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

[bigb]

So I've got one issue with the "shot in the back while lunging at cops" theory. I may be mistaken, but I think cops are trained NOT to fire when there is a risk of missing and injuring others. Shooting a dude in the back that is lunging at another cop by very definition is shooting at a fellow cop. I'm finding that hard to believe.

 

[Stoked]

So I've got one issue with the "shot in the back while lunging at cops" theory. I may be mistaken, but I think cops are trained NOT to fire when there is a risk of missing and injuring others. Shooting a dude in the back that is lunging at another cop by very definition is shooting at a fellow cop. I'm finding that hard to believe.

Good point but it could depend on the angle.

 

[TroutBum]

If you try really hard, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the notion that racism does not require a conscious intent to do harm, and save us your derision directed at strawmen.

Oooooh, so what you're saying is that every human being is, at least on the subconscious level, a racist, and therefore predisposed to murder in cold blood. Either that or you know these officers intamately well in order to determine their level of racialism. Either way, I'd be happy to lob around straw men compared to your "argument"; I'm being sarcastic, you're being serious.

So I've got one issue with the "shot in the back while lunging at cops" theory. I may be mistaken, but I think cops are trained NOT to fire when there is a risk of missing and injuring others. Shooting a dude in the back that is lunging at another cop by very definition is shooting at a fellow cop. I'm finding that hard to believe.

I've never bought this whole line of thinking either. If the kid was shot in the back and the officers are really saying that he lunged at him, their had better be some damn compelling evidence of how/why. You don't fire in the direction of your partner, even in the most dire of circumstances. (I ain't no cop, so salt with that statement, bitte.)

 

[The Thriller]

Oooooh, so what you're saying is that every human being is, at least on the subconscious level, a racist, and therefore predisposed to murder in cold blood. Either that or you know these officers intamately well in order to determine their level of racialism. Either way, I'd be happy to lob around straw men compared to your "argument"; I'm being sarcastic, you're being serious.



I've never bought this whole line of thinking either. If the kid was shot in the back and the officers are really saying that he lunged at him, their had better be some damn compelling evidence of how/why. You don't fire in the direction of your partner, even in the most dire of circumstances. (I ain't no cop, so salt with that statement, bitte.)

Actually, recent research supports the notion that we are indeed, "born racists."

[video=youtube_share;aIc-4h9RIvY]https://youtu.be/aIc-4h9RIvY

 

[One Brow]

Oooooh, so what you're saying is that every human being is, at least on the subconscious level, a racist, and therefore predisposed to murder in cold blood.

Every human being is tribal and threatened by non-tribal members; in the US today race is a tribal marker; and people react more strongly when they feel more threatened. None of that requires "predisposed to murder in cold blood".

I'm being sarcastic, you're being serious.

Sarcasm requires a target, and I'm pointing out you are using an invalid target.

I've never bought this whole line of thinking either. If the kid was shot in the back and the officers are really saying that he lunged at him, their had better be some damn compelling evidence of how/why. You don't fire in the direction of your partner, even in the most dire of circumstances. (I ain't no cop, so salt with that statement, bitte.)

The whole situation is confusing right now.

 

[Gameface]

The new pic online of him smiling with the cops close to him, hands at their side isn't adding up to trigger happy murderers.

Nor does him standing there, smile on his face, hands at his side, imply that he was a raving maniac bent on slicing and dicing up customers at Panda Express.

 

[TroutBum]

Every human being is tribal and threatened by non-tribal members; in the US today race is a tribal marker; and people react more strongly when they feel more threatened. None of that requires "predisposed to murder in cold blood".

I agree with you, which makes me wonder why you (and countless others) automatically determine cases like this are about race, especially given the fact that we don't have the whole story, there doesn't appear to be anything prior to this event that would point to it being racially motivated, and lastly but not leastly (awesome new word), that whole Occam's Razor thing. By your logic, every murder, crime, or injustice can be blamed on racism. I think that is pure rubbish.

Sarcasm requires a target, and I'm pointing out you are using an invalid target.

Uh, you're a fantastic target, albeit a lovable one.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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."

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the excuse every damned time a police officer kills someone that (1) they had no choice and/or (2) multiple shots to kill zones were necessary to subdue the suspect.

I understand that much of our behavior, acting within institutions, adheres to the codes, rules, norms, etc. of that institution. Institutions do not encourage members (as a rule) to question codes, rules, norms etc. and those that do are marginalized. Institutions, and thus their members, imbue said codes, rules, norms, etc. with inviolable status, and so they are perpetuated over time without serious reflection. Case in point is now pervasive practice of using overwhelming force in policing methods.

Such rationalizations as found above just seem to me to be so much institutional convention wisdom that is repeated uncritically and ad nauseum, so much so that the public also uncritically buys into them.

No, I've never been on the force, nor have I been in a 'life threatening' situation, but I do know that institutional policies are ALWAYS changing over time. What is inviolable today is discarded dogma tomorrow. Society today is is long overdue for discourse and rethinking of policing methods.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the excuse every damned time a police officer kills someone that (1) they had no choice and/or (2) multiple shots to kill zones were necessary to subdue the suspect.

(1) They usually don't.
(2) Have you not been reading these threads? Game face, as well as others, have stated why their are almost always multiple shots.

I understand that much of our behavior, acting within institutions, adheres to the codes, rules, norms, etc. of that institution. Institutions do not encourage members (as a rule) to question codes, rules, norms etc. and those that do are marginalized. Institutions, and thus their members, imbue said codes, rules, norms, etc. with inviolable status, and so they are perpetuated over time without serious reflection. Case in point is now pervasive practice of using overwhelming force in policing methods.

Such rationalizations as found above just seem to me to be so much institutional convention wisdom that is repeated uncritically and ad nauseum, so much so that the public also uncritically buys into them.

Just so you know, the first bolded line is you doing exactly what you're bitching about in bolded line number two. The vast majority of police forces in the US are underfunded and in dire need of necessities, not bursting at the seems with military grade weapons of mass destruction like the media would like you to believe. A simple google search and fifteen minutes of unbiased reading will confirm.

No, I've never been on the force, nor have I been in a 'life threatening' situation, but I do know that institutional policies are ALWAYS changing over time. What is inviolable today is discarded dogma tomorrow. Society today is is long overdue for discourse and rethinking of policing methods.

I will agree with you here though, discourse and rethinking are never a bad thing. Who do you suggest heads up this potential retooling though?

 

[fishonjazz]

Nor does him standing there, smile on his face, hands at his side, imply that he was a raving maniac bent on slicing and dicing up customers at Panda Express.

:^O

 

[One Brow]

The vast majority of police forces in the US are underfunded and in dire need of necessities, not bursting at the seems with military grade weapons of mass destruction like the media would like you to believe. A simple google search and fifteen minutes of unbiased reading will confirm.

Many police forces are in both states, the beneficiaries of federal money that can be used to buy riot gear, but not upgrade their computers.

 

[One Brow]

I agree with you, which makes me wonder why you (and countless others) automatically determine cases like this are about race, ...

I didn't say it was about race (from the perspective of the officers). I said had Hunt's race been different, there would have been a different outcome. For one thing, it's much less likely that a white man would have had the police summoned at all. Even if they were, the entire confrontation, start to finish, would have played out differently, not because anyone was gunning for black people, but because, more often than not, black people get treated as more threatening.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

No white man has been killed by police wielding a sword?

 

[TroutBum]

No white man has been killed by police wielding a sword?

Nope, only black dudes. Who make porn.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?223-R-I-P-Steve-Driver&highlight=Driver

[video=youtube_share;N1KjMewckwQ]https://youtu.be/N1KjMewckwQ

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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.

And thus we begin the hagiography of the police force members. They are all Saints merely trying to selflessly serve the public and would 'gladly' sacrifice their lives to protect the public well-being.

That you have cops in the family or know cops is irrelevant, and it means you can't be trusted to be objective.

They aren't all Saints, and they aren't all as selfless as you make them out to be. No one is. Arrogant, uninformed or halfwitted vs. biased and incapability of objectivity. Pick your poison.

I'm not claiming that cops are such and such, but I know enough about human nature to know that nobody, as a group, is as selfless as you're making the police fraternity to be.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

(1) They usually don't.
(2) Have you not been reading these threads? Game face, as well as others, have stated why their are almost always multiple shots.



Just so you know, the first bolded line is you doing exactly what you're bitching about in bolded line number two. The vast majority of police forces in the US are underfunded and in dire need of necessities, not bursting at the seems with military grade weapons of mass destruction like the media would like you to believe. A simple google search and fifteen minutes of unbiased reading will confirm.



I will agree with you here though, discourse and rethinking are never a bad thing. Who do you suggest heads up this potential retooling though?

Yes, I've read all the explanations for why police do what they do here and elsewhere. That doesn't invalidate anything I've said. The reasons given for extreme police force is a doctrine of policing, it's not truth handed down by God on tablets of stone. It's not always been this way, nor is it the only way. It's the current way. And I believe it's high time to reconsider it.

There are numerous accounts to be easily found of excessive police force in occasions that do not warrant them. I've never said that this is the rule without exception, I've said that there's an trend in this direction. A claim that has a significant amount of backing, if YOU care to do the research. I'm open minded that the claims might be overstated and represent a quite small sample. That many police forces are undermanned and lack resources to do their jobs is a different issue and is irrelevant to my point (given that I'm not making a universal claim of excessive police force).

Oh, and IF you can give me examples of where police departments have publicly acknowledged (absent external pressure) that a shooting was unjustified, and that it wasn't necessary to pump several bullets into a suspect's mass, then I'd be happy to see them.

 

[TroutBum]

Yes, I've read all the explanations for why police do what they do here and elsewhere. That doesn't invalidate anything I've said. The reasons given for extreme police force is a doctrine of policing, it's not truth handed down by God on tablets of stone. It's not always been this way, nor is it the only way. It's the current way. And I believe it's high time to reconsider it.

There are numerous accounts to be easily found of excessive police force in occasions that do not warrant them. I've never said that this is the rule without exception, I've said that there's an trend in this direction. A claim that has a significant amount of backing, if YOU care to do the research. I'm open minded that the claims might be overstated and represent a quite small sample. That many police forces are undermanned and lack resources to do their jobs is a different issue and is irrelevant to my point (given that I'm not making a universal claim of excessive police force).

Oh, and IF you can give me examples of where police departments have publicly acknowledged (absent external pressure) that a shooting was unjustified, and that it wasn't necessary to pump several bullets into a suspect's mass, then I'd be happy to see them.

ts;sir

 

[One Brow]

No white man has been killed by police wielding a sword?

Generally, having a sword in your scabbard is not referred to as wielding it, and since I referred only to this specific situation, and not to all situations everywhere, your attempted rebuttal is unfounded for two different reasons.

 

[♪alt13]

You mean this one, jocktease?

You're right. The one cop doesn't even appear to have his hand on his gun.

Where is the dash cam footage? Would probably clear some **** up.

However an arrangement like that could be used to explain how he got **** in the back while lunging at police. The two officers in that pic are spread out.

All this is conjecture and speculation of course.

My understanding is that he was shot 200 yards from where this picture was taken.

 

[Nate505]

Seems like carrying a weapon around willy nilly is ok if you're a nutjob like this guy:

Sorry, not a nutjob, Cleetus here is jus protectchun hez rights.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...uses-stir-vanderbilt-hillsboro-high/15838221/