Mike Brown: Trayvon Part 2

[AUChizad]

Can't justify an obvious huge fudgeup from a guy that doesn't belong but:

 Does it really refute it? Or does it just mean this one asshole wasn't good at anything including shooting?
Maybe I should post a video of a cop giving a citizen way too many verbal commands and then dying and in doing so justify all shootings of any citizen? Evidently you believe in the transitive property of LEO contacts.

Maybe you're saying all blues are the same. That's racist.

Cause that's what I said.

[WiregrassTiger]

Ironic how if the officer that smooth_operator posted the vid about had pulled over the black dude, then the dude would've lived and had the officer that pulled over the black dude, pulled over the other crazy dude, then the officer would've lived. But, he was a bad shot, so we don't know.

Anywho, I must admit, when that old guy started jumping around and dancing, that made me giggle. I wouldn't have been giggling with those 30 oughts stinging my ass though.

[smooth_operator]

Cause that's what I said.

I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.

With the caption "try to justify this".

Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.

With the caption "try to justify this".

Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.

There is no need for an apology. Chizad is an instigator. That is what he does. In reality, he would likely push the envelope so far that you may have to shoot him in a traffic stop. Especially if you are a black cop. He'd be like: "I'm within my rights!" as they wheeled him away and shit.

[AUChizad]

I'm sorry chad, I guess I misinterpreted your implication when you posted this video to a thread about another unrelated shooting that you have already ruled unjustified.

With the caption "try to justify this".

Clearly, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Good thing I'm not a SC state trooper I might've shot you for it.

The point is this type of shit happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.

Another unrelated video that came out this week.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html

John Crawford looks to have been murdered. Even worse, the police who killed him are probably free to kill again.

By Jamelle Bouie

“It was an execution, no doubt about it,” said John Crawford II, the father of John Crawford III, a 22-year-old black man killed by Ohio police last month. “It was flat-out murder. And when you see the footage, it will illustrate that.”

It’s hard not to agree. If you watch the Walmart surveillance footage of Crawford’s killing—released Wednesday by prosecutors in the case—you don’t see a confrontation, or anything like the scenario described by Ronald Ritchie, the witness who called 911.

In Ritchie’s account of the event, Crawford “was just waving [the gun] at children and people. … I couldn’t hear anything that he was saying. I’m thinking that he is either going to rob the place or he’s there to shoot somebody.” Moreover, said Ritchie, “He didn’t really want to be looked at, and when people did look at him, he was pointing the gun at them. He was pointing at people. Children walking by.” Indeed, on the emergency call, Ritchie said that Crawford was trying to load the gun, leading dispatchers to tell officers that “he just put some bullets inside.”

It’s difficult to watch the video of John Crawford’s killing and conclude he wasn’t murdered.
The problem is that isn’t true. In surveillance footage, there are no people in the aisle or children walking by—Crawford is alone, on a phone. He has a gun by his side, but as we later learned, it was an unloaded air rifle. What’s more, Ohio is an open-carry state—legally, there’s no reason to approach Crawford if he isn’t using the gun to harm people. Which he wasn’t.

Police say they called out to Crawford before they shot, but the footage throws doubt on the claim. In the video, there’s no indication Crawford heard police commands before they shot him—police rush from the side and shoot, and Crawford falls to the ground. He tries to get away, but police corner and arrest him. He died later, at a nearby hospital.

To go back to Crawford’s father, it’s difficult to watch this video and conclude his son wasn’t murdered. The pace of the event—the speed with which police used lethal force—gives it the feel of a summary execution. In that, it’s similar to the killing of Kajieme Powell, who police shot moments after confronting him near a convenience store in St. Louis last month. In Powell’s case, the police officers were put on administrative leave, and the St. Louis Police Department is pursuing an investigation. In the case of Crawford, prosecutors charged the officers with murder, reckless homicide, and negligent homicide, but the grand jury declined to indict them.

Not that this was a surprise. Even in the most restrictive departments—where officers have little leeway on the use of force—police are granted wide latitude for their actions. As Dara Lind points out for Vox, the key to the legal standards for use of force “is that it doesn’t matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer’s ‘objectively reasonable’ belief that there is a threat.” Barring an extraordinary misuse of force—a cold-blooded killing, for instance—police are nearly immune to criminal prosecution (though they can be fired or face civil consequences).

That is true for federal investigations, too. “Federal prosecutors,” notes the Associated Press, “declined to charge New York police officers who killed the unarmed Sean Bell in 2006 in a 50-shot barrage following his bachelor party in Queens.” Likewise, in 1999, the New York officers who shot Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant, never faced federal charges for his killing. The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the shooting of John Crawford as well as the Ferguson, Missouri, shooting of Michael Brown, but past cases suggest both will end without charges.

In a sense, the real scandal isn’t that police killed Crawford—it’s what police can get away with in the use of lethal force. The answer, by and large, is everything. And for communities that face the brunt of official violence, it feels as if—when it comes to police—they are outside the protection of the law. During the Ferguson protests, National Review writer Charles Cooke made an important point about black American anger over police violence:

As a rule, your neighbor does not exist to protect you; he is not paid by the whole of the citizenry; he does not claim to act in your name, or to treat everybody equally. And, if he commits an illegal act, he will be charged by authorities and he will face a jury of his peers that will first pronounce upon his guilt and then decide upon his punishment. He, in other words, is subject to rules that are designed to help you if he steps out of line; the state, by contrast, has very little above it.

If that sounds unfair—if it sounds like an exaggeration—then think of Michael Brown, John Crawford, and Kajieme Powell. Each died for nothing, and at most, they’ll get the condolences of a few officials. The cops, on the other hand, will go back to work.

[smooth_operator]

The point is this type of shoot happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.

Another unrelated video that came out this week.

No, I don't think all officers are always right. In fact, I said I hope the cop in Ferguson was wrong and gets convicted of it. In fact, I spoke about how we don't have enough proven information to make a determination in that case. I lamented the rumor and speculation being reported as fact.

I readily admit that cops make mistakes. I readily admit that some cops are in fact bad persons.

I dispute any unfair assertions that fail to take reality into account, or lump all law enforcement into the same category. I dispute your idea that such things happen "frequently". You may perceive it to be so, but it is not. I submit that the rights of citizens to be free from such unlawful and repugnant behavior are more protected than ever. Training has improved. Equipment has improved. Hiring processes and psychological evaluations have improved. Cops are recorded constantly which promotes integrity.  You see videos of such because they are so remarkable. Tragedies such as this happening at all is too much, but your chances being brutalized or killed unlawfully by a cop are so small they make winning the lottery look likely.

Any time someone's life ends violently it is a tragedy. It becomes horrific tragedy if it ends due to a mistake. If it ends due to evil intent it becomes a tragic crime.  Your default assumption seems to be evil intent, mine does not.

And of course I identify with law enforcement more than you, who would expect otherwise? Doesn't mean I excuse evil intent or even folks who don't have the temperament for the job.

[CCTAU]

Should it be "bad persons" or "bad people"?

English seems to have changed such that I am not sure.

[smooth_operator]

"People" but I will leave it as a monument to bad grammar.

Here, figure out who you want to root for in this one.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/

[Token]

Just another example of why state troopers should be exiled. I haven't seen a single reason that justifies paying their salaries.

[The Prowler]

"People" but I will leave it as a monument to bad grammar.

Here, figure out who you want to root for in this one.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7600384-La-police-fatally-shoot-fellow-deputy-in-domestic-dispute/

I obviously root for the officers that defended themselves against a irate citizen.

See, IMO, once a Police Officer crosses the legal line he becomes a citizen and should be prosecuted as such, (read: not giving a week or two of paid vacation or being fired then picked up by another district)...and don't get me started about suing the Police Dept. or the Police Officer which is the same thing as suing the tax payers.

What the Police Officers did in that situation was by the book.

Regarding the shooting, by the Police Officers, at the Wal-Mart of a man holding a pellet gun. They should be charged with either Homicide or maybe 2nd degree murder...and the person that called 911 and lied should be held accountable too, maybe just as much as the Police Officers.

[The Prowler]

This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no

[WiregrassTiger]

This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no

You used a bad example in that the kid that got beat up was white. It's retribution. Like reparations.

[GH2001]

There is no need for an apology. Chizad is an instigator. That is what he does. In reality, he would likely push the envelope so far that you may have to shoot him in a traffic stop. Especially if you are a black cop. He'd be like: "I'm within my rights!" as they wheeled him away and shit.

I like to believe our very own Chadskins is more of a "don't tase me bro!" kind of guy.

[War Eagle!!!]

This is kinda what I'm talking about...flip the tables, what would happen if two citizens, that night, beat a Police Officer "to a pulp" for just standing in the way? Think they'd get their ruling overturned? LOL...no

What the fuck?

[WiregrassTiger]

The point is this type of shoot happens frequently. And you have demonstrated that you believe every officer is in the right in every one of these cases. I challenged you to find what this guy did wrong.

Another unrelated video that came out this week.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/ohio_police_won_t_be_punished_for_killing_john_crawford_police_are_virtually.html

If there is a grown man inside of store pointing a gun at people--including kids, he runs a very high likelihood of taking a cap in the ass. Not only from the police. At least in most places in the south.

And, I must say that even though the kid may have been mentally deranged or whatever, I don't see how the police really did anything wrong in the video posted. Esp considering they get a call re: someone pointing a gun at people. It's weird, yes. But I would've likely popped a cap in his ass too.

You shouldn't point a gun at someone unless you are willing to pop a cap.

[AUChizad]

If there is a grown man inside of store pointing a gun at people--including kids, he runs a very high likelihood of taking a cap in the ass. Not only from the police. At least in most places in the south.

And, I must say that even though the kid may have been mentally deranged or whatever, I don't see how the police really did anything wrong in the video posted. Esp considering they get a call re: someone pointing a gun at people. It's weird, yes. But I would've likely popped a cap in his ass too.

You shouldn't point a gun at someone unless you are willing to pop a cap.

Where is he pointing the gun at anyone? And it's an air gun he got off the shelf at that Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile none of these people got shot.

[WiregrassTiger]

Where is he pointing the gun at anyone? And it's an air gun he got off the shelf at that Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile none of these people got shot.

That it was an air rifle is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was a stick that looks like a gun when you rob a bank.

I've never seen an air rifle at WalMart that you could just take off the shelf unless it was in a box. I wonder if he took it out of the box, which is what I suspect.

Really doesn't matter, if he was pointing it at people. I couldn't tell from the video. Maybe he didn't. If he didn't point it as described in the story, its different. I was basing my assumption on what the story said. Maybe he pointed it during the time he wasn't on camera.

Bottom line is, if he pointed it and was trying to load it as the story indicated that people reported, I can certainly understand why he was shot. And it doesn't surprise or outrage me.

[The Prowler]

That it was an air rifle is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was a stick that looks like a gun when you rob a bank.

I've never seen an air rifle at WalMart that you could just take off the shelf unless it was in a box. I wonder if he took it out of the box, which is what I suspect.

Really doesn't matter, if he was pointing it at people. I couldn't tell from the video. Maybe he didn't. If he didn't point it as described in the story, its different. I was basing my assumption on what the story said. Maybe he pointed it during the time he wasn't on camera.

Bottom line is, if he pointed it and was trying to load it as the story indicated that people reported, I can certainly understand why he was shot. And it doesn't surprise or outrage me.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video. Also, the Police Officer said that he told him to drop the weapon, but if you watch the video you'll notice that two Officers came around the corner, saw the gun in his possession, not once did they get his attention enough to have him turn towards them, then they fired upon him.

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video. Also, the Police Officer said that he told him to drop the weapon, but if you watch the video you'll notice that two Officers came around the corner, saw the gun in his possession, not once did they get his attention enough to have him turn towards them, then they fired upon him.

I did watch it. As I said, I couldn't tell much from it. It appeared officers came from 2 directions. I would assume with it being in Wal Mart, there are witnesses to testify how it all went down.

My bet is he took the gun out of the box and was acting weird. Probably pointing it at folks like the article said.

[The Prowler]

I did watch it. As I said, I couldn't tell much from it. It appeared officers came from 2 directions. I would assume with it being in Wal Mart, there are witnesses to testify how it all went down.

My bet is he took the gun out of the box and was acting weird. Probably pointing it at folks like the article said.

The guy that called 911 has said, now, that he never saw him pointing it at anyone. Plus, the video does show that they got his attention, more like startled him, because he was just standing there, minding his own business...right before the Police Officers yelled at him, then shot him. Then the officers put him in handcuffs and took him to the hospital, where he died. Watch the video again, all of this takes place in the matter of less than 10 minutes. Plus it isn't against the law to open carry.

One more thing, another person died of cardiac arrest, while running out of the store, after the fatal shoots.