|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Europe has created arguments on the line of personal privacy due to being recorded without consent, not to mention how to use the camera footage in a court environment. Where does the video feed go from the body cam and where is it stored before being used in a court. If the police control all of this before getting to court then its a conflict of interest, not to mention if it gets hacked or "hacked" before it gets to court.
So privacy and logistics I guess.
|
On September 25 2016 12:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 12:10 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:59 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. I didn't see him having a weapon on him in the video, that's what my argument is based on. If he had a gun in his hands after he got out of the vehicle then the cops were justified IMO. He did take cover and repeated his commands in the dash cam footage that was posted a page ago. You want cops to wait until hes pointing the gun at them before shooting him? I didn't see the gun either but it might have been on the other side of him. And thats not the point or the reason why people are rioting in the streets. Nothing about your posts are consistent or make any sense. People want to hold cops to a higher standard because of the power they invest in them. They want them to resolve situations like this without killing the guy, especially in situations like this where the guy probably isn't at fault. I don't know man, analyzing this shit is kinda pointless anyways because in the heat of the moment it can be difficult to make clear cut decisions and cops are just your average person with a bit more training so I wouldn't expect them to handle such situations perfectly. Basically listen to them or you might get shot, especially if you are black, smoking pot, and have history of arrests. Well clearly you don't value human life to any degree so I'm not going to continue this. Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2016 12:29 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 12:24 Leporello wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing.
I'm sure it will be fixed though. Was that supposed to be sarcastic, or are you actually serious? Just optimistic bro, these riots and protests should force change. No police department wants to be on the spotlight for being fuckups and then cause unrest in their cities for weeks, at least I hope not. I think you underestimate their master plan. Ride it out, change nothing and pay a fat stack of cash to the family. Its been their plan until now, all that has changed is there is video. Stop being a jaded snarky "assume the worst about everything" person that doesn't contribute to anything. It doesn't help anyone or anything.
I used to stick up for the police, talking about how hard their job is and so on. I don't any more, collective they have burned through my will to give them the benifit of the doubt.
|
United States43246 Posts
On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him.
Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation.
|
I wonder how America will look at it that Trump responded to the Mark Cuban thing by saying "lol here's a woman your husband cheated on you with". Can't be a great move for him when it comes to women voters.
Cuban baited Trump and got under his skin. Now Cuban is continuing to bait him, after this Gennifer Flowers announcement.
This is just a straight up "look America at how easy it is to bait Trump" lol.
|
If it was any woman other than Hillary, I'd guarantee that Trump putting Flowers in the front row is far more triggering for her than Hillary putting Cuban in the front row is for Trump. Even so, I doubt that her heart is so cold and dead to not be affected by it.
|
On September 25 2016 13:55 Doodsmack wrote:I wonder how America will look at it that Trump responded to the Mark Cuban thing by saying "lol here's a woman your husband cheated on you with". Can't be a great move for him when it comes to women voters. Cuban baited Trump and got under his skin. Now Cuban is continuing to bait him, after this Gennifer Flowers announcement. https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/779725423580176384This is just a straight up "look America at how easy it is to bait Trump" lol.
I don't think you can call it bait when there's yet to be any response, it's just a guy trolling by himself on Twitter.
|
On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation.
He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot.
|
On September 25 2016 14:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 13:55 Doodsmack wrote:I wonder how America will look at it that Trump responded to the Mark Cuban thing by saying "lol here's a woman your husband cheated on you with". Can't be a great move for him when it comes to women voters. Cuban baited Trump and got under his skin. Now Cuban is continuing to bait him, after this Gennifer Flowers announcement. https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/779725423580176384This is just a straight up "look America at how easy it is to bait Trump" lol. I don't think you can call it bait when there's yet to be any response, it's just a guy trolling by himself on Twitter.
Well this is the response:
|
Reportedly, ABC News has a taped interview with Trump's rape accuser. There may be credibility questions with the accuser though, I'm not sure. And the Trump counter-argument of political motivations may be a deterrent.
|
On September 25 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote:
Just remember the number of white dudes that go on shooting sprees and magically get arrested alive. But black dudes all over the place don't instantly comply with a cops orders and they lose their right to live. Like the dude who killed 5 people in a mall this week. Magically taken alive.
He wasn't white.
Media originally stated Hispanic, now he is caught they can confirm he is of Turkish origin.
|
So when you say he's still baiting him after the Flowers announcement, and I say but there's been no response, your idea of a response is the previous Flowers announcement. This has been lovely.
|
On September 25 2016 15:02 oBlade wrote:
So when you say he's still baiting him after the Flowers announcement, and I say but there's been no response, your idea of a response is the previous Flowers announcement. This has been lovely.
Well it's intended to be bait. The most recent bait worked, so we will see. They probably want headlines with Trump getting back at Cuban (or Hillary).
|
Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.
“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day Chris Cuomo rattled off.
“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-staffer-trumps-demonization-of-bill-clinton-accusers-in-90s-was-just-being-a-true-friend/
|
On September 25 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2016 12:29 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 12:24 Leporello wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing.
I'm sure it will be fixed though. Was that supposed to be sarcastic, or are you actually serious? Just optimistic bro, these riots and protests should force change. No police department wants to be on the spotlight for being fuckups and then cause unrest in their cities for weeks, at least I hope not. I think you underestimate their master plan. Ride it out, change nothing and pay a fat stack of cash to the family. Its been their plan until now, all that has changed is there is video. Video isn't an insignificant change. There's a possibility that it forces change, I'm pretty sure in some minor cases it already has. Btw, is there a good argument against all cops being equipped with cameras?
It makes it harder for police to get away with being disgusting criminals?
No but the legitimate argument is police taping everything and then retroactively making reasons for their actions. Also people using cop cam footage to place other people at crime scenes/cheating/etc...
|
On September 25 2016 15:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.
“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day Chris Cuomo rattled off.
“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-staffer-trumps-demonization-of-bill-clinton-accusers-in-90s-was-just-being-a-true-friend/
Back when he was a friend, it was ok for him to do heinous, despicable things, but becoming the Republican nominee has given me a new perspective, and I can now condemn him for heinous, despicable things.
This is one of the dumbest moral arguments I have heard in a while...
|
On September 25 2016 19:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 15:58 Doodsmack wrote:Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.
“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day Chris Cuomo rattled off.
“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-staffer-trumps-demonization-of-bill-clinton-accusers-in-90s-was-just-being-a-true-friend/ Back when he was a friend, it was ok for him to do heinous, despicable things, but becoming the Republican nominee has given me a new perspective, and I can now condemn him for heinous, despicable things. This is one of the dumbest moral arguments I have heard in a while...
To be honest his argument sounds more like "Of course he's focusing on the defaults of his opponents in a presidential race in ways that he doesn't necessarily care about privately, wtf did you expect?"
|
On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot.
As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons.
|
On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons.
That's because its comparing two different things.
One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot.
|
On September 25 2016 23:29 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons. That's because its comparing two different things. One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot.
Warzone kinda implies the war has already started... but you know, whatever you need to say to convince yourself there is no systematic problem with the US police force.
|
On September 25 2016 19:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 15:58 Doodsmack wrote:Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.
“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day Chris Cuomo rattled off.
“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-staffer-trumps-demonization-of-bill-clinton-accusers-in-90s-was-just-being-a-true-friend/ Back when he was a friend, it was ok for him to do heinous, despicable things, but becoming the Republican nominee has given me a new perspective, and I can now condemn him for heinous, despicable things. This is one of the dumbest moral arguments I have heard in a while...
Yeah, I dunno why you are posting pro-Trump articles when you're so against him.
Trump has bounced back in the polls from the ground he lost in the last two days, and he's opening up larger and larger leads in all the states he needs to win.
He only needs to steal one more state from Hillary until we have a new US on the world stage. He's not sure close in any of them, but he does have many states that could flip. Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and NH look like the best bet.
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
