[jimukr104]

(01-26-2015 05:07 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 04:44 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Also a lot of people like to use legal terms..probable cause and seem to forget cops actually have a lower quantifier called REASONABLE SUSPICION(google it). This is the uniform patrol cops level needed to engage.

Because most uniform cops arrest people either by witnessing crime or arrestig based on victim complaint. We have no intention of investigating or interrogating you.

Hollywood has brainwashed the American people because most tv shows/movies deal with detectives who investigate and often detain people for questioning,and interrogation. But 90+% of arrests are active real time arrests and there is no interrogation needed.

I didn't know about the reasonable suspicion clause. Thanks for posting it.

It makes sense that most people wrongfully think the cops ought to behave like the ones on television. And you just described how "probable cause" - (which is, I think, a term used to decide whether evidence gathered by a police officer is allowed to be admitted as evidence during a trial?) - is wrongly conceived as "reasonable suspicion".

To me, the way you describe it is better than the way they depict it on TV. I don't want any police officer to be a "criminal catcher" AND lawyer at the same time. I just want my police to catch criminals, for my lawyers to determine whether a criminal should be prosecuted, and for my judges to determine punishment.

The idea of a policeman/lawyerman at the same time is scary. The idea of a policeman who is ONLY there to catch you and bring you to court is much less scary. (And when you realize how limited the police officer's power actually is, the more it makes sense to just obey, be polite, and use the catch-phrases featured in the Flex Your Rights video.)

Bingo....I noticed on this forum and many others they use probable cause all the time. Sure Detectives deal more with that but your basic uniform blue shirted cop isn't out there doing that. Leave that to the court and testifying.

Yes that is why it is better to cooperate if you are innocent because ultimately the judge and lawyers will work it out. It is their job to decipher all the legal jargon.

Problem is the movies have made cops out to be some dedicated obsessed guy who fakes evidence , etc to GET you!

But the average cop isn't even involved in the case. I barely ever went to criminal court because they don't need me. My report describes why I arrested them but it is for them to determine the merit of the actually case (witness lying perhaps?)

Human behavior is giving cops reasonable suspicion. If people would just chill out cops would actually have less reason to STOP people!

Quote:

He dropped the gun and picked it up. He would be alive if had not gone back for his fucking gun.

Yep, he got shot for arming himself NOT for running away!

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

Can someone help me understand how someone running away, while having a gun, is a lethal threat. It's admittedly scary yeah, but he's running away. I'd like cops of all people to manage to not be so scared.

You can turn around and shoot. Or you can open fire on civilians in your path.

The guy was threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend earlier that day. He's sounds like the impulsive, irrational type of guy that's all too common in the hood so I wouldn't put it past him.

Quote:

Do people who are running away routinely turn around and open fire against cops? Like is that a thing? I feel like i'm missing something here or you guys are placing extra fear in the situation.

Doesn't have to be routine, it's very easy to run and shoot backwards...I did all time with BB guns and water pistols as kid. The guy was a danger to the officer and everyone else in the vicinity.

What you're missing is common sense: It's very unsafe when a thug with a short temper is fleeing from police with a loaded gat.

Bolded sentences sounds very feminine...sounds like something out of Jezebel articles.

[DChambers]

(01-25-2015 09:14 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This is another one of those police shooting videos.

But it is very graphic. Be warned.

I wanted to post it here for comment. This one looks clearly like the officer should not have fired on this guy.

Guy takes off running, then stops to pick something up. Officer claims it was a gun. Not clear to me, and not clear that the gun was even being pointed at the officer.

Under the law, officers are not supposed to shoot at fleeing suspects unless they reasonably believe their lives are in danger.

I don't see any clear danger to the officer in this video. Judge for yourself. If I'm missing something here, somebody bring me up to speed...

You may have to sign in to You Tube to watch this, as it has been labeled as "graphic."

Is it? I thought that officers are legally able to stop a fleeing felon with deadly force if necessary. Citizens can to, though that's more of a gray area.

Does anyone know which State this is in.

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^

In the US, police are not supposed to use deadly force against fleeing felons UNLESS they reasonably believe that they are in danger of serious physical harm (defense of oneself), or that someone else is in such danger (defense of another). These general ideas vary a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the general idea holds.

Obviously, the test of what is considered "reasonable" is going to vary.

When I saw this video for the first time, I thought that this was a case in which the use of deadly force was questionable, for the reasons I have explained in earlier posts here.

My view was in the minority on this one, at first. And reading the other posters here, with different viewings of the video, have caused me to change my mind.

My original opinions were probably mistaken.

But it is still a close case, I think.

One other thing: in some countries, Brazil for example, police CAN shoot at fleeing suspects. That is what I have read and what I've been told. If you run from the police, you can be fired on.

If I'm not mistaken, this was once the rule in the US as well, before the 20th century.

[vinman]

(01-26-2015 08:35 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^^

In the US, police are not supposed to use deadly force against fleeing felons UNLESS they reasonably believe that they are in danger of serious physical harm (defense of oneself), or that someone else is in such danger (defense of another). These general ideas vary a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the general idea holds.

Obviously, the test of what is considered "reasonable" is going to vary.

When I saw this video for the first time, I thought that this was a case in which the use of deadly force was questionable, for the reasons I have explained in earlier posts here.

My view was in the minority on this one, at first. And reading the other posters here, with different viewings of the video, have caused me to change my mind.

My original opinions were probably mistaken.

But it is still a close case, I think.

One other thing: in some countries, Brazil for example, police CAN shoot at fleeing suspects. That is what I have read and what I've been told. If you run from the police, you can be fired on.

If I'm not mistaken, this was once the rule in the US as well, before the 20th century.

Cops could shoot "fleeing felons" up until the SCOTUS ruled in the Garner VERSUS Tennessee case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[scotian]

(01-26-2015 08:35 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^^

In the US, police are not supposed to use deadly force against fleeing felons UNLESS they reasonably believe that they are in danger of serious physical harm (defense of oneself), or that someone else is in such danger (defense of another). These general ideas vary a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the general idea holds.

Obviously, the test of what is considered "reasonable" is going to vary.

When I saw this video for the first time, I thought that this was a case in which the use of deadly force was questionable, for the reasons I have explained in earlier posts here.

My view was in the minority on this one, at first. And reading the other posters here, with different viewings of the video, have caused me to change my mind.

My original opinions were probably mistaken.

But it is still a close case, I think.

One other thing: in some countries, Brazil for example, police CAN shoot at fleeing suspects. That is what I have read and what I've been told. If you run from the police, you can be fired on.

If I'm not mistaken, this was once the rule in the US as well, before the 20th century.

Or if you're an unarmed Brazilian guy fleeing the Bobbies in London on 07/07/05.....

[The Father]

This video tells me I'm glad I didn't become a cop...risk your life for relatively low pay, in the hood, all while a bunch of chuckleheads jump up and down and scream like children.

[scorpion]

The anti-cop hysteria the media (and social media) is pushing is resulting in a situation similar to what we have among feminists with the hysteria surrounding the "campus rape epidemic".

People are becoming brainwashed without even realizing it. Critical thinking is completely out the window. People are making serious arguments saying that police should not be able to shoot at anyone unless that person is already firing a gun at them. This is insane.

This guy was an idiot and a thug. That's why he's dead. It's not a race issue. It's not a rogue cop out for blood issue. This guy was a dumb ass who went around making death threats, ran away from the cop while carrying a gun, then doubled back to pick up his gun right in front of the cop.

Save the outrage for the rare egregious cases of police murder, like the one TheWastelander posted, and that case in Oakland a few years ago where the cop shot the guy in the back while he was handcuffed on the ground. Those are legitimate, fucked up cases that deserve serious attention. Cases like this do not. Why can people not understand the differences? It's night and day here. If you're stupid enough to run around threatening peoples' lives while carrying a gun, then run from a cop and turn around to pick up a gun while the cop chases you, then you can't be surprised when you get shot. Why is this hard to understand? Who is raising these moronic kids to behave this way in the presence of police officers? Why isn't there a campaign to better inform young black men how to safely interact with police? Why is it always the fault of a cop when a young, black man does something supremely idiotic and gets himself killed?

This stuff makes me want to bang my head against the wall. I can only see this kind of willful ignorance of reality getting worse when all cops are required to wear cameras and we get more of these videos. Every video will be scrutinized by the hysterical anti-cop mobs on the internet, looking for reasons to blame the cop. We're already at the point where a cop is being criticized for shooting a suspect who went to pick up a gun after making death threats. What's next? I literally think we will soon have people advancing absurd arguments like, "The cop needs to wait until he gets shot before he returns fire, otherwise he won't have any way of knowing the suspect is not firing blanks."

This anti-cop hysteria is of the same vein as the SJW nonsense. Don't fall for it. Save your energy for legitimate incidents of police abuse.

[MMX2010]

(01-26-2015 09:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Why can people not understand the differences? It's night and day here. If you're stupid enough to run around threatening peoples' lives while carrying a gun, then run from a cop and turn around to pick up a gun while the cop chases you, then you can't be surprised when you get shot. Why is this hard to understand? Who is raising these moronic kids to behave this way in the presence of police officers? Why isn't there a campaign to better inform young black men how to safely interact with police? Why is it always the fault of a cop when a young, black man does something supremely idiotic and gets himself killed?

This is mostly speculative, and it'll sound weird if you're not familiar with AnonymousConservative's work.

But the two major answers to your questions are: (1) The people who are making these criticisms have a small amygdala, (the part of your brain which both senses that something-is-wrong and focuses your attention on what is wrong, while the rest of your brain works on solutions). (2) The people who are making these criticisms can only place themselves into the framework. So while you, I, and the Wastelander (they're not the only ones) can distance themselves from the person being shot, the police critics cannot. So they imagine themselves getting falsely interrogated, falsely arrested, and brutally murdered in the street.

So when I suggested that cop critics watch the Flex Your Rights videos, I was suggesting that they learn simple tactics of police interaction.......which will calm their fears by replacing those fears with hope.......which will severely calm their anti-cop criticisms.

[Sir Vigorous]

(01-26-2015 10:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 09:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Why can people not understand the differences? It's night and day here. If you're stupid enough to run around threatening peoples' lives while carrying a gun, then run from a cop and turn around to pick up a gun while the cop chases you, then you can't be surprised when you get shot. Why is this hard to understand? Who is raising these moronic kids to behave this way in the presence of police officers? Why isn't there a campaign to better inform young black men how to safely interact with police? Why is it always the fault of a cop when a young, black man does something supremely idiotic and gets himself killed?

This is mostly speculative, and it'll sound weird if you're not familiar with AnonymousConservative's work.

But the two major answers to your questions are: (1) The people who are making these criticisms have a small amygdala, (the part of your brain which both senses that something-is-wrong and focuses your attention on what is wrong, while the rest of your brain works on solutions). (2) The people who are making these criticisms can only place themselves into the framework. So while you, I, and the Wastelander (they're not the only ones) can distance themselves from the person being shot, the police critics cannot. So they imagine themselves getting falsely interrogated, falsely arrested, and brutally murdered in the street.

So when I suggested that cop critics watch the Flex Your Rights videos, I was suggesting that they learn simple tactics of police interaction.......which will calm their fears by replacing those fears with hope.......which will severely calm their anti-cop criticisms.

It's entirely speculation.

[jimukr104]

(01-26-2015 10:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 09:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Why can people not understand the differences? It's night and day here. If you're stupid enough to run around threatening peoples' lives while carrying a gun, then run from a cop and turn around to pick up a gun while the cop chases you, then you can't be surprised when you get shot. Why is this hard to understand? Who is raising these moronic kids to behave this way in the presence of police officers? Why isn't there a campaign to better inform young black men how to safely interact with police? Why is it always the fault of a cop when a young, black man does something supremely idiotic and gets himself killed?

This is mostly speculative, and it'll sound weird if you're not familiar with AnonymousConservative's work.

But the two major answers to your questions are: (1) The people who are making these criticisms have a small amygdala, (the part of your brain which both senses that something-is-wrong and focuses your attention on what is wrong, while the rest of your brain works on solutions). (2) The people who are making these criticisms can only place themselves into the framework. So while you, I, and the Wastelander (they're not the only ones) can distance themselves from the person being shot, the police critics cannot. So they imagine themselves getting falsely interrogated, falsely arrested, and brutally murdered in the street.

So when I suggested that cop critics watch the Flex Your Rights videos, I was suggesting that they learn simple tactics of police interaction.......which will calm their fears by replacing those fears with hope.......which will severely calm their anti-cop criticisms.

Well it seems most in the ghetto identify with the thug victims because they are up to no good themselves lol.

But hipsters hate authority in general and they push out the minorities by making the rent too expensive as they move in. So they aren't any friend to the minorities that they say they are protecting.

[MMX2010]

(01-27-2015 04:38 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

But hipsters hate authority in general and they push out the minorities by making the rent too expensive as they move in. So they aren't any friend to the minorities that they say they are protecting.

AnonymousConservative would say that Hipsters are a prime example of individuals with small amygdalas. Their brains aren't strong enough to remain calm and focused during either violence or high stakes competitions, so they inevitably need someone else to "fight for them".

So they complain about this problem, and that problem, and that problem - not because they're trying to solve it on behalf of the people they're complaining about - but because they're mad that the successful people don't agree with them and help them out.

He calls it "Let's You And Him Fight", wherein the Non-Listening Authority Figures are pitted in conflict with the Bigger Losers Than Me (from the Hipster's perspective). By starting this conflict, the Hipster can enjoy heaping a small amount of vengeance on the authority figures who refuse to help him.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

RAMZPaul weighed in on the issue - I wonder if he is a RVF member because he makes similar points and mentions the homeless shooting as well:

[iknowexactly]

(01-26-2015 12:10 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

Maybe she was lying? Maybe he goes to that church also?

Interesting that her word is taken as truth on a forum where women are accused of and assumed as lying in almost every other news story posted here.

We're not taking her word as truth. We're saying that it matters when answering QC's excellent question, "Was this guy so sufficiently a threat that the officer's decision to shoot was justified?"

I don't take her word as truth, but I do take a report of threats as SOME evidence there was a threat. So the cop talks to the guy to investigate. The guy has a gun illegally on him. Data point 2 that the guy is a threat. Guy runs from cop who is not beating him, threatening him or doing anything wrong. Data point 3 that he is a bad actor. Genius punk drops gun and PICKS IT UP, making him self a possible deadly threat to cop. Data point 4 .

Once a guy has a gun in his hand ( and there is, besides the gun, other evidence he's dangerous) he can spin around in less than half a second and squeeze off a lucky shot. That risk was clear.

I've worked with thousands of these arrogant idiot punk criminals, many are aggressive, have no impulse control, are dumber than a box of rocks without the box, and the cop definitely should have shot the idiot to protect everyone in the town.

Punk could well could have committed a carjacking in the next hour to try to get away, and traumatized another useful citizen with his arrogant, aggressive, ignorance.

The damage doesn't end with the carjackings, the threats, the armed robberies, -- when you get carjacked you remember it for the rest of your life . Staring at a gun with a leering moron holding it from a foot away is not a good memory to have. California is close to a police state for these guys, a zillion of them in jail and it is a good thing. They still have to get like three to four violent convictions before they get the 20+ years they need to think.

[Constitution45]

Even police officers are quick to point out when other officers have done something wrong, even if the result was positive and resulted in a medal being given out. There is a big distinction between rank and file officers and senior officers, along with other police spokespersons. Actually there have been times when police officers have done something ridiculously stupid, i.e. chasing after a suspect on a roof. Yet the media and public praised them for doing so. It just goes to show how the general public really don't have a clue about what policing is about, as most of their information comes from biased news reports that have a political angle, or movies.

The way in which the media capitalises and exacerbates shooting incidents or incidents where the police use force and turns it into a political circus is akin to the rape hysteria that feminists push. Especially when they begin to turn it into a case of racism. I mean its completely absurd to suggest that the officer who shot the Brown in Ferguson did so because of racial prejudice. I mean this cop had worked as a police officer in a majority black area for years, probably deals and interacts with more black people by far than white people; most likely has black colleagues and friends; yet one day according to the media and SJW crowd he just decided to let his "inner racism" show and pop a brother.

Same applies in the U.K, where a black rights activist began to get all passionate on t.v about police using heavy handed restraining techniques on black men in London. They are the same bloody techniques used on white men, you can see this in town/city centres up and down the country on a weekend night. Yet she started bleating on about police officers being scared of the "mythical strength of the black man", I was rolling on the ground laughing when I heard this. Taking in mind the "heavy handed" restraining methods involving five police officers which she mentioned, are actually probably the safest to use for the officers and the suspect. She would actually maybe have a point if it was only one or two officers apprehending a suspect, as that would require more force and violence on behalf of the officers to subdue the suspect.

In the 1990s an incident involved a big guy in East London, which had him waving a table leg around in a plastic bag and resulted in him getting shot. Of course this was all the police's fault, not the fact that this pisshead with a history of violence and being generally a nutter decided to pretend to have a gun and wave it towards pub customers and police officers armed with MP5s. The media somehow concluded that this was because of anti Irish sentiments in the police, even though the man was Scottish; the police must have heard he was an Irishman and decided to shoot him because of this. Of course because he was only "waving a table leg inside a plastic bag not a gun, how could the police shoot him for that !!".

[iknowexactly]

(01-26-2015 10:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 09:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Why can people not understand the differences? It's night and day here. If you're stupid enough to run around threatening peoples' lives while carrying a gun, then run from a cop and turn around to pick up a gun .....

This is mostly speculative, .... have a small amygdala,

Amygdala, Shamygdala. Let's call this WILD speculation. Moron had a gun in his hand, and there was other evidence he had made threats. Amateur psychoanalysis doesn't have a big place in boots on the ground public safety.

I've seen hundreds of times the "attitude" which our pushy culture has glorified --in criminals--As mentioned, basic manners when dealing with authority is a good survival skill. Some of these guys have no parent figure smart enough to say 'Be polite to cops". Instead, the idiotic parents tell them "Dontchu take no shit from nobody!!!"

[jimukr104]

^^what about Eric Gardner?
The media tries to leave out that a black female sergeant was in charge giving the orders. Al Sharpton NEVER mentions her when he talks about NYPD racism.

She is probably a feminist lesbian also. You won't seethe liberals attacking her anytime soon.

[scorpion]

(01-26-2015 09:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I literally think we will soon have people advancing absurd arguments like, "The cop needs to wait until he gets shot before he returns fire, otherwise he won't have any way of knowing the suspect is not firing blanks."

Well, that didn't take long:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/denve...r-28498963

Quote:

Several dozen people with candles and protest signs gathered near the alley where Denver police officers fatally shot a 16-year-old girl on Monday, recalling her bright smile and demanding answers about the deadly encounter.

Police shot the teenager early Monday morning after they say she struck and injured an officer with a stolen car. Authorities did not release the girl's name, but friends identified her as Jessica Hernandez.

"We're angry about it. It's another life taken by another cop," said 19-year-old Cynthia Valdez, a close friend and schoolmate of the girl. "She was trying to find her talent. She wanted to find out what she wanted to be. ... Who knows what she could have been?"

A sixteen year-old Hispanic Lesbian drives a stolen car at two police officers, striking one, and gets herself shot to death by the police in self-defense. SJWs are outraged at this act of "police brutality" and "murder".

Is it clear what I'm talking about now? There is no epidemic of police brutality. This is just another SJW media/social media hysteria. It's another method of destabilizing society. Since they have already destroyed all existing social mores and public morality, and have made huge inroads into destroying the concept of law, they are finally making an assault on the very idea of public order itself, by vilifying those tasked with preserving public order, police officers. SJWs want to see riots on the streets of every city in America. Their entire ideology is centered on constant revolution against the status quo. They will never stop. They will continue to get worse until they are stopped by the force of a counter-movement from the right.

[MMX2010]

Extra quote from the article scorpion posted: "They shouldn't have stolen a car. But the cops are too fast on the gun," she said. "You've got stun guns. You've got rubber bullets. Why do they have to shoot all the time?"

[TonySandos]

Feelings > physics

[robreke]

(01-25-2015 10:01 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^

@Wastelander:

I agree with everything you're saying. You may be right, and I may be totally off base here. I certainly don't think that a police officer in the field should be arm-chair quarterbacked by some guy like me on the internet.

All I'm saying is, from this video, I can't see all that. All I'm seeing is some guy take off and flee. He runs a bit. Then he stops to pick something up.

From the video, I can't see what the hell it is. If it's true, as you say, that the cop saw a gun, then that's something different.

It also looks like the firing started after the guy had turned his back.

If the guy had stopped, turned around, and pointed gun, then fine. He's fair game. But it just looks like he caught a wall of lead in his back as he was running away holding some uncertain object.

You may be right...I could be totally wrong here.

Just telling you guys what I see, or don't see.

Maybe this video does prove one thing: that videos are inadequate substitutes for a real pair of eyes and ears on the ground, in the moment, as it is happening.

.

After the guy is shot, you can hear them talking about the gun that was found that the perp had. They are mentioning it is loaded and cocked.

It was a gun he picked up per the cops' conversation. You can't tell from the video, but it seems the cops are confirming it was indeed a gun.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-27-2015 08:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Is it clear what I'm talking about now? There is no epidemic of police brutality. This is just another SJW media/social media hysteria. It's another method of destabilizing society. Since they have already destroyed all existing social mores and public morality, and have made huge inroads into destroying the concept of law, they are finally making an assault on the very idea of public order itself, by vilifying those tasked with preserving public order, police officers. SJWs want to see riots on the streets of every city in America. Their entire ideology is centered on constant revolution against the status quo. They will never stop. They will continue to get worse until they are stopped by the force of a counter-movement from the right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27...53944.html

That case sounds awfully like self-defense - stolen car and then trying to run over a cop which might just as well end in killing an officer is unforgivable. Girl or no girl - also he might have thought it was a boy, because she has her hair cut short - not that it really matters if she tries to drive a potentially deadly vehicle into a cop.



While I do agree that the SJWs and the media are jumping on moronic cases like the one here running away and picking up his gun or the one about "gentle giants" who are actually huge young criminals.

But there is a militarization of the police that is going on and countless people get SWATTED, their dogs killed and their lives ruined because of a systematic top-down system that wants the police to look like an invading army.

That said I don't blame the cops - as I said before the cops are like clone troopers from Star Wars whose system has changed from serving the Jedi to serving the Sith as tools of oppression. I think that most people would behave similarly when put in the current system - also the idiotic SJWs. The only way to avoid is to leave the force which many good men do - or accept that this is the way it is and live with it.

However I agree that most cases drummed out by the media and the SJWs are ridiculous and they focus on the wrong issue. Also I believe that they deliberately amplify any issue concerning race relations, religions etc. - because nothing works best to perpetuate their divide and conquer strategy of rule.

[Brian Shima]