Graphic video released of police killing another black man in cold blood

[Yell42]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat


The kid was a moron

 

[Hotdog]

Hack, where did you get the info about his girlfriend? If you look at the video, it appears he was shot about a second after they said, put it down, but it's very hard to tell if they did say anything before that. If you look on the left screen, you will see that their feet come into the picture about 4 seconds before they call out to him (maybe less, have to go back and look to see exactly how long).

There is a news interview of her on the webs somewhere. Sorry I can't post links from my phone

 

[Getting Traded]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat

The kid was a moron

Watch the video. It does seem kind of strange that he would pick up the gun and walk around with it. Looked like he was play acting, in a way. Who knows what was going on in his mind. Whatever, he was totally innocent. The problem is that things have changed and what was appropriate and harmless 20-30 years ago now has a whole new connotation and we are creatures of habit, so it takes time to adjust.

 

[Getting Traded]

She states that before he is shot she hears him say "it's not real"(I assume he is talking about the gun)

I didn't hear her say this in the one interview I could find online. She said she had no idea why he was shot, only that she knew he didn't have a gun with him when they went into Walmart. The speculation that he had a conversation with the police is not supported by the facts or the video. The cops snuck up as you can see their feet come into the picture on the left screen, called out, then one second later, the one cop fired his rifle.

 

[One Brow]

Only if you are black.

I've received a couple of negative comments and a negative rep for this one. It's almost like people don't believe it's true.

However, what happens when a white person actually points a rifle at passers-by? Are they shot on sight?

https://fox4kc.com/2014/08/19/polic...pointing-rifle-at-motorists-on-interstate-29/

 

[One Brow]

I have not watched the video. I thought it was said in here that he was shot and then reached for the gun/toy and got shot again as a result.

When there is no sound, it looks like that. On the video with sound that Eenie-Meenie just linked to, it's obvious he was only shot before he fell the first time, there is no gun shot after he gets back up.

 

[LogGrad98]

I've received a couple of negative comments and a negative rep for this one. It's almost like people don't believe it's true.

However, what happens when a white person actually points a rifle at passers-by? Are they shot on sight?

https://fox4kc.com/2014/08/19/polic...pointing-rifle-at-motorists-on-interstate-29/

One incident vs. one incident = anecdotal evidence.

 

[One Brow]

There you go again lumping all white people together in a conversation I don't get it. How is that not racism? How do you feel comfortable with doing that? When talking about this, I try not lump any race in one group. You clearly have that Bankrupt mindset that it's ok to lump all white people together but not any other race.

There are similarities in how people are treated by society based on their skin color, and this treatment affects their thinking in the way that treatment affects human thinking in general. In particular, you exhibited this when you said you thought depiction of racism were, not just exaggerated, but "over exaggerated". You made this statement based on the very small impact racism has had in your life. It's something you see very often from white men, because racism and sexism have very little impact on their lives. It's a normal human response to your/their experience, even though it is a misunderstanding of the the true problem.

No, I just want people people to stop blaming me for something just because of my skin color.

No one thinks you are relevant enough to be blamed for anything. Your insignificance dwarfs your ability to cause major harm by your ignorance.

My point was that plenty of white people have tried hard to help with the civil rights of black people. Black people didn't free themselves all by themselves. They had plenty of help from good white people a long the way. It's a shame that you and others refuse to acknowledge that and continue to bash all white people as a whole.

It's a shame that you are so invested in white privilege you can't even tell the difference between being told you have privilege and being bashed. No one is bashing white people, generally, not even HighlandHomie.

The ironic thing here is that you are bending over backwards to help the cause but then turn around and blame yourself for being part of the problem because of your skin color.

Every time I allow my immediate reactions to control my decisions, I am part of the problem. Every time I take a moment to evaluate those reactions and look for their basis, I am part of the solution. I go back and forth on that, like any other human, although I make an effort to emphasize the latter.

I can't stop others from being racist.

This so misunderstood what I said, so fundamentally, that my best response is what you responded to: As long as you are stuck in a mindset where racism is a problem of some people, and not a problem of culture, you are part of the problem.

No one is asking you to "stop others".

I'll just still be called a racist because of my skin color. I will always be part of the problem because of my skin color.

You'll have racist inclinations because you are human, and all humans have them. You'll be part of the problem as long as you insist the problem is individual people, as opposed to every person sometimes behaving in a racist fashion and sometimes not behaving in a racist fashion.

I guess I just don't understand what you would have me do?

I know, but I'll keep trying to explain it in different ways, for as long as you care to exchange posts.

 

[One Brow]

Well then you need to re watch the video a few more times. Running and stumbling doesn't describe what the action LogGrad is questioning about. It doesn't even sound like you are describing what is being talked about.

Yet, as it turns out, that's basically what happened. He wasn't shot again after he got up, he just fell back down.

 

[One Brow]

What I am questioning is the motives so many are trying to assign to the police. There is a big difference between making a mistake and being a murderous evil racist pig bent on killing every black person they can get away with.

I agree it's a mistake to say they are "bent on killing", because that implies an intent that is usually not there. However, it seems perfectly fair to say there is a difference in the willingness to shoot black people.

 

[HighlandHomie]

One incident vs. one incident = anecdotal evidence.

That may be true in the case of this thread, but there are countless incidents where a black person was wrongly shot/shot & killed by police. And in the wake of the recent killings of Mike Brown, John Crawford, Eric Garner and many more - we've seen many pictures and videos of whites with rifles on their backs walking around stores/in public in states where that's legal. The cops don't flinch at that - AND NOR SHOULD THEY - if it's legal and they're law-abiding citizens.

The fact you continually try to discredit any thing that remotely asserts these people haven't been unfairly harmed/killed is really disturbing.

Just for brevity, what's your take on John Winkler's death? Here's a link to the story: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-an...dentally-killing-tosh-0-production-assistant/

 

[One Brow]

One incident vs. one incident = anecdotal evidence.

You are certainly correct. Anecdotes are not data. Do you question that black people get shoot more routinely than white people in similar circumstances? What sort of data would convincing to you?

Going back to a previous post, I heard last night the police shootings have decreased since the 1990s, particularly in urban areas. That was welcome news. For example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Getting Traded]

I think the recent incidents show that there is no doubt that there is an element in law enforcement which racially profiles people. This has been going on for years. These killings just smack us in the face with this blatant but sad truth, and should make us reflect on what kind of society we have and how we can change that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat


The kid was a moron

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

 

[Getting Traded]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat

The kid was a moron

Tell that to the NRA

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What I am questioning is the motives so many are trying to assign to the police. There is a big difference between making a mistake and being a murderous evil racist pig bent on killing every black person they can get away with.

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

 

[Stoked]

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

By dismissing his comments you yourself are avoiding dealing with some of the very questions that these types of occurances raise.

You have good points about questioning and reviewing policy doctrine and procedure, I agree. But so does Log about the narrative displayed by HH being regularly used in society. In my mind one is no less important than the other.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

By dismissing his comments you yourself are avoiding dealing with some of the very questions that these types of occurances raise.

You have good points about questioning and reviewing policy doctrine and procedure, I agree. But so does Log about the narrative displayed by HH being regularly used in society. In my mind one is no less important than the other.

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

 

[Stoked]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the concerns as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

Unfortunately I do not think it is an extreme ciricature. I think it is much more common than people are willing to admit.
That's fine but by you dismissing his comments you are doing the very thing you are claiming he is doing. Someone somewhere has to admit that there are some valid arguments and claims on the other side.

So let it be me.

Yes those mad about this shooting have a point that police procedures/policies, equipment, training...needs to be updated and reviewed to address the concerns of the public. That mistakes, tragic ones, are being made and it is leading to the loss of life. This should be supported by the police supporting side to help protect the police, and citizens, from future tragic events.

Also,

Yes those critiquing those verbally attacking the police have a point that it is getting out of hand. Some of the things said and verbage used are disgusting. No we do not need injured cops, their families and friends. No we do not need to attack the police. That should be roundly, loudly and frequently rejected and denounced at all levels of those on their side.

I only choose 1 argument from each side and it is not totally inclusive. But you know what...really not that hard to do.

 

[Getting Traded]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

Well, I agree about the extreme characterizations, the woe is me because I am black, but in instances of law enforcement there is definite bias and racial profiling going on. A lot of police have a redneck mentality. It goes with the roots of their upbringing that led them into law enforcement in the first place. They tend not to be tolerant people. This is a problem in our society, even more so if you're black