Jury Acquits Tulsa Officer

[triplesdsu]

yeah you right but she should have tased him long before he got to his car. her lack of skill on job lead to this mans death. she should have been charged with something to that regard and fired for sure. maybe even a little jail time as her actions was the cause of death.

- - - Updated - - -



dont argue with endus, dont you know hes always right! but yeah they should probably fix that training. police shouldnt have their guns drawn for no reason. they escalate too many situations with that shit.

In hindsight that would have been a better option, but hindsight is 20/20. We'd still have idiots crying she tazed someone with his hands up then. If you really think you can make something a crime because they didnt use force earlier and then had to use a higher level of force based on the suspects actions then I dont know what to say.

Edit: toned down my response and you're probably being sarcastic but i could see some actually having that train of thought.

[Drakainen]

There is video of this incident online, it is hard to see if he was reaching into the car at the moment it happened(the helicopter view just happens to be on the other side of the car when it happened).

Trump saying he was troubled by the shooting and saying that the guy who got killed looked like he was doing everything right.

Well shit, now you just gone and mind fucked most of the people on this board.. I mean if Trump said he was doing everything right, but since a large chunk of the people on here will just jump on anything Trump says as false/stupid clearly the officer was completely in the right and the guy was reaching for a bazooka, which also fucks with their constant view of cops should be supermen beliefs..

[Dreknar20]

but it is poor judgement.

How the hell is that poor judgement?

Believeing there to be a weapon is believing there to be a weapon. Whether there actually is one dnst make jack shit of a difference. A person acts the same in both situations.

[triplesdsu]

Tell me you have the self-reflection to understand that this is the problem, right? You're training police to kill civilians for noncompliance, not because of a threat. That's insane, if it's true.

Unless you can actually SEE a weapon, you don't get to just pretend it exists and kill people. Your overactive imagination is not justification.

Except this training takes actual response time and the way the body reacts under stress into consideration as opposed to basing it on feels and assumptions from people with no actual experience in the subject matter being taught. If you want to be defiant and act a fool then deal with the potential consequences. Or you can do the smart thing and fight the cops in court. The laws are designed so the police win when the confrontation is on the street and don't expect those to change.

[Endus]

Except this training takes actual response time and the way the body reacts under stress into consideration as opposed to basing it on feels and assumptions from people with no actual experience in the subject matter being taught. If you want to be defiant and act a fool then deal with the potential consequences. Or you can do the smart thing and fight the cops in court. The laws are designed so the police win when the confrontation is on the street and don't expect those to change.

My position has nothing to do with response times or whatnot.

Let me be very clear; I would rather that officers provide civilians the benefit of the doubt and get shot, than see officers shooting unarmed civilians who pose no extant threat to anyone. Those are both tragic outcomes, but the former means that the civilian is to blame, for being a violent criminal, whereas in the latter, the officer is to blame.

And of the two, the one whose actions we can control are the officer's.

I don't want to see cops get shot while executing their duties, but putting themselves in danger is part of the job, and murdering civilians pre-emptively to minimize that is horrendous. Why not just put a couple rounds into the driver on any traffic stop, just to be sure? It's the same (bad) argument that you're making.

[triplesdsu]

My position has nothing to do with response times or whatnot.

Let me be very clear; I would rather that officers provide civilians the benefit of the doubt and get shot, than see officers shooting unarmed civilians who pose no extant threat to anyone. Those are both tragic outcomes, but the former means that the civilian is to blame, for being a violent criminal, whereas in the latter, the officer is to blame.

And of the two, the one whose actions we can control are the officer's.

I don't want to see cops get shot while executing their duties, but putting themselves in danger is part of the job, and murdering civilians pre-emptively to minimize that is horrendous. Why not just put a couple rounds into the driver on any traffic stop, just to be sure? It's the same (bad) argument that you're making.

You have that reversed. If the citizen is shot, its the result of their own actions. In any justified shooting, they are in complete control of whether they get shot (or are on the receiving end of any force). Comply and nothing happens. Dont and people are naturally going to prioritize their own safety. You dont lose the right of self preservation because of your career choice. These situations are tragic but completely avoidable.

Im not making that argument at all (regarding shooting all drivers) and you're pretty dense if thats how you interpret it. Like i said earlier, non compliance is rare. I maybe had to use force twice a year. These rare occurences are in no way a reflection of what usually happens. However if the driver in a stop gets uncooperative and reaching in places where he shouldnt then the guns will come out. You have to look at the whole picture.

[Endus]

You have that reversed. If the citizen is shot, its the result of their own actions.

Considering it was the officer that chose to fire, and did so, this is laughably incorrect by any measure whatsoever.

In any justified shooting, they are in complete control of whether they get shot (or are on the receiving end of any force). Comply and nothing happens. Dont and people are naturally going to prioritize their own safety.

Like I said; you're advocating shooting people for noncompliance.

That's straight-up sci-fi police state dystopia nonsense.

You dont lose the right of self preservation because of your career choice. These situations are tragic but completely avoidable.

Literally nobody was arguing that officers can't act in self-defense.

An unarmed and nonaggressive civilian not doing what you say is not a self-defense situation.

Im not making that argument at all (regarding shooting all drivers) and you're pretty dense if thats how you interpret it.

It's exactly the same logic you're using.

Some drivers shoot cops, so cops should imagine that every driver is gonna shoot them, and shoot first. Literally the same argument you're making.

[Orange Joe]

You have that reversed. If the citizen is shot, its the result of their own actions. In any justified shooting, they are in complete control of whether they get shot (or are on the receiving end of any force). Comply and nothing happens. Dont and people are naturally going to prioritize their own safety. You dont lose the right of self preservation because of your career choice. These situations are tragic but completely avoidable.

Im not making that argument at all (regarding shooting all drivers) and you're pretty dense if thats how you interpret it. Like i said earlier, non compliance is rare. I maybe had to use force twice a year. These rare occurences are in no way a reflection of what usually happens. However if the driver in a stop gets uncooperative and reaching in places where he shouldnt then the guns will come out. You have to look at the whole picture.

So nobody has ever been wrongfully shot before? Is this the claim you really want to try and stick with?



How about when it's a 10 year old kid shot within 3 seconds of arriving on the scene?

[the game]

Quite often when armed white people approach officers they dont get shot. It's what makes it kind of hard to justify this behavior.

I would like to see data proving this.

[Jaylock]

No i'm saying that "the jury said x" doesnt make it true.

In this case I think the cop should have been found guilty, since she escalated the situation to the point that she thought killing an unarmed man was necessary. She's negligent and incompetent at least, or actively biased and dangerous at worst.

The dude was reaching back into his car for something. How could the officer know that he wasn't reaching for a gun? Oh you mean wait for him to pull the gun out and start open firing on the cops? yeah thats real smart.

[Orange Joe]

I would like to see data proving this.

There was video of people entering a police station while openly armed. While they were arrested soon after entering, no one was shot.




http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2...police-station

[the game]

There was video of people entering a police station while openly armed. While they were arrested soon after entering, no one was shot.




http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2...police-station

So one video then with 2 white guys and a handful of cops is an accurate sample size when talking about an entire country? Good to know white guys never get shot by cops based on one video.

[Barnabas]

With that many police present it wasn't possible to wrestle him to the ground instead of ending his life? I would've hung that jury if I were on it with that simple question.

[Orange Joe]

So one video then with 2 white guys and a handful of cops is an accurate sample size when talking about an entire country? Good to know white guys never get shot by cops based on one video.

Can you show me where I made ANY of those statements?

[the game]

Can you show me where I made ANY of those statements?

I asked for statistics and you posted one video. You implied that it was enough.

[Orange Joe]

I asked for statistics and you posted one video. You implied that it was enough.

Nice to know you can read invisible text.

[triplesdsu]

Considering it was the officer that chose to fire, and did so, this is laughably incorrect by any measure whatsoever.



Like I said; you're advocating shooting people for noncompliance.

That's straight-up sci-fi police state dystopia nonsense.



Literally nobody was arguing that officers can't act in self-defense.

An unarmed and nonaggressive civilian not doing what you say is not a self-defense situation.



It's exactly the same logic you're using.

Some drivers shoot cops, so cops should imagine that every driver is gonna shoot them, and shoot first. Literally the same argument you're making.

Hows it laughably inaccurate? Choices and actions have consequences. Even in the way people react to you. Depending on the type of non complaince, the result can be being shot. By your logic someone pointing a gun at an officer or active shooter who gets shot would be completely the fault of the officer and bore no responsibility for the result. Im not suggesting this was the ideal way to handle the situation but it also wasnt so unreasonable to warrant incarceration.

I really wish you became a cop, you apparently have so much to teach us in regards on how to handle things. Call it a police state if you want but we both know youre being a drama queen.

[Endus]

Hows it laughably inaccurate? Choices and actions have consequences.

Because in a shooting, the only person responsible for someone getting shot is the shooter. Claiming otherwise is straight-out victim blaming.

I really wish you became a cop, you apparently have so much to teach us in regards on how to handle things. Call it a police state if you want but we both know youre being a drama queen.

This is how cops work, in Canada. They don't get to murder people for being noncompliant. Same is true in most developed countries. The USA is the exception.

[GrinningMan]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[triplesdsu]

Because in a shooting, the only person responsible for someone getting shot is the shooter. Claiming otherwise is straight-out victim blaming.



This is how cops work, in Canada. They don't get to murder people for being noncompliant. Same is true in most developed countries. The USA is the exception.

My last post and im moving on. Theyre not victims, theyre suspects. Secondly the us is exceptional, the one super power. Forgive us for not worrying about how the jv nations operate.