|
On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
Even partials?
|
On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn.
I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury.
On February 18 2013 05:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive. Even partials?
For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired.
|
On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
|
On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun.
|
On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand.
right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion)
|
On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun.
?
Said it may be possible that one might handle a gun or object without leaving prints on it
|
On February 18 2013 05:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun. ? Said it may be possible that one might handle a gun or object without leaving prints on it
Handle? Let's steer clear of semantics here. The report clearly says the suspect pulled a gun. Pull, not handle.
|
On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun.
The report isn't consistent. It says the suspect 'pulled a handgun from his waistband', which we assume means he pulled the gun out. However, when the gun is recovered by another deputy at the scene, its still in the suspect's waistband.
The report says he pulled the gun out, and then turned and walked away with his back to the officer. The officer shoots him from this position, so we assume that the suspect still has the gun in his hand to present an immediate threat. After he's shot, he starts to run and is shot at two more times (at least 1 bullet hit, maybe all 3). He falls to his stomach, and the officer claims that the gun was back in his waistband at this point.
That means that after being shot, and while running away from the officer, he took the time to put the pistol back in his waistband. We also have no way of knowing if he ever truly pulled it, or if he did, when.
|
The official report says the suspect pulls a gun from his waistband, and then all subsequent references to the weapon suggest it is still in the waistband. Since it is possible to pull on something and not actually remove it, it simply seems like a poor word choice, not a definitive drawing of the weapon.
|
On February 18 2013 05:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand. right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion)
The problem is exactly that. How is it clear that the cop thought suspect was drawing a gun? It would be reasonable if there were prints on the weapon, or if there was some form of altercation. All we have is the suspect dashing away. Otherwise, it is simply based on the officer's testimony. That leaves for a very dangerous precedent.
|
On February 18 2013 06:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 18 2013 05:45 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled Read the official report. Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand. right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion) The problem is exactly that. How is it clear that the cop thought suspect was drawing a gun? It would be reasonable if there were prints on the weapon, or if there was some form of altercation. All we have is the suspect dashing away. Otherwise, it is simply based on the officer's testimony. That leaves for a very dangerous precedent.
im not saying the officer was right im saying he possibly saw something he interpreted as a threat or improperly catastrophized the situation in his head and reacted regardless of how legitimate that threat was, like the time the guy was shot at 42 times for pulling out his wallet. split second reactions can often be based on incorrect assumptions. (at least in my opinion. guiess i should have originally used i think instead of sayin that it was clear because of the connotations.) Im not saying we should instantly accept the officers account but that we shouldn't instantly assume he shot the guy cause he randomly felt like it.
note him thinking the guy is drawing a gun does not instantly equal the guy drawing a gun or even making any movements that look like it. also I'm not trying to excuse the cop from responsibility. its possible the cop wanted to fire his gun and that influenced him to make a completely unreasonable assumption. its also possible that the cop did in fact shoot the guy randomly but i think thats a relatively low possibility at least considering I don't know anything about the officer in question.
srry if this is long I just dont intend on staying int this thread cause i have stuff to do and i wanted to be clear. feel free to disagree with anythign i said.
guess i should mention i didnt actually watch the video and most of my thoughts are based on op and discussion in the thread.
|
On February 18 2013 05:37 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive. That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn. I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury. Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:36 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive. Even partials? For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired.
Actually the 3 shots when he's on the ground isn't fishy as i've gone over this before police train to fire in vollys 3-5 rounds in the center of mass every time they decide to shoot. If the officer tells the truth he guy was reaching for his waist band after the suspected already flashed a gun, any officer would take that as he's pulling the gun to shoot in which case you again shoot 3-5 rounds at the suspect. I only see 2 decisions to shoot being made, one when he ran and one when he was on the ground. The one of the ground is actually less controversial to me then shoot the fleeing suspect, although if the gun is presented to the officer and the suspect flees how do you respond to that? Do you give chase knowing at any time he could fire at you and risk that or do you shout the commands to stop and get on the floor with hands visible and shoot if he doesn't comply. 2nd one is safer for the officer but the 1st one is just better for everyone else in case the officer was mistaken.
|
On February 18 2013 06:35 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 05:37 Hypemeup wrote:On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive. That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn. I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury. On February 18 2013 05:36 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2 No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'. Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive. Even partials? For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired. Actually the 3 shots when he's on the ground isn't fishy as i've gone over this before police train to fire in vollys 3-5 rounds in the center of mass every time they decide to shoot. If the officer tells the truth he guy was reaching for his waist band after the suspected already flashed a gun, any officer would take that as he's pulling the gun to shoot in which case you again shoot 3-5 rounds at the suspect. I only see 2 decisions to shoot being made, one when he ran and one when he was on the ground. The one of the ground is actually less controversial to me then shoot the fleeing suspect, although if the gun is presented to the officer and the suspect flees how do you respond to that? Do you give chase knowing at any time he could fire at you and risk that or do you shout the commands to stop and get on the floor with hands visible and shoot if he doesn't comply. 2nd one is safer for the officer but the 1st one is just better for everyone else in case the officer was mistaken.
How about the part where he supposedly misses the first two shots from point-blank? Keep in mind this means that he shot him 3 times prior to the suspect going down, given that the suspect was shot 4 times.
|
I think the real moral of the story is: Don't run from the police.
Regardless of whether you did something wrong, disobeying police officers can lead to bad things like death
|
Suspect has a gun, suspect pulls gun, suspect runs, Cop kills suspect. I like this narrative better than the one where the cops wait for the guy to start using innocent civilians as human shields because he really doesn't want to get caught.
Don't be stupid when the cops are involved and I doubt you'll have any problems.
|
On February 18 2013 07:29 Bippzy wrote:
I think the real moral of the story is: Don't run from the police.
Regardless of whether you did something wrong, disobeying police officers can lead to bad things like death
True.
thats what it is like to live in a police state.
|
On February 18 2013 06:00 Reedjr wrote:
The official report says the suspect pulls a gun from his waistband, and then all subsequent references to the weapon suggest it is still in the waistband. Since it is possible to pull on something and not actually remove it, it simply seems like a poor word choice, not a definitive drawing of the weapon.
When you lodge an official report (especially with some kind of public office), you don't just leave things to "poor word choice". So much of this story reeks of inconsistency and cover-up that it's just sad.
True.
thats what it is like to live in a police state
I find this case to be incredibly telling about American society for a number of reasons. Perfect example; so many people in the U.S. brag about us being "the land of the free", and yet we consistently get jokes from Europeans about being a police state.
|
On February 18 2013 13:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:I find this case to be incredibly telling about American society for a number of reasons. Perfect example; so many people in the U.S. brag about us being "the land of the free", and yet we consistently get jokes from Europeans about being a police state.
I'm going to be blunt here. People like that tend to say that, more out of jealousy than anything else. The U.S. has the most personal freedoms of any modern state, the least taxation, the most autonomy etc. Most people who are cynical of this point ( (in the U.S. and out of the U.S.) to random occurences that mean very little in the grand scheme of U.S. domestic affairs and say that the U.S. is a police state. I'm not going to say that our police system is perfect, it isn't, but we have some of the most transparency, least corruption, and general admiration of the justice system in the U.S. It is ironic because I see a lot of people say such things from countries that rank much lower than us on the Transparency int'l page for transparency; the same goes for all the other statistics they have that the U.S. generally ranks much higher than those critics would have you believe. Clicky. It other perpetuating stereotypes that make other people feel better more than something immensely telling about outside perceptions.
Secondly, I just wanted to chime in, it seems that a lot of the people in here are suffering from CSI syndrome. Asking for prints, DNA evidence, etc. is all way out there. That is not how most of this works. In general, the cop was against a known gang member, who was drunk. Since he was latino in LA, we can reasonably believe that drugs may have been involved (most latino gangs deal in drugs from other latino countries as distributors) and to top that off, he was armed and dangerous. The policeman made the reasonable decision that, when this guy who cannot be trusted to obey the law chose to disobey the orders of an officer, the situation needed to be terminated before it really escalated. We can argue about the execution shots, but to be honest here, this guy wasn't a stand up dude or even a guy who was innocent of breaking the law (he was already carrying a concealed weapon + public drunkenness/indecency) and the policeman cannot be expected to not act in a human manner to protect his own life. When this guy chose to disobey the officer in this situation, he chose to escalate the situation, not the officer.
|
United States41936 Posts
Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
|
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote:
Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
