What's new

They killed my son because he's black (Saratoga Springs)

♪alt13

Well-Known Member
"I'm in Saratoga Springs, cause it's a safe little community and they killed him. They killed my son because he's black. No white boy with a little sword would they shoot while he's running away," an emotional Susan Hunt said while crying Friday.

"Those stupid cops thought they had to murder over a toy. This is my baby. This is my family. And they ruined my family."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=31536612&nid=148&title=they-killed-my-son-because-hes-black-saratoga-springs-mom-says&s_cid=queue-20
 
Here's the details we have so far:

1. Someone gets scared that someone has a sword in public.
2. Cops show up because someone said someone had a sword.
3. Kid gets shot in the back several times according to eye witnesses.


From the details we have so far it sounds like a cop should get hanged for this.
 
Solid compassion for a woman who just lost her son and has no answers.

Um...I'm sorry your son was acting erratically in public with a very obvious dangerous weapon and actions were taken so he didn't potentially hurt someone else? Was that better?

Fact is we don't know what prompted the shooting. Some eye-witnesses said he was acting erratically. So a couple cops come to the scene, kids is freaking out a bit, cops try to talk to him, maybe he is incoherent somewhat. The he turns and runs toward a busy store carrying a sword, and doesn't respond to officers requests to stop. What do you do? "Hey Bob, despite all our training, I bet he is just a misunderstood kid. Let's wait and see if he tries to slash up that Panda Express before we step in. We don't want this to be mis-construed." You do realize this is where some of this may be going at some point. The headline would then read "police watch as crazy man kills 4 and wounds a dozen more at a Panda Express, to make sure they are not taking unreasonable action because he was acting strangely. Citizens applaud the police for allowing the rampage rather than perhaps setting off a controversy about whether or not they should have dealt with a potential threat."
 
Um...I'm sorry your son was acting erratically in public with a very obvious dangerous weapon and actions were taken so he didn't potentially hurt someone else? Was that better?

Fact is we don't know what prompted the shooting. Some eye-witnesses said he was acting erratically. So a couple cops come to the scene, kids is freaking out a bit, cops try to talk to him, maybe he is incoherent somewhat. The he turns and runs toward a busy store carrying a sword, and doesn't respond to officers requests to stop. What do you do? "Hey Bob, despite all our training, I bet he is just a misunderstood kid. Let's wait and see if he tries to slash up that Panda Express before we step in. We don't want this to be mis-construed." You do realize this is where some of this may be going at some point. The headline would then read "police watch as crazy man kills 4 and wounds a dozen more at a Panda Express, to make sure they are not taking unreasonable action because he was acting strangely. Citizens applaud the police for allowing the rampage rather than perhaps setting off a controversy about whether or not they should have dealt with a potential threat."


So you don't have any compassion for a woman who just lost her son and doesn't understand why and says something emotional.
 
What I don't understand, in these situations, is that the police are killing people. Can't they just disable the person, like shoot them in the leg or something? Like the guy in Ferguson, did they have to kill him? Or are they just such lousy shots that they have shoot of flurry of bullets to stop someone and as a result kill them?
 
What I don't understand, in these situations, is that the police are killing people. Can't they just disable the person, like shoot them in the leg or something? Like the guy in Ferguson, did they have to kill him? Or are they just such lousy shots that they have shoot of flurry of bullets to stop someone and as a result kill them?
Firing a shot is always considered deadly force. If you were to fire an aimed shot at a leg then it would be assumed deadly force was not justified.

Not only that but it is not safe for innocent bystanders because the chance of missing the threat is much much greater.

And finally, police do not train to hit legs, they train to hit center of mass, which means the chest.
 
At first I was like, oh ****, another idiot cop went too far... And then I read the article. It will be interesting and probably a bit more enlightening when the full story comes out, but for now, it sounds like another dumbass person who didn't do what the cops told him, made a stupid mistake, and died.

It INFURIATES me when the first thing out of the victim's camp relates to race. It IS possible and more than likely that your kid died because he was stupid, not because he was black. But seriously, keep being oppressed, it's working wonders for everyone! Victims gonna victim I guess.
 
"I believe that maybe my son thought, 'Maybe I'll try to get a job at Panda, maybe this sword will impress them,'" she said. "(He probably) thought he was cool with the sword. He was more of a little kid trying to be a teenager."

Say what? This lady needs some serious psychological counseling if she believes you can take a Samurai sword when you go out job hunting. He was not a "boy." He was not playing with a plastic toy. He wasn't a little kid trying to be a teenager. He was 22 years old and carrying a weapon. Sorry, it is a tragedy if the MAN was mentally ill. But lady, YOU contributed to his death. Any RESPONSIBLE mother would have told their "boy" not to carry a WEAPON in public.
 
What I don't understand, in these situations, is that the police are killing people. Can't they just disable the person, like shoot them in the leg or something? Like the guy in Ferguson, did they have to kill him? Or are they just such lousy shots that they have shoot of flurry of bullets to stop someone and as a result kill them?
Ever try to "disable" a target? Ever known someone who has been shot in the arm or leg and just kept going? The FIRST obligation of the officer is to protect innocent people. You do that by STOPPING the threat. Hit someone in the leg and then what? Likelihood, especially if that person has a gun, is that they would just start shooting from where they fell. Besides trying to merely "disable" a person, even IF you were a great shot, wouldn't always just incapacitate. Shoot through an artery and that person could bleed to death before emergency help arrived.
 
What I don't understand, in these situations, is that the police are killing people. Can't they just disable the person, like shoot them in the leg or something? Like the guy in Ferguson, did they have to kill him? Or are they just such lousy shots that they have shoot of flurry of bullets to stop someone and as a result kill them?

It'd be ideal for our armed police who are so trigger happy to be trained well enough to be able to disable an unarmed person like Brown, or someone with a knife like the latest victim in the linked story by just shooting them in the leg - but that would mean we'd have to have skilled, smart, semi-coordinated, athletic and reasonable citizens in the police force. As it stands now, for every police force that has a policeman/woman who could fit that bill they have 15 who are either fat, dumb, unreasonable and/or uncoordinated dregs with a Napoleon complex.
 
If anyone wonders why her kid turned out the way he did... You need only hear the mom make excuse after excuse for him.

He's a great kid bla bla bla so what if he hit me bla bla bla my son is a great kid bla bla bla so what if he was arrested in January for punching people...

The fact is, cops aren't looking to blow someone way. It's traumatizing. It's career threatening. It's bad for the department for years. It's ending a life. I just don't see cops in Saratoga Springs just prowling around looking for some minority to slaughter.

It will be interesting the details of this story. But I'm really upset that the first words out of her mouth were about race.
 
Some of the comments on this story are funny. Someone said that instead of a samurai sword he should have brought an AR-15. Fewer people would have been frightened. Lol...
 
It'd be ideal for our armed police who are so trigger happy to be trained well enough to be able to disable an unarmed person like Brown, or someone with a knife like the latest victim in the linked story by just shooting them in the leg - but that would mean we'd have to have skilled, smart, semi-coordinated, athletic and reasonable citizens in the police force. As it stands now, for every police force that has a policeman/woman who could fit that bill they have 15 who are either fat, dumb, unreasonable and/or uncoordinated dregs with a Napoleon complex.

Says the guy who couldn't name one single officer in his city, couldn't pick them out of a crowd if not in a uniform, and essentially is the dumbest mother ****er on the board. Compelling take, *** wipe.
 
You're doing it again. Relax.

Negative. I'm not going to sit back while this arrogant, uninformed, half-witted **** head spews his mindless mouth diarrhea on men and women who would gladly lay their own lives down to save his. Ungrateful sack of dump. If he were talking about members of the US military, I bet you'd be singing a different tune. I have friends and family who are cops, and we have board members who are also cops. I'm just not going to let it go unchallenged, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Someone brought this up the other day. Cops should have body cameras. There is no reason in today's age for them not to. Why let peoples imaginations run wild? Record it. Settle it. Move on.
 
Back
Top