sure, but there's a difference between breaking the law and getting beaten down, and what happened here.
if you break the law, the cops try to stop you, and you stop, that's it. end of story. you should be fine, they shouldn't have to use any kind of force.
however, if you break the law, they try to stop you and you run, it's a whole different ball game. if you're running it's almost always for a reason. either your thinking is impaired, or you've got outstanding warrents. in either case, this stop is no longer one where you will be accorded the same treatment as someone who listens when the cops try to pull you over.
by running you've become a hostile stop, rather than a "typical" stop. this is, unfortunately, the sad outcome of poor decision making.
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
Now he doesn't get it. (Sond and Bung) They are expected to serve and protect, but it does not mean even at the expense of their own lives. That is why they have the option of deadly force available. It weighs against their own welfare and the public welfare. By your reasoning, they are expected to basically exchange a life, literally only take one if they are certain their own is pretty much dust. That is not the case.
The police officers were threatened with deadly force, based off the split second actions and motives of the man they were attempting to apprehend. The fact that the man was deceptive doesn't mean the police judged badly. It means the man judged badly for which he paid with his life.
Sond says that the fact they had him at point blank range and didn't shoot shows bad judgement and racist intent. To me it shows the exact opposite. It shows a lack of callousness and an attempt to insure life even at risk of their own. The fact that they were not willing to take that risk a SECOND time is not racist.
I watched that video about 10 times myself and the man walked away (still not responding to ANY heeds to lay down his weapon, stop moving, or anything else) began turning back toward the left wildly with his cell phone still in a pistol grip and that was what caused his death.
Also as Vice mentioned, the political pressure when dealing with these circumstances is huge. If you are a white officer you know something like this would easily be front page news and talk tv fodder for days. Why would anyone desire that for themselves.
Anyone remember Donovan Jackson?
Quote:
In their suit, Morse and Darvish claimed the city treated them unfairly because they are white. They said that a black officer who struck Jackson with his flashlight was suspended for only four days and faced no criminal charges. Morse and Darvish accused the city of disciplining them based on political pressure rather than department policy.
RIVERSIDE, California (CNN) -- The four officers who shot and killed a 19-year-old woman last December, hitting her with 12 bullets, were given notice Friday that they are to be fired.
Who is so racist that they want to pretty much guarantee they will lose their job, house, wife and kids just to punch or shoot someone who is black?
I'm not touching the racist angle of this act because it's futile. But defending it is even moreso. A lot of cops are racist. It's true. It just is. But even a racist could be smart enough to avoid a situation that could highlight his or her racist tendencies.
This act may or may not be racist. It does tally up in the 'potential racists police acts' column though.
Now he doesn't get it. (Sond and Bung) They are expected to serve and protect, but it does not mean even at the expense of their own lives. That is why they have the option of deadly force available. It weighs against their own welfare and the public welfare. By your reasoning, they are expected to basically exchange a life, literally only take one if they are certain their own is pretty much dust. That is not the case.
The police officers were threatened with deadly force, based off the split second actions and motives of the man they were attempting to apprehend. The fact that the man was deceptive doesn't mean the police judged badly. It means the man judged badly for which he paid with his life.
Sond says that the fact they had him at point blank range and didn't shoot shows bad judgement and racist intent. To me it shows the exact opposite. It shows a lack of callousness and an attempt to insure life even at risk of their own. The fact that they were not willing to take that risk a SECOND time is not racist.
I watched that video about 10 times myself and the man walked away (still not responding to ANY heeds to lay down his weapon, stop moving, or anything else) began turning back toward the left wildly with his cell phone still in a pistol grip and that was what caused his death.
Trumpetman. Your post has enlightened me very much. First that it is true that black people(in general) view the acts of black people differently. For example, I didn't see anything wild about how the suspect walked away from the officers. He did not have his phone in a pistol grip AT THE TIME HE WAS WALKING AWAY. He was grabbing at his baggy arse pants so that he could walk. Of course since I see that type of behaviour all the time I know 'pulling up ones too loose pants" move many many times.
Secondly, I never said that the failure of the officers to shoot the suspect the first two times time they had the opportunity was a sign of being racist. I said that it showed that they in fact did not fear for their lives. Had it been a one time split chance then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But the officer had two chances and failed to "defend" himself. Instead both officers waited until the suspect was (relatively) far away from them before they shot at his back. I repeat THAT is NOT self-defense.
Let's all be perfectly honest here. A person who is walking away from you with their back turned to you is not endangering your life. If for example a person was robbing your house and you picked up your gun and went after him. Say he has none of your property and is running away from your house. YOU would be arrested and charged with a homicide if you shot him in the back. The Jury may be sympathetic to you and you just might manage to get a light sentance, but a self defense plea would not work.
This is the law. Once we start excepting a segment of the population from the law, then we get chaos. Because there are crooked cops out there who will shoot people in the back, one must enforce the law. Even when the persons breaking the law are the ones enforcing the law.
What is racist about the situation is the assumption of danger posed by black citizens. It is assumed that black citizens are more dangerous than other citizens. This profile of black citizens is rampant. New Jersey and Texas are justy two recent examples of how these stereotypes play to deny black citizens their basic rights. And as stupid and rationally deserving that suspect was to get shot, in the justice system, unless it;s a clear case of self defence ( which this was not), it's murder. That is why I claim that this case is an example of racism.
1. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
A. To defend himself or a 3rd person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or_
B. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest of a person when the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person has committed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a dangerous weapon in attempting to escape or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to endanger seriously human life or to inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and_
(1) The law enforcement officer has made reasonable efforts to advise the person that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of this advice; or
(2) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested otherwise knows that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest.
While I contend that the shooting is justifiable as self defense (see my earlier action versus reaction post) it is also justifiable as a means of stopping someone who is believed to be threatening deadly force in an attemp to flee (see section B of the law). Even Sondjata agrees that the man in the video appears to be pointing a gun at the Officers before turning away from them.
I'm heading out of town in the morning - and I don't know if I'll have occasion to check the forum while I'm gone. Hopefully this thread will be done by then as I hate to type :-) Thank You to those that kept an open mind and were able to debate a hot subject without resorting to childish name calling.
1. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
A. To defend himself or a 3rd person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or_
B. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest of a person when the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person has committed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a dangerous weapon in attempting to escape or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to endanger seriously human life or to inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and_
(1) The law enforcement officer has made reasonable efforts to advise the person that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of this advice; or
(2) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested otherwise knows that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest.
While I contend that the shooting is justifiable as self defense (see my earlier action versus reaction post) it is also justifiable as a means of stopping someone who is believed to be threatening deadly force in an attemp to flee (see section B of the law). Even Sondjata agrees that the man in the video appears to be pointing a gun at the Officers before turning away from them.
I'm heading out of town in the morning - and I don't know if I'll have occasion to check the forum while I'm gone. Hopefully this thread will be done by then as I hate to type :-) Thank You to those that kept an open mind and were able to debate a hot subject without resorting to childish name calling.
Vice108
Assuming this is an actual quote from the Statutes involved and that I am reading it correctly. And in reading it correctly that section B inplies that two conditions must be met then:
a) When the suspect in fact pointed his "gun" at the officers he in fact fulfilled requirements 1 and A.
b) When the suspect was walking away from the officers he was not imminently about to use deadly force (back turned..walking away)had not committed a crime involving the use of deadly force. Nor was he IMHO, attempting to "Escape as he had left his vehicle and was not running anywhere, and with no one else in the vicinity ( from what I saw) he was not a danger to anyone else ( given the back turned and walkign away from the officers)
Therefore in my opinion his actions subsequent to the initial pointing of the "gun." does not fulfill the requirements of eitehr section A or Section B (as it appears to imply that two conditions be met in order to be satisfied). Therefore I still hold that in the begining when the suspect held the cellphone as a weapon the officers would indeed be justified in taking his life. But once the suspect ceased to be a threat by walking away, with his back turned he ceased to be a immediate threat to life of anyone. By the video he wasn't headed towards anyone else.
Trumpetman. Your post has enlightened me very much. First that it is true that black people(in general) view the acts of black people differently. For example, I didn't see anything wild about how the suspect walked away from the officers. He did not have his phone in a pistol grip AT THE TIME HE WAS WALKING AWAY. He was grabbing at his baggy arse pants so that he could walk. Of course since I see that type of behaviour all the time I know 'pulling up ones too loose pants" move many many times.
Secondly, I never said that the failure of the officers to shoot the suspect the first two times time they had the opportunity was a sign of being racist. I said that it showed that they in fact did not fear for their lives. Had it been a one time split chance then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But the officer had two chances and failed to "defend" himself. Instead both officers waited until the suspect was (relatively) far away from them before they shot at his back. I repeat THAT is NOT self-defense.
Let's all be perfectly honest here. A person who is walking away from you with their back turned to you is not endangering your life. If for example a person was robbing your house and you picked up your gun and went after him. Say he has none of your property and is running away from your house. YOU would be arrested and charged with a homicide if you shot him in the back. The Jury may be sympathetic to you and you just might manage to get a light sentance, but a self defense plea would not work.
This is the law. Once we start excepting a segment of the population from the law, then we get chaos. Because there are crooked cops out there who will shoot people in the back, one must enforce the law. Even when the persons breaking the law are the ones enforcing the law.
What is racist about the situation is the assumption of danger posed by black citizens. It is assumed that black citizens are more dangerous than other citizens. This profile of black citizens is rampant. New Jersey and Texas are justy two recent examples of how these stereotypes play to deny black citizens their basic rights. And as stupid and rationally deserving that suspect was to get shot, in the justice system, unless it;s a clear case of self defence ( which this was not), it's murder. That is why I claim that this case is an example of racism.
I have no idea what you are referring to regarding his pulling up of pants and it being construed incorrectly. I would never attribute baggy pants exclusively to black people since they are all I have seen anyone who is male and under 18-19 wear for about 2 years. I didn't even notice him pulling up his pants.
After reviewing it yet again 3 more times, I did get the hand wrong. However at the 25 second mark of the CBS video, he does begin swinging around back toward the officers again with his right hand out. When I say pistol grip. I don't mean a shooters stance per say, but rather that he was holding it like a gun, and not like a cell phone. I apologize if my terminology is imprecise.
There was nothing about the situation, radio conversations or anything else that was reported that indicated the officers even mentioned the guys race. Could it be that he was considered no more dangerous than any other drunk driver who had eluded the police for 5 miles while running numerous red lights and swirving and feigning a firearm?
By his actions alone he was dangerous you associate the danger with race, but the actions stand alone above race.
As for the officers not fearing for their lives with the first opportunity, again it shows the desire to only take life only when necessary, not that they did not have fear for their lives. Also what the video fails to show is that there is a third officer outside of the view of the camera. The third officer might not have fired for fear of hitting the first (closest) officer.
No police officers has been exempted from the law. If anything they are being denied equal justice under the law. In the Rodney King trial, the officers were tried twice for the same matter. In the Donovan Jackson matter one white officer was fired and the other suspended indefinately for striking him with their fist while the black officer was suspended for four days for hitting him with a flashlight.
In the Tyisha Miller incident, all four officers were fired even though they were cleared of any criminal matters.
If anyone was going to views items through racial paradigms, the white officers would be less afraid because the majority of black violence is committed on blacks. Likewise if the black man were looking at the cops racially, he would show fear since he is constantly harassed for driving, talking, looking and being black.
Instead he was absolutely unafraid and remorseless. He showed not a single iota of concern about the white police officers, even when he saw they had weapons drawn.
b) When the suspect was walking away from the officers he was not imminently about to use deadly force (back turned..walking away)had not committed a crime involving the use of deadly force. Nor was he IMHO, attempting to "Escape as he had left his vehicle and was not running anywhere, and with no one else in the vicinity ( from what I saw) he was not a danger to anyone else ( given the back turned and walkign away from the officers)
...
Tell ya what. Come over to my place. Bring your gun. I'll point it at you. Then walk away. We'll see how fast I can spin around and shoot you. If you haven't run off first.
By his actions alone he was dangerous you associate the danger with race, but the actions stand alone above race.
Trumpet,
Are there any racists cops?
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
and that's completely bullshit unless you can prove it.
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
Sure, but I wouldn't say the racism is only white on black. It could be black on black, hispanic on black, white on asian, etc.
Again I would reiterate, what about the situation would have been handled differently if he weren't black? I have no doubt that this guy would be dead if he were white. The only issue is that it wouldn't be news and wouldn't have protesters. Likewise if the officers had been black or if the driver had shot the officers, no news.
And again if they would react in any manner subconsciously toward this it would be aversion, not aggression. Looking at a situation and thinking, yep this could be front page would not make you more aggressive.
And what is more amazing is the evidence of this subconscious aversion action is intepreted as, lack of fear regarding his weapon, and later racist intent.
When you and Sond point, gee they have him dead to rights, he has his cell phone out like a gun, is pointing and the guy is right next to him with a weapon draw toward his head, why didn't he shoot? That too me is proof of racial aversion with regard to shooting. It isn't fear of a lack of weapon, but fear of the front page that kept the driver alive at that point.
The fact that they didn't extend this courtesy twice isn't proof of racism, but proof of the opposite.
and that's completely bullshit unless you can prove it.
well, that and blatently racist.
"white cops react differently because he's black"
Well I can't argue the merits of this particular case because I can't see the video (and that most likely wouldn't be very telling), but this generality is true.
Sure, but I wouldn't say the racism is only white on black. It could be black on black, hispanic on black, white on asian, etc.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Again I would reiterate, what about the situation would have been handled differently if he weren't black? I have no doubt that this guy would be dead if he were white.
I don't know, but I will stand by the general assumption that cops will react differently towards a black man than a white man. Is it as simple as 'shoot if black, don't if white'? Of course not. But in some situations the outcome could definitely be opposite. Like in one situation a person is arrested and the other not. Or, unfortunately, one shot and the other not.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
When you and Sond point, gee they have him dead to rights, he has his cell phone out like a gun, is pointing and the guy is right next to him with a weapon draw toward his head, why didn't he shoot?
Comments
if you break the law, the cops try to stop you, and you stop, that's it. end of story. you should be fine, they shouldn't have to use any kind of force.
however, if you break the law, they try to stop you and you run, it's a whole different ball game. if you're running it's almost always for a reason. either your thinking is impaired, or you've got outstanding warrents. in either case, this stop is no longer one where you will be accorded the same treatment as someone who listens when the cops try to pull you over.
by running you've become a hostile stop, rather than a "typical" stop. this is, unfortunately, the sad outcome of poor decision making.
Originally posted by bunge
all you flamers can go to hell.
Okay, bunge---now what?
Originally posted by bunge
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
Now he doesn't get it. (Sond and Bung) They are expected to serve and protect, but it does not mean even at the expense of their own lives. That is why they have the option of deadly force available. It weighs against their own welfare and the public welfare. By your reasoning, they are expected to basically exchange a life, literally only take one if they are certain their own is pretty much dust. That is not the case.
The police officers were threatened with deadly force, based off the split second actions and motives of the man they were attempting to apprehend. The fact that the man was deceptive doesn't mean the police judged badly. It means the man judged badly for which he paid with his life.
Sond says that the fact they had him at point blank range and didn't shoot shows bad judgement and racist intent. To me it shows the exact opposite. It shows a lack of callousness and an attempt to insure life even at risk of their own. The fact that they were not willing to take that risk a SECOND time is not racist.
I watched that video about 10 times myself and the man walked away (still not responding to ANY heeds to lay down his weapon, stop moving, or anything else) began turning back toward the left wildly with his cell phone still in a pistol grip and that was what caused his death.
Also as Vice mentioned, the political pressure when dealing with these circumstances is huge. If you are a white officer you know something like this would easily be front page news and talk tv fodder for days. Why would anyone desire that for themselves.
Anyone remember Donovan Jackson?
In their suit, Morse and Darvish claimed the city treated them unfairly because they are white. They said that a black officer who struck Jackson with his flashlight was suspended for only four days and faced no criminal charges. Morse and Darvish accused the city of disciplining them based on political pressure rather than department policy.
www.inclusiondaily.com/news/laws/djackson.htm#021803]InclusionDaily[/URL]
How about Tyisha Miller?
RIVERSIDE, California (CNN) -- The four officers who shot and killed a 19-year-old woman last December, hitting her with 12 bullets, were given notice Friday that they are to be fired.
CNN-Riverside
I actualy know the former mother-in-law of one of these officers. I say former because they ended divorced in part because of this.
Who is so racist that they want to pretty much guarantee they will lose their job, house, wife and kids just to punch or shoot someone who is black?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Who is so racist that they want to pretty much guarantee they will lose their job, house, wife and kids just to punch or shoot someone who is black?
I'm not touching the racist angle of this act because it's futile. But defending it is even moreso. A lot of cops are racist. It's true. It just is. But even a racist could be smart enough to avoid a situation that could highlight his or her racist tendencies.
This act may or may not be racist. It does tally up in the 'potential racists police acts' column though.
Originally posted by trumptman
Now he doesn't get it. (Sond and Bung) They are expected to serve and protect, but it does not mean even at the expense of their own lives. That is why they have the option of deadly force available. It weighs against their own welfare and the public welfare. By your reasoning, they are expected to basically exchange a life, literally only take one if they are certain their own is pretty much dust. That is not the case.
The police officers were threatened with deadly force, based off the split second actions and motives of the man they were attempting to apprehend. The fact that the man was deceptive doesn't mean the police judged badly. It means the man judged badly for which he paid with his life.
Sond says that the fact they had him at point blank range and didn't shoot shows bad judgement and racist intent. To me it shows the exact opposite. It shows a lack of callousness and an attempt to insure life even at risk of their own. The fact that they were not willing to take that risk a SECOND time is not racist.
I watched that video about 10 times myself and the man walked away (still not responding to ANY heeds to lay down his weapon, stop moving, or anything else) began turning back toward the left wildly with his cell phone still in a pistol grip and that was what caused his death.
Trumpetman. Your post has enlightened me very much. First that it is true that black people(in general) view the acts of black people differently. For example, I didn't see anything wild about how the suspect walked away from the officers. He did not have his phone in a pistol grip AT THE TIME HE WAS WALKING AWAY. He was grabbing at his baggy arse pants so that he could walk. Of course since I see that type of behaviour all the time I know 'pulling up ones too loose pants" move many many times.
Secondly, I never said that the failure of the officers to shoot the suspect the first two times time they had the opportunity was a sign of being racist. I said that it showed that they in fact did not fear for their lives. Had it been a one time split chance then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But the officer had two chances and failed to "defend" himself. Instead both officers waited until the suspect was (relatively) far away from them before they shot at his back. I repeat THAT is NOT self-defense.
Let's all be perfectly honest here. A person who is walking away from you with their back turned to you is not endangering your life. If for example a person was robbing your house and you picked up your gun and went after him. Say he has none of your property and is running away from your house. YOU would be arrested and charged with a homicide if you shot him in the back. The Jury may be sympathetic to you and you just might manage to get a light sentance, but a self defense plea would not work.
This is the law. Once we start excepting a segment of the population from the law, then we get chaos. Because there are crooked cops out there who will shoot people in the back, one must enforce the law. Even when the persons breaking the law are the ones enforcing the law.
What is racist about the situation is the assumption of danger posed by black citizens. It is assumed that black citizens are more dangerous than other citizens. This profile of black citizens is rampant. New Jersey and Texas are justy two recent examples of how these stereotypes play to deny black citizens their basic rights. And as stupid and rationally deserving that suspect was to get shot, in the justice system, unless it;s a clear case of self defence ( which this was not), it's murder. That is why I claim that this case is an example of racism.
1. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
A. To defend himself or a 3rd person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or_
B. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest of a person when the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person has committed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a dangerous weapon in attempting to escape or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to endanger seriously human life or to inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and_
(1) The law enforcement officer has made reasonable efforts to advise the person that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of this advice; or
(2) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested otherwise knows that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest.
While I contend that the shooting is justifiable as self defense (see my earlier action versus reaction post) it is also justifiable as a means of stopping someone who is believed to be threatening deadly force in an attemp to flee (see section B of the law). Even Sondjata agrees that the man in the video appears to be pointing a gun at the Officers before turning away from them.
I'm heading out of town in the morning - and I don't know if I'll have occasion to check the forum while I'm gone. Hopefully this thread will be done by then as I hate to type :-) Thank You to those that kept an open mind and were able to debate a hot subject without resorting to childish name calling.
Vice108
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not touching the racist angle of this act because it's futile. But defending it is even moreso. A lot of cops are racist. It's true. ....
Prove it.
.....let's be careful out there.
Originally posted by vice108
Here is the law:
1. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
A. To defend himself or a 3rd person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or_
B. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest of a person when the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person has committed a crime involving the use or threatened use of deadly force, is using a dangerous weapon in attempting to escape or otherwise indicates that the person is likely to endanger seriously human life or to inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and_
(1) The law enforcement officer has made reasonable efforts to advise the person that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of this advice; or
(2) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the person to be arrested otherwise knows that the officer is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or prevent the escape from arrest.
While I contend that the shooting is justifiable as self defense (see my earlier action versus reaction post) it is also justifiable as a means of stopping someone who is believed to be threatening deadly force in an attemp to flee (see section B of the law). Even Sondjata agrees that the man in the video appears to be pointing a gun at the Officers before turning away from them.
I'm heading out of town in the morning - and I don't know if I'll have occasion to check the forum while I'm gone. Hopefully this thread will be done by then as I hate to type :-) Thank You to those that kept an open mind and were able to debate a hot subject without resorting to childish name calling.
Vice108
Assuming this is an actual quote from the Statutes involved and that I am reading it correctly. And in reading it correctly that section B inplies that two conditions must be met then:
a) When the suspect in fact pointed his "gun" at the officers he in fact fulfilled requirements 1 and A.
b) When the suspect was walking away from the officers he was not imminently about to use deadly force (back turned..walking away)had not committed a crime involving the use of deadly force. Nor was he IMHO, attempting to "Escape as he had left his vehicle and was not running anywhere, and with no one else in the vicinity ( from what I saw) he was not a danger to anyone else ( given the back turned and walkign away from the officers)
Therefore in my opinion his actions subsequent to the initial pointing of the "gun." does not fulfill the requirements of eitehr section A or Section B (as it appears to imply that two conditions be met in order to be satisfied). Therefore I still hold that in the begining when the suspect held the cellphone as a weapon the officers would indeed be justified in taking his life. But once the suspect ceased to be a threat by walking away, with his back turned he ceased to be a immediate threat to life of anyone. By the video he wasn't headed towards anyone else.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Trumpetman. Your post has enlightened me very much. First that it is true that black people(in general) view the acts of black people differently. For example, I didn't see anything wild about how the suspect walked away from the officers. He did not have his phone in a pistol grip AT THE TIME HE WAS WALKING AWAY. He was grabbing at his baggy arse pants so that he could walk. Of course since I see that type of behaviour all the time I know 'pulling up ones too loose pants" move many many times.
Secondly, I never said that the failure of the officers to shoot the suspect the first two times time they had the opportunity was a sign of being racist. I said that it showed that they in fact did not fear for their lives. Had it been a one time split chance then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But the officer had two chances and failed to "defend" himself. Instead both officers waited until the suspect was (relatively) far away from them before they shot at his back. I repeat THAT is NOT self-defense.
Let's all be perfectly honest here. A person who is walking away from you with their back turned to you is not endangering your life. If for example a person was robbing your house and you picked up your gun and went after him. Say he has none of your property and is running away from your house. YOU would be arrested and charged with a homicide if you shot him in the back. The Jury may be sympathetic to you and you just might manage to get a light sentance, but a self defense plea would not work.
This is the law. Once we start excepting a segment of the population from the law, then we get chaos. Because there are crooked cops out there who will shoot people in the back, one must enforce the law. Even when the persons breaking the law are the ones enforcing the law.
What is racist about the situation is the assumption of danger posed by black citizens. It is assumed that black citizens are more dangerous than other citizens. This profile of black citizens is rampant. New Jersey and Texas are justy two recent examples of how these stereotypes play to deny black citizens their basic rights. And as stupid and rationally deserving that suspect was to get shot, in the justice system, unless it;s a clear case of self defence ( which this was not), it's murder. That is why I claim that this case is an example of racism.
I have no idea what you are referring to regarding his pulling up of pants and it being construed incorrectly. I would never attribute baggy pants exclusively to black people since they are all I have seen anyone who is male and under 18-19 wear for about 2 years. I didn't even notice him pulling up his pants.
After reviewing it yet again 3 more times, I did get the hand wrong. However at the 25 second mark of the CBS video, he does begin swinging around back toward the officers again with his right hand out. When I say pistol grip. I don't mean a shooters stance per say, but rather that he was holding it like a gun, and not like a cell phone. I apologize if my terminology is imprecise.
There was nothing about the situation, radio conversations or anything else that was reported that indicated the officers even mentioned the guys race. Could it be that he was considered no more dangerous than any other drunk driver who had eluded the police for 5 miles while running numerous red lights and swirving and feigning a firearm?
By his actions alone he was dangerous you associate the danger with race, but the actions stand alone above race.
As for the officers not fearing for their lives with the first opportunity, again it shows the desire to only take life only when necessary, not that they did not have fear for their lives. Also what the video fails to show is that there is a third officer outside of the view of the camera. The third officer might not have fired for fear of hitting the first (closest) officer.
No police officers has been exempted from the law. If anything they are being denied equal justice under the law. In the Rodney King trial, the officers were tried twice for the same matter. In the Donovan Jackson matter one white officer was fired and the other suspended indefinately for striking him with their fist while the black officer was suspended for four days for hitting him with a flashlight.
In the Tyisha Miller incident, all four officers were fired even though they were cleared of any criminal matters.
If anyone was going to views items through racial paradigms, the white officers would be less afraid because the majority of black violence is committed on blacks. Likewise if the black man were looking at the cops racially, he would show fear since he is constantly harassed for driving, talking, looking and being black.
Instead he was absolutely unafraid and remorseless. He showed not a single iota of concern about the white police officers, even when he saw they had weapons drawn.
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
...
b) When the suspect was walking away from the officers he was not imminently about to use deadly force (back turned..walking away)had not committed a crime involving the use of deadly force. Nor was he IMHO, attempting to "Escape as he had left his vehicle and was not running anywhere, and with no one else in the vicinity ( from what I saw) he was not a danger to anyone else ( given the back turned and walkign away from the officers)
...
Tell ya what. Come over to my place. Bring your gun. I'll point it at you. Then walk away. We'll see how fast I can spin around and shoot you. If you haven't run off first.
Originally posted by Scott
Prove it.
Prove it? How about vice 'proves' it for me. I imagine if he has any integrity he will freely admit that some policemen are racists.
I could tell you I know some, but that doesn't 'prove' anything. His word will carry more weight.
Originally posted by trumptman
By his actions alone he was dangerous you associate the danger with race, but the actions stand alone above race.
Trumpet,
Are there any racists cops?
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
and that's completely bullshit unless you can prove it.
well, that and blatently racist.
"white cops react differently because he's black"
Originally posted by bunge
Trumpet,
Are there any racists cops?
I think the point Sondjata is getting at is that this, at the very least, was indirectly a racial killing. The cops didn't kill him because they knew he was black, but because he was black they react differently to the situation, perhaps subconsciously, because he was black.
Sure, but I wouldn't say the racism is only white on black. It could be black on black, hispanic on black, white on asian, etc.
Again I would reiterate, what about the situation would have been handled differently if he weren't black? I have no doubt that this guy would be dead if he were white. The only issue is that it wouldn't be news and wouldn't have protesters. Likewise if the officers had been black or if the driver had shot the officers, no news.
And again if they would react in any manner subconsciously toward this it would be aversion, not aggression. Looking at a situation and thinking, yep this could be front page would not make you more aggressive.
And what is more amazing is the evidence of this subconscious aversion action is intepreted as, lack of fear regarding his weapon, and later racist intent.
When you and Sond point, gee they have him dead to rights, he has his cell phone out like a gun, is pointing and the guy is right next to him with a weapon draw toward his head, why didn't he shoot? That too me is proof of racial aversion with regard to shooting. It isn't fear of a lack of weapon, but fear of the front page that kept the driver alive at that point.
The fact that they didn't extend this courtesy twice isn't proof of racism, but proof of the opposite.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
and that's completely bullshit unless you can prove it.
well, that and blatently racist.
"white cops react differently because he's black"
Well I can't argue the merits of this particular case because I can't see the video (and that most likely wouldn't be very telling), but this generality is true.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure, but I wouldn't say the racism is only white on black. It could be black on black, hispanic on black, white on asian, etc.
I agree.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again I would reiterate, what about the situation would have been handled differently if he weren't black? I have no doubt that this guy would be dead if he were white.
I don't know, but I will stand by the general assumption that cops will react differently towards a black man than a white man. Is it as simple as 'shoot if black, don't if white'? Of course not. But in some situations the outcome could definitely be opposite. Like in one situation a person is arrested and the other not. Or, unfortunately, one shot and the other not.
Originally posted by trumptman
When you and Sond point, gee they have him dead to rights, he has his cell phone out like a gun, is pointing and the guy is right next to him with a weapon draw toward his head, why didn't he shoot?
I don't think I ever said that.
but this generality is true.
that may be the case, but what you just described is the quintessential example of racism. because they're white, blank is probably true.
because he's black, he's probably a criminal.
because he's mexican, he's probably lazy.
because he's asian, he's probably drives a riced out accord.
because he's white, he probably shot that minority.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure, but I wouldn't say the racism is only white on black. It could be black on black, hispanic on black, white on asian, etc.
somebody needs to qualify that black on black racism and provide thier functioning definition of racism as opposed to Prejudice.