Post: #126

@moma I don't know - looks like what I xsaw on the news except the news had subtitles.

@jariel - I see a head in there also, I am surprised we have not heard from that person yet. I mean the person could shed some light on why he ran. BUT, BUT, BUT whatever the person says cannot justify the guy being murdered like that. This was just fucked up.


Below.
Mother of cop speaks. I have no idea why she chose to do this. Fucking idiot, stay out of the news.

Some say racism is taught, and here I go again trying to be fair, but we don't know if it was purely racially motivated, or do we? If we do please post.

But should it have been racially motivated, this woman would be partly responsible. Because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, right? Anyway, she tries to say in addition to the poor guy being murdered, many other lives were affected forever. If we can control our emotions and be fair, she is right - so many lives are wrecked by this murderer. Apparently, he has a baby on the way.

WTF was going through his mind? Grrrr, frustrated thinking about this madness. Just let him run and figure it out later. He didn't have a gun on him (guessing) or anything that indicated he was an immediate threat.

Unlike that other stop where the cop found a gun in glove box and the fucking victim decided to force his way out of the car. /thread-44446.html That seemed like a legit shooting on that cops part.

This was murder.

Post: #127

Little discussion about this, but it seems like the guy ran away because he had unpaid child support payments.

Feminism kills?

Post: #128

She says that it's not in his character. She says that he wouldn't do anything purposely to harm someone.

Yet, she won't watch the video or listen to people's comments about the video.

She can't watch it.

Then why is she going on national tv to talk about it?

This will sway the court of public opinion towards the officer a little I'm sure.

Crocodile tears.

Post: #129

(04-10-2015 04:14 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  She says that it's not in his character. She says that he wouldn't do anything purposely to harm someone.

Yet, she won't watch the video or listen to people's comments about the video.

She can't watch it.

Then why is she going on national tv to talk about it?

This will sway the court of public opinion towards the officer a little I'm sure.

Crocodile tears.

Don't even know why mother's are interviewed. Even the mothers of convicted convicts swear that their sons are innocent and they weren't raised that way. The emotional bond between mother and children is unconditional and doesn't listen to reason and facts. I totally understand that and it's hardwired into the mother's nurturing instinct. But why interview them?

Post: #130

This is probably the first time I have actually seen Fox News and Sean Hannity even agree with MSNBC and CNN on this issue. Its pretty amazing to see both cable channels agreeing on something except for Jesse Lee Peterson there.

Post: #131

(04-10-2015 06:22 PM)MidWest Wrote:  This is probably the first time I have actually seen Fox News and Sean Hannity even agree with MSNBC and CNN on this issue. Its pretty amazing to see both cable channels agreeing on something except for Jesse Lee Peterson there.

I hate using the word Uncle Tom because it gets thrown out way too easily, but that guy is a Tom if there ever was one. Only thing worse is that guy pastor Manning.

Post: #132

(04-10-2015 06:45 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 06:22 PM)MidWest Wrote:  This is probably the first time I have actually seen Fox News and Sean Hannity even agree with MSNBC and CNN on this issue. Its pretty amazing to see both cable channels agreeing on something except for Jesse Lee Peterson there.

I hate using the word Uncle Tom because it gets thrown out way too easily, but that guy is a Tom if there ever was one. Only thing worse is that guy pastor Manning.

Jesse Lee Peterson is the same guy who produced this video:





But in this case he is an Uncle Tom. But the bias that he had is probably due to his experience with African-Americans in general blinding him to the evidence right in front of him.

Looks like Paul Joseph Watson had a good video on this situation:

Post: #133

^^^ I think Watson was spot on. His approach deserves to truly be called "fair and balanced" and I wish the media was more of this temperament. I'll have to subscribe to his channel.

Post: #134

Here is undoctored Vimeo video:

Post: #135

(04-10-2015 09:08 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Looks like Paul Joseph Watson had a good video on this situation:

It's funny how even reasoned and logical criticism is still downvoted hard by minority victimologists as well as the far right fear mongers. There's nothing rational about any of this.

This shooting will just be used for propaganda purposes because a certain segment of the population stopped using logic a long time ago and will only respond to base emotions like small children.

Get ready for a new round of useless marches and counter marches by the usual manipulated sock puppets

Countdown until Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackass shows up to get their greasy conman hands on more cash. Mo' black victims + Mo' media exposure = Mo' Money.

Post: #136

(04-10-2015 11:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:08 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Looks like Paul Joseph Watson had a good video on this situation:

It's funny how even reasoned and logical criticism is still downvoted hard by minority victimologists as well as the far right fear mongers. There's nothing rational about any of this.

This shooting will just be used for propaganda purposes because a certain segment of the population stopped using logic a long time ago and will only respond to base emotions like small children.

Get ready for a new round of useless marches and counter marches by the usual manipulated sock puppets

Countdown until Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackass shows up to get their greasy conman hands on more cash. Mo' black victims + Mo' media exposure = Mo' Money.

Scott's family doesn't want Sharpton to get involved
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-butt-out/

Post: #137

(04-11-2015 12:25 AM)Clemmo Wrote:  Scott's family doesn't want Sharpton to get involved
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...-butt-out/

Well we'll see how long that lasts. Who is Al Sharpton's current protege?

I'm sure he has an entourage of willing disciples he can send down to play the game without actually being present.

Just like how a bloodhound will follow a scent, Sharpton has homed in on that money. If anything he's resilient in lining his pockets. A person doesn't get to his level of con artistry without putting in the work.

Post: #138

(04-08-2015 12:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:08 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Serious question: What should a cop do when a suspect runs from him? The cop has orders to bring the guy in so how is he supposed to get the guy to stop?

What happened to the idea of just shooting someone in the leg if they are fleeing but not putting the cop in any physical danger? That's what I'd do if I was in such a situation. I don't know why a cop should be judge, jury and executioner.

AS soon as an officer starts shooting he's placing potentially dozens or hundreds of complete innocents at risk.

Therefore the law has been established that they are only to shoot if there is a real severe danger present from an armed or otherwise IMMEDIATE and REAL danger ( someone beating the cop etc.)

It follows then that they do not specifically shoot to kill, but at the center of body mass as that is the surest way to disable someone.

I heard this phrase "center of body mass" many times in my work in maximum security correctional institutions over the years, form officers who to their credit, never once while I was there shot at suspects from the tower even when the assholes were stabbing each other in mayhem.

I remember hearing in the prison in which Mansons and Sirhan Sirhan the guard in the tower yelling over the PA on the yard "Get down!" which is the first in the sequence of things he is supposed to do before he gets to shooting an inmate who might kill or severely injure another.

I still remember how shaky and angry the tower cops voices were when they were yelling. Most people, or cops, don't want to shoot someone.

Cops who enjoy shooting people when it isn't legal have to be prosecuted. If you can't control your temper, you should not be a cop.

Post: #139

(04-08-2015 03:07 PM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 12:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  What happened to the idea of just shooting someone in the leg if they are fleeing but not putting the cop in any physical danger? That's what I'd do if I was in such a situation. I don't know why a cop should be judge, jury and executioner.

In police academies you are trained to unload your clip on a suspect until your he or she has been completely neutralized. It sounds horrible to say but it's true, our police officers aren't trained to injure, they are trained to kill in the event they have to use their firearm.

The practical result of aiming at center body mass is a high chance of the suspect dying, but the goal of the policy to to protect the public by DISABLING the suspect, not to kill them. Ambulances are called when suspects are wounded.

Those of you who think all that humanitarian shit is ignored in real life may be sometimes right, but I've worked in prisons and after they pepper spray dudes and the dudes calm down, the cops take them to the shower so the pepper spray stops hurting.

When you advocate uncontrolled emotion-driven violence you are voting to make your society into an anarchic shithole like where those Boko Haram assholes are raging around.

The whole basis of a Christian based society is forgiveness and trust, and although I am an atheist is seems a lot better than anarchic shitholes.

Angry people always think they're right.

Post: #140

It's also a lot harder to shoot a running person in the leg. It might not be a risk you want to take, especially if they're armed.

Post: #141

Not sure if this warrants its own thread since it seems we already have a few cop threads going. Just going to drop this here.

Watch "New Video Showing New Jersey Cops Siccing Dog on Man, Killing Him" on YouTube
New Video Showing New Jersey Cops Siccing Dog on Man, Killing Him: https://youtu.be/uFnk2rhERCY

Post: #142

Roosh just posted this on twitter. Relevant to my earlier post, and I think to this discussion at large.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-falling-b...n-end-jail

Would Scott have ran from Slager if he didn't fear being jailed over missing child support payments? I think there's a good chance. Now obviously that doesn't mean he deserved to be gunned down like that, but this is something that deserves talking about. Why are we jailing men who can't pay child support?

Post: #143

Post: #144

The NYTimes came out with this article today, leading off with the theory that the reason the victim ran from the police was fear of arrest due to outstanding child support:

Quote:By his own telling, the first time Walter L. Scott went to jail for failure to pay child support, it sent his life into a tailspin.

He lost what he called “the best job I ever had” when he spent two weeks in jail. Some years he paid. More recently, he had not. Two years ago, when his debt reached nearly $8,000 and he missed a court date, a warrant was issued for his arrest. By last month, the amount had more than doubled, to just over $18,000.

That warrant, his family now speculates, loomed large in Mr. Scott’s death. On April 4, he was pulled over for a broken taillight, fled on foot and, after a scuffle with a police officer, was fatally shot in the back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/ski....html?_r=1