the ground wrestling with someone to stay the fuck away and not be seen as a threat. I'm completely in agreement that you should be allowed to film cops, but common sense says to stay the fuck back and do it. Sadly people are too stupid to always do so, and sometimes end up as a victim of being mistaken as another bad guy trying to outnumber a cop in a fight.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,499]

Quote

In this case, video is critical. If the individual who was shot had their hands in plain sight at all times, the shooting was not justified. If they grabbed for their waist, whether it was to go for a firearm or to divest themselves of some illegal substance, the shooting was justified.

Oh that's just unadulterated bollocks. It's beneath you. The dude was running away at full pelt. Even if he was the world's greatest actor and it was all just a ploy to get the cop to drop his guard so the guy could reach for a gun, turn and fire he would be far, far more likely to shoot himself in the balls while falling over his own feet than to pose any threat before the cop could react.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Yea he was running away, and getting shot in the back was murder. The video shows the fact that he ran from the cops, and the to be verified eye witness said before the tazer was even brought out the suspect and the officer was on the ground fighting.

If both of those are true, I could see a poorly made adrenaline infused decision from a human. Remember he just just chased, fought with on the ground, tazed without effectiveness someone who was running for who knows at the time what reason. I am not defending the actions he committed murder but believe this was another poor decision from a human, not a premeditated murder by all cops in america.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[normiss 803]

Grand Jury seems to

[Driver1 0]

normiss

Grand Jury seems to

Rightfully charged. And should be convicted.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!