Post: #26

(04-07-2015 09:45 PM)tarquin Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:38 PM)RawGod Wrote:  Does not look good. Could be a much better spark for race war than Ferguson or Trayvon Martin.

Possibly, however there is (will be) condemnation from everybody except for the Police Unions. Part of the energy of the other two was the divisiveness of opinion with some, on both sides, fueling the fire with racial animus. That should be lacking here.

I know it's a big wish, but I would like the news to start addressing the militarization of local police forces as much as they cover the racism angle.

Yeah, it's extremely unfortunate that race has become the sole focus of such atrocities. By only trying to fix one cause of a problem, your solution will come up short, compared to if you had addressed multiple factors (i.e. racial discrimination and police militarization/brutality). The people who make it into a race only thing ultimately undermine their own cause, because it just turns into this game of "you're racist" "no, I'm not, I'm an asshole to everyone! [which is a-okay?...]"

Post: #27

(04-07-2015 09:39 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:16 PM)Grange Wrote:  What are the odds that the very first time this happened someone caught it on video? Fuck that cop.

Without the video, the cop would have been able to lie his way out of this situation since it's likely that misconduct couldn't have been proven.

Now think about how many times an incident like this has gone down without there being video evidence to support or refute a self-serving narrative.

We're talking about murderers masking as public servants getting off scot-free.

Again, just because you give a person a badge and a uniform doesn't mean they're always going to be right.

This is true, at the same time, look at how many times the media has attempted to foment stories for its own self-serving narrative: Treyvon Martin, Ferguson, Gamergate, Sarkeesian, UVA, etc. It's just impossible for anyone with intact mental faculties to support the media in their hunt for the great white defendant when they've been proven to be frauds and liars to that end time and time and time again.

Post: #28

(04-07-2015 09:44 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  No, you're right. No one DESERVES to die for doing something silly that harms no one else.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't care what each of us believe we deserve, as it is entirely-indifferent to our fates, which is why you understand and try to control your situation.

In my country, there's been fatal killings by female police officers using excessive-force against the mentally-ill or when threatened with knives, which she should be secure enough in their training to deal with, without requiring anyone to die.

They escape this kind of condemnation because a) they get the pussy pass; and b) the media can't create a racial narrative out of this, because they'll profit from the outrage.

It's a white officer killing a black civilian. The only possible explanation for what occurs cannot be stress, heat of the moment anger, poor decision making, extreme aggravation, or lousy training by the Feminist Lecturers in the Police Academy of how to handle civilian interaction or conflict resolution without resorting to violence, or mental breakdown, psychosis, or dishonesty, it has to be Racial.

The only possible explanation that can be drawn from what occurs here is damning, irrefutable evidence of the Endemic Racism within White People.

See how the system works and the narrative is controlled so you have only one conclusion that can be drawn to atomise us further from each other? Do you see how fucked the concept of Community and Empathy are against a media construct that decides such things? Do we ever hear how Female Police Officers must have deep set prejudices against the mentally-ill?

Post: #29

(04-07-2015 10:08 PM)demolition Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:39 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:16 PM)Grange Wrote:  What are the odds that the very first time this happened someone caught it on video? Fuck that cop.

Without the video, the cop would have been able to lie his way out of this situation since it's likely that misconduct couldn't have been proven.

Now think about how many times an incident like this has gone down without there being video evidence to support or refute a self-serving narrative.

We're talking about murderers masking as public servants getting off scot-free.

Again, just because you give a person a badge and a uniform doesn't mean they're always going to be right.

This is true, at the same time, look at how many times the media has attempted to foment stories for its own self-serving narrative: Treyvon Martin, Ferguson, Gamergate, Sarkeesian, UVA, etc. It's just impossible for anyone with intact mental faculties to support the media in their hunt for the great white defendant when they've been proven to be frauds and liars to that end time and time and time again.

I support the media's hunt for the great white defendant when that great white defendent is guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter. Simple as that.

AB, I agree that the racial angle just distracts us from other flaws of the police. I'm not convinced this is intentional, e.g. some conspiracy to protect the police, so much as it is that it's okay to be a sadistic violent police officer, it's just not okay to be a *racist* one.

There was an NYPD detective recently who got punished for screaming obscenities at an Uber driver, among other things. He also made some mildly xenophobic comments. The officer no doubt merited punishment, but people seemed to be saying that he especially deserved punishment because of those xenophobic comments, and had he not made those, it would've been less bad. Or like hate crimes - murder is murder, and murdering a black dude because he's black is no worse than murdering a black dude for non-racial reasons - but that's the message the media and liberalism sends.

Post: #30

Looking at this only through race is a mistake, as Basil said.

It's at least as much about the way the police are nowadays. I'll throw in 9/11 and the glorification of uniformed forces since then, and the media. We get constant propaganda about how police are heroes, even though they are often either lazy or overaggressive, and their duties are light in most places relative to their pay and benefits. Soon as there is a police shooting, authoritarians scramble to justify it. This boosts the tribal narrative of us vs. them, even if the "tribe" you identify with is oppressive state authority.

I just checked Drudge Report, which is supposed to be doing breaking news and plays every video of black-on-white assault prominently. Nothing on this shooting. A big example of how media outlets selectively report. I'm sure he will have a story once they dig up some dirt on the dead guy. Classic Orwellian shit.

The guy shot was 50 years old, a little younger than me. I've run from the police in my younger days, for minor teenage shit like drinking beer in the park. This guy probably the same. I heard a report he had a warrant for non-payment of child support. He had failed to absorb and adapt to the new reality of out-of-control cops. No country for old men, no sense, no mercy.

Post: #31

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?

Post: #32

(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?

There was a retired NYPD guy on CNN who said that you radio for backup with a direction and a description of the suspect, then try to keep him in sight. The radio can bring multiple police into the area in minutes.

Post: #33

This guy is fucked. The evidence of what happened make this a clear and cut case, and it's in a place of racial turmoil like South Carolina. If the guy running away was white. It would have been a different way that officer would have handled the situation.

But. As Black guy. I'm starting to get sick of the media playing the racial angle all the time. It's like after the controversy over the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman case. That the media has been fishing for these Unarmed Black Men getting killed by White Men for the sake of starting controversy and generating more ratings, which means more money.

Yet we rarely hear stories like these in the media. Because it doesn't sell as much.

Unarmed Asian Teen killed by police.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ve-TV.html

Unarmed Mexican Man killed by police.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...n#comments

Post: #34

(04-08-2015 04:24 AM)Sp5 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?

There was a retired NYPD guy on CNN who said that you radio for backup with a direction and a description of the suspect, then try to keep him in sight. The radio can bring multiple police into the area in minutes.

So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

Post: #35

(04-08-2015 05:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

I'd say it is far more practical than pulling out a gun and discharging it in a public place trying to "stop" the person from running.

Post: #36

(04-08-2015 05:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:24 AM)Sp5 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?

There was a retired NYPD guy on CNN who said that you radio for backup with a direction and a description of the suspect, then try to keep him in sight. The radio can bring multiple police into the area in minutes.

So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

The retired NYPD detective on CNN not only thought it was practical, but that it was routine. He said "no excuse" to shoot in that circumstance. He noted this was a tubby 50 year old, not an NFL linebacker.

Just run behind the guy, update location on the radio and have him intercepted. Jump on him. How hard is that? That's why we have police forces, whether it takes two, three, five, or ten. That's what they are supposed to be trained for. Minimum force to accomplish the mission.

I've seen this in real life, cops chasing a guy (bank robber with busted dye pack) and other cops closing off his routes to tackle him.

C'mon, you've at least seen this in the movies and cop shows. Get serious.

Post: #37

someone Wrote:So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

a) Yes if the first officer in pursuit is not agile or powerful enough to catch the guy. That is the law. Find candidates who will campaign on a "summary execution" law for misdemeanors if you think that is bad. I'm sure you'll go far.

b) More cops, tasers, non-lethal stuff is always being invented

' Wrote:Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

The answer as to how to apprehend is part of basic police science and procedure as mandated by law and followed by the vast majority of police. Just like the vast majority of Black Americans don't run around robbing and shooting.

What's not practical to a sane society is summary execution without trial for a relatively minor offense like running away. It's a LEGITIMATE slippery slope after that for summary execution for jaywalking, littering and then running--

someonee Wrote:I'd say it is far more practical than pulling out a gun and discharging it in a public place trying to "stop" the person from running.

ALL THE FOLLOWING IS JUST FROM VIEWING THAT VIDEO. THE OFFICER IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND SHOULD BE TRIED FAIRLY . YOU KNOW, LIKE THE POOR GUY RUNNING AWAY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN TRIED BEFORE HIS EXECUTION.

What, someone sensible thinking about where all those shots went, which have a kill distance of hundreds of feet from the officer.

I worked with thousands of criminals, and I sympathize a lot with cops, but from the superficial coverage of the fleeing driver's record this guy was not one the real scumbags who was beating on people all the time. He did some bad things, but had a job.

The poor bastard was obviously running- nothing visible in his hands --- and pathetically slow-- and the cop just lost his little bitch temper and kept firing and firing and firing-- It SURE looks like second degree murder to me.

If I was the US Attorney General and had the power, I would mandate a half day training class for all new police dedicated solely to the single concept of "Don't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back"

Set an egg timer to every five minutes, and when it rings yell
"Don't shoot an unarmed fleeing person in the back" you stupid mahfahs." throughout the class. It would work.

Make them watch this video 6 or 8 times, then have a filmed interview with the cops at his 5th, 10th, and 15th year in prison. He probably is prosocial enough to realize with time he fucked up.

He could explain how he lost his temper, felt insulted, and whatever had happened to loosen his inhibitions to the point he shot down that poor devil. it would help future police to avoid slipping to the same degree. I sure would like to hear that cop's blood alcohol content as well. Probably tested way too late to be useful.

This looked to me like murder, not first degree, but you shoot at someone that many times, you are trying to kill him.

As far as politics and "SJW" stuff, people need to realize you have to treat any underclass in your society fairly, even if they have a higher percentage of criminals. Otherwise they start acting like Boko Haram and killing as many people as they can!!! Yeah, a race war in America !!! Wouldn't THAT be great....

Prosecute the crime, not the social group.

Oh, and guess who's going to pay the child support for his kids now, folks? Poetic justice there.

YOU Mr and Mrs South Carolina taxpayers, are going to make ALL of his kids rich enough so they'll never have to work lol.

All because Wild Bill Hickok couldn't keep it in his pants. What a hero.

Post: #38

(04-08-2015 05:22 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  C'mon, you've at least seen this in the movies and cop shows. Get serious.

People don't want to be serious, they want fast, daring solutions to complex problems that provide entertainment value and satisfy primal craving for revenge.

Primal craving for revenge is, how shall I say, not the ideal method for setting public policy for petty criminals.

"Serious" sounds like work.

Post: #39

I see the low-bar of quality set for police officers in the USA once again shows its head. And lets not forget he has been accused of murder, not convicted. He may as well get off free as a bird thanks to the system designed to protect police officers.

If a suspect gets out of reach of a police officer it is a tactic to call for backup in the form of units who are in cars to cut the suspect off, that is the whole reason for patrols and helicopters. Firing a gun at a fleeing suspect is not tactics 101 unless the cop wants to feel satisfied with his power of life and death.

Post: #40

No ifs ands or buts about this one.

I do wonder however, if the races had been reversed, weather we'd be hearing about this at all.

As was said, for the left wing media, intentions and feelies matter more than tangible facts, which would merit addressing the militarization of the police both in procedures and in personnel (many officers are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan). Has anyone here read Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop?

Post: #41

The "it looks bad but" mafia is already out in full force haha. Some way, somehow the black guy must always share in the blame for being killed.

Post: #42

The real tragedy is that the reason he ran in the first place was because he had a warrant for his arrest due to failure to pay child support. It appears to be a victim of the debtors prison, one of the concerns of our founding fathers.

Post: #43

Vietnam veterans were called baby killers, spat on, and treated as villains because of a few highly publicized atrocities. Wearing the uniform was shamed in our culture for quite a while, and only in the last two decades have things really changed. Like Vietnam vets, the overwhelming majority of police officers are normal, decent people who voluntarily step in some dangerous shit on the public's behalf.

I fear that police will be viewed and treated the same way over the coming years. It's ironic to me that the people trying to reign in racial profiling and negative generalizations are the ones quickest to generalize and condemn both police and whites because of the actions of a few. Just like rape hysteria, we're being sold a caricature of race relations based on a handful of hoaxes and YouTube videos.

Post: #44

(04-08-2015 08:20 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Vietnam veterans were called baby killers, spat on, and treated as villains because of a few highly publicized atrocities. Wearing the uniform was shamed in our culture for quite a while, and only in the last two decades have things really changed. Like Vietnam vets, the overwhelming majority of police officers are normal, decent people who voluntarily step in some dangerous shit on the public's behalf.

I fear that police will be viewed and treated the same way over the coming years. It's ironic to me that the people trying to reign in racial profiling and negative generalizations are the ones quickest to generalize and condemn both police and whites because of the actions of a few. Just like rape hysteria, we're being sold a caricature of race relations based on a handful of hoaxes and YouTube videos.

I have a terrifying feeling that the liberals will want to do away with local police forces and replace them with a federal force. Talk about a disaster, but maybe that is what this push from the liberal media is all about.

Post: #45

(04-08-2015 07:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  The real tragedy is that the reason he ran in the first place was because he had a warrant for his arrest due to failure to pay child support. It appears to be a victim of the debtors prison, one of the concerns of our founding fathers.

I found it upsetting this man felt he had to run because of a warrant for unpaid child support. Many times court-ordered child support is so burdensome and disproportionate to a man's income it leaves him little to nothing on which to live. There is no proof that money is supporting his children but rather his ex-wife's or ex-girlfriend's prodigal lifestyle while the children are neglected and/or abused. I'd say the so-called "Family Court" contributed to this man's death making him so desperate he felt he had to flee from the police despite it being for a stop for a minor traffic violation.

Post: #46

(04-08-2015 08:30 AM)lemko Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 07:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  The real tragedy is that the reason he ran in the first place was because he had a warrant for his arrest due to failure to pay child support. It appears to be a victim of the debtors prison, one of the concerns of our founding fathers.

I found it upsetting this man felt he had to run because of a warrant for unpaid child support. Many times court-ordered child support is so burdensome and disproportionate to a man's income it leaves him little to nothing on which to live. There is no proof that money is supporting his children but rather his ex-wife's or ex-girlfriend's prodigal lifestyle while the children are neglected and/or abused. I'd say the so-called "Family Court" contributed to this man's death making him so desperate he felt he had to flee from the police despite it being for a stop for a minor traffic violation.

Exactly. And if the men's movements, all the various degrees of them, want to take a stance on this, I think this must be at the forefront.

Post: #47

If a civilian with a LTCF shot an unarmed fleeing perpetrator in the back, as did this police officer, the law and media would crucify him or her. The police knew who this man was and could later arrest him or give him the chance to turn himself in.

Post: #48

(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?

In this case, when the taser's already been used and failed? Radio for backup and chase his fat ass down. He wasn't running very fast at all. You don't shoot someone in the back unless they've got a lethal weapon and are posing a threat to you or the general public.

I think this cop thought he could get away with it because they were in an abandoned lot or something.

Post: #49

(04-08-2015 08:30 AM)lemko Wrote:  I found it upsetting this man felt he had to run because of a warrant for unpaid child support. Many times court-ordered child support is so burdensome and disproportionate to a man's income it leaves him little to nothing on which to live. There is no proof that money is supporting his children but rather his ex-wife's or ex-girlfriend's prodigal lifestyle while the children are neglected and/or abused. I'd say the so-called "Family Court" contributed to this man's death making him so desperate he felt he had to flee from the police despite it being for a stop for a minor traffic violation.

We should report about this aspect on ROK.

Post: #50

(04-08-2015 05:22 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 05:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 04:24 AM)Sp5 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?

There was a retired NYPD guy on CNN who said that you radio for backup with a direction and a description of the suspect, then try to keep him in sight. The radio can bring multiple police into the area in minutes.

So for every guy who runs away you need 5 officers to chase them? And how do you subdue him when finally confronted?

Your suggestion isn't practical nor does it answer the question of how to apprehend.

The retired NYPD detective on CNN not only thought it was practical, but that it was routine. He said "no excuse" to shoot in that circumstance. He noted this was a tubby 50 year old, not an NFL linebacker.

Just run behind the guy, update location on the radio and have him intercepted. Jump on him. How hard is that? That's why we have police forces, whether it takes two, three, five, or ten. That's what they are supposed to be trained for. Minimum force to accomplish the mission.

I've seen this in real life, cops chasing a guy (bank robber with busted dye pack) and other cops closing off his routes to tackle him.

C'mon, you've at least seen this in the movies and cop shows. Get serious.

I am serious: you guys are out to lunch. If not for the threat of force why would anyone obey the law? The laws are shit, no one would follow them.

By the way, on Cops episodes, they often resort to shooting at fleeing suspects. That's why the show got such high ratings because people love violence.

"FREEZE OR I'LL SHOOT!" And they point the gun at them. Pretty routine, not sure what America you're living in.

Personally I'm with other guys who say they need more effective long-range stun guns to subdue suspects, but they don't have that right now not to mention these "non-lethal" weapons are probably proven to get more cops killed which is why they don't use them often.

The current PR spin is that "This cop shouldn't have fired, etc. etc." but in truth this guy was following orders, just like all the other cops who shoot down unarmed people everyday. The cops do their best to maintain order by making this cop out to be the bad guy when in fact the cops are just doing their jobs.

I think the likelihood is extremely high the cop will walk free, but he will lose his job. The reason he will not be convicted: who is going to work as a police officer if your orders get you thrown in jail? No one. Sending this cop to prison will weaken police forces in the area if not the nation. Weaker police forces = weaker control for America's plutocracy. America's plutocracy cannot stomach anything less than complete control, so they know they need to keep protections for the Cops or else no one will become a hired goon (I mean Cop) for them.

If the cop is arrested and sent to prison, then fewer cops will do their job and fewer recruits will sign up to be a cop. Crime then increases. The people are victimized. Eventually the politicians in power are thrown out and America's plutocracy loses money, which spurs action. Guys like Rudy Giuliani are given all the money they need to win an election and reinstitute a strong police force with huge unconstitutional protections to shoot down anyone they please plus stuff like "stop and frisk." Order is then restored, and then people who run away from cops are gunned down again. The people feel safe again and America's plutocrats may resume plundering the nation without worrying about pesky elections.

If anyone would like to correct me they are more than welcome to but from everything I've seen and presented over my lifetime indicates the above is the truth.