(September 24, 2016 at 11:59 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Drich Wrote: Can you show me where one of the MEN killed by cops was "innocent?" Meaning they did not have a warrant out or had just committed a crime that force THEM to escalate the situation??

Considering we've got two threads here each with 100+ pages of the heinous shit cops have pulled, I won't even bother sourcing that.  I'll let you find that on your own.  But here's an article about the soaring cost of settlements for police misconduct.  I suppose you probably think they're just handing out money for fun.

But I would like to address your comment of having a warrant out.  Why do you think that is a capital offense?  If I haven't paid a bunch of my parking tickets, do you really think that is deserving of death?

That "100+ pages" is mostly those guys telling each other they're right. Hard numbers for 2015 show that police shot 1/1343334th of the population. NOT the epidemic the media and raving cop-haters would have  you believe.

(September 23, 2016 at 3:35 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm)Drich Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Jo...(colonist)
Dude was not a preacher sport. he was involved in his church. He was a choir 'man.'

And he had pcp in the car.

The other guy was my only exception. Meaning I said beside the guy who got shot with the autistic man who was hold police at bay with the decipticon/Truck Motor master, was the only innocent man shot.

Guilt or innocence isn't a matter for police officers to determine.

What about this "justice" business you were carrying on about? Respecting the process. 
I thought you were all for that.

Again, the primary reason for police interaction is not what is being judged or what is being punished" by a cop shooting someone. It is how an individual is perceived during a confrontation or in an instance where an officer has to subdue or take a person into custody. If a person or a suspect acts aggressively towards an officer (again independently of any crime they may have been accused of) then that action alone warrants the officer to escalated the situation even unto the suspect's/person's death.

Again it's not what got the cop there, for the reason they are allowed to shoot someone, it is the behavior of the person while dealing with the cop, that would have a person forfeit his life.

In a common sense world the question of guilt or innocence should not even be brought up here, how does anyone not know the rules of engagement with police officers? Here is a PSA that Chris Rock did just a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

(September 24, 2016 at 2:47 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Hard numbers for 2015 show that police shot 1/1343334th of the population. NOT the epidemic the media and raving cop-haters would have  you believe.

Hard numbers also show the actual numbers, you know. Hard numbers also allow comparisons to other countries. Such as Europe. German police (country of roughly 80 million people) shot and killed 501 people between 1952 and 2015. A total of 2492 shots have been fired at all in the same period of time.

The Washington Post had an article out last year. 385 people have been shot and killed by police in the first five months of 2015. Nationwide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...story.html

(September 24, 2016 at 12:22 am)Tres Leches Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 3:32 pm)abaris Wrote: More importantly he had his hands in the air. Did you notice? And if he had PCP, ist that punishable by death?

+1
It's called due process and it's enshrined in the US Constitution:
"Nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"

This is why the "riters" are demanding justice.

I find it curious that the young man accused of setting off terrorist bombs last Saturday in New York City, who also shot 2 police officers as he was being apprehended, was somehow arrested and taken to jail without being killed but citizens who have their hands up in the air get shot and killed by the police.

b....uuuuttt... Doesn't due process include all of the rules and regulations concerning and arrest or detention by a police officer? Meaning 'Due Process' includes provisions that allow police officers the immediate right to defend themselves and other from people who intend them harm. Essentially a citizen waives his right to due process when he makes himself an immediate threat to anyone elses' right to live.

Or rather so says the 14th amendment according to this well written article..

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...e_id=22009

This "animal" was guilty of not wearing a seat belt. He was never told to step away from his vehicle. The guy probably thought he was just going to get a ticket. At any rate, he did exactly what he was instructed to do.

(September 24, 2016 at 11:59 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 12:15 pm)Drich Wrote: Can you show me where one of the MEN killed by cops was "innocent?" Meaning they did not have a warrant out or had just committed a crime that force THEM to escalate the situation??

Considering we've got two threads here each with 100+ pages of the heinous shit cops have pulled, I won't even bother sourcing that.  I'll let you find that on your own.  But here's an article about the soaring cost of settlements for police misconduct.  I suppose you probably think they're just handing out money for fun.

But I would like to address your comment of having a warrant out.  Why do you think that is a capital offense?  If I haven't paid a bunch of my parking tickets, do you really think that is deserving of death?

Red herring.

I asked for you to proove that any of the men who have died by the hands of police That has sparked off these "no justice no peace riots" died innocent men. Or were they all guilty of something, decided to fight the police officer in one form or fashion (non compliance to the arrest/detention process) rather than to be detained and risk a minor criminal offense?

(September 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Drich Wrote: 'Due Process' includes provisions that allow police officers the immediate right to defend themselves and other from people who intend them harm.

Which would be a point if there's an immediate threat. Not a guy turning his back and movng very slowly. Or another one being shot in the back four times while running away from the officer. Who later on tried to plant a weapon on the victim, not knowing that he had been taped. One of the few instances where actual charges were filed. Including this latest one.

A nice little article as to why aiming to injure a suspect holding a firearm is just as dangerous as shoot to kill, or that is how I read it anyway:

Quote:"Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.

"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.

"There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.

"Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.

"The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there's a greater chance you're going to hit the suspect's brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to 'safe' from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass?

"Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who's hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.

"On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect's legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender's hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn't necessarily been stopped."

This is where Science does help matters. They know the physical capabilities of the human body, the brain capacity of a cop, and we must realise that we do not live in Hollywood where a suspect gets shot in the leg and he drops his gun because it simply does not work like that in real-life. A policeman, just like the military and anyone who has a gun work in survival mode. If they feel threatened by someone else who is not allowed to own a gun, then they will go into survival mode. In the UK, it is different compared to the United States, and we do not have a shoot to kill policy.

(September 24, 2016 at 12:14 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Oh, yeah, that's what I'm saying

No, I'm saying that there are socioeconomic factors at play, like the cycle of poverty and despair these kids grow up in, as opposed this character flaw you would like to assign to black people as a whole.

No one is poor in this country because because their mommy is poor. Again there are several other minority classes most of which do not even speak the language who first generation out of the gate break the cycle of poverty. People in this country do not understand that if you are born poor in india you have no hope. if you are born poor in china or even korea there is no hope. There is no reason here why a poor person has to be poor, despite who they were born to.

The majority of black people who are poor are so because that is the culture they foster. you put a poor man who has a strong work ethic that is ingrained in him from his culture next to a man who has no work ethic and give each a chance to make something of themselves, the no work ethic man will alway have an excuse while the guy with a work ethic will come out on top.

What you are spouting back, are key words like cycle of poverty, despair ect.. it's all propaganda. Again this is a culture thing. There is even a cultural divide between poor black Americans and successful black Americans. This is not racism it's fact. Things like how one spends money, and on what will determine if one is successful or not, not where or to whom they were born.. If a community centers itself around partying and procreation then it's primary expense/where the money goes will be "plumage"/think peacock (crap to make themselves more appealing to a mate.) However if an individual centers on the working western model of sucess (education, saving investment etc) then there is better than a fair chance in this society he will become successful.

Quote:So, it's no different than the white kids.

 today? no. 25 years ago.. yes.

Quote:Anti-intellectualism is rampant in this country(you're exhibit A for this), and that attitude is just as prevalent in white people as it is black people.  Yet somehow white people seem to be able to overcome this more easily. Could this not be because they are afforded better opportunities as a whole?

White trash not a thing where you live?

Some of the worst neighborhoods have nothing to do with minorities where I live, it's out of control white people that are the scariest. If it was as you think, whites would not ever be in poverity. here's a little tid bit you don't seem to get... WHITES ARE THE MAJORITY OF POOR PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY!!! 41% of poor people are WHITE!!! nearly double the black population of poor people!!

Wake up moron, if what you say is true then white people are letting themselves down by allowing double their number to suffer in poverty than black...

OR AGAIN, This could just be a cultural thing. Some people Are lazy and would rather party than work and save. and this culture spans all races as all races are affected the same way.

Quote:And it's nice that you admit that a child has little hope of overcoming their culture.

where did i say this?

Quote:  Now, if you could only be honest with yourself and admit that socioeconomic factors are extremely powerful pieces of that culture and not as simple to overcome as a parent merely placing value on education.  I doubt it, though, because you only seem interested in placing the blame squarely at the feet at those most adversely affected.

maybe to stupid rich people, who can't see a future or hope with out money providing everything you could want or need.. I grew up super poor, and there is nothing anyone will ever tell me that will convince me that you are doomed if you do not grow up rich. Again white guilt plagues you, and if you will let me/shut up and listen I will show you where the BS begins and ends.

(September 24, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Cato Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote: ....You've missed the point by so much  I don't even care anymore...

Bullshit. I rendered your inane assertions indefensible; that's why you don't care anymore. Nobody's fooled by your sudden and out of character indifference.

Look sport, this isn't a religious topic so in no way am I even obligated to hold your tee tee while you try and make sissies. You either get it or you don't it is clear that you don't... maybe try again in the next thread.