Wilber Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) USA Guns per capita 1.126 Cars per capita 0.809 Edited July 11, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Yeah criminals. The number of non criminals killed by police is very, very small. Alleged criminals. The court of law decides the criminality, not the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Never the less, it was probably what got him shot. That cop didn't give him the license and didn't know him from Adam. Saying you have a license does't mean you have one. A person with a firearm is a much greater threat than one who is unarmed and the police will not look at them the same way. Hell, I wouldn't. The person made the claim they are carrying legally. You would have to verify that is the case before you decide to shot another person. Does the cop know the person had a drivers license? How would they go about finding that out? You ask, investigate, verify. This cop did NONE of that. The man did the right thing by informing the cop about being in possession of a weapon. The cop over reacted. The cop asked for ID and when he reached for it, decided to shoot the man because he was possibly reaching for his gun. Don't comply, get shot. Comply, get shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 The person made the claim they are carrying legally. You would have to verify that is the case before you decide to shot another person. Does the cop know the person had a drivers license? How would they go about finding that out? You ask, investigate, verify. This cop did NONE of that. The man did the right thing by informing the cop about being in possession of a weapon. The cop over reacted. The cop asked for ID and when he reached for it, decided to shoot the man because he was possibly reaching for his gun. Don't comply, get shot. Comply, get shot. We don't know that he was asked for ID, in the video she just says he was reaching for his ID. Don't read things into is that aren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Don't read things into is that aren't there. That is good advice. Its too bad the cop didn't have that in mind at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 USA Guns per capita 1.126 Cars per capita 0.809 Cars don't kill people, people kill people (in cars). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 That is good advice. Its too bad the cop didn't have that in mind at the time. Agreed, that mistake proved to be fatal for another human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Alleged criminals. The court of law decides the criminality, not the police. If you're shot while holding a gun and shooting at police the alleged is pretty theoretical. The Dallas police chief's son was gunned down by police, for example, after murdering a woman and shooting a police officer. You can call him alleged all you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 That is good advice. Its too bad the cop didn't have that in mind at the time. Look, I think she is probably telling the truth. I just believe in due process, not lynch mobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Agreed, that mistake proved to be fatal for another human. That tends to happen when dealing with weapons. See friendly fire incidents involving the military. People will always make mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Look, I think she is probably telling the truth. I just believe in due process, not lynch mobs OK, we have a woman saying that he was reaching for his wallet and that he had a conceal permit, we have a cop frantically saying something about the dude reaching for it - presumably a gun. Now, as we find out he didn't have a conceal permit and there was a gun was in his lap. We also see video of him and his woman smoking weed with their kid in the car - which speaks to character. I'm not going to predict anything, but if it comes out that the guy robbing the store was in fact the guy that was shot, my surprise level will be pretty low. I feel we may be slipping down this whole Michael Brown "hands up - don't shoot" bullcrap slide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 If you're shot while holding a gun and shooting at police the alleged is pretty theoretical. The Dallas police chief's son was gunned down by police, for example, after murdering a woman and shooting a police officer. You can call him alleged all you want. That's for the courts to hear and decide. This is why we saw those Toronto cop getting charged with the murder of Yatim. The man who was shot in the car did not pose an immediate threat to the cop. The guy who sniper killed the cops, well ..that's a different story. That tends to happen when dealing with weapons. See friendly fire incidents involving the military. People will always make mistakes. These mistakes do not need to ever happen. Better police training is needed and you even indicated that much in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Police have opened fire when people move their hands towards their shirts or waists or pockets on many occasions, and those people didn't even say they were armed. HE'S GOT A WALLET! TAKE 'EM DOWN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 Police have opened fire when people move their hands towards their shirts or waists or pockets on many occasions, and those people didn't even say they were armed. When the cop asks for your "license and registration" and then shots you dead for complying, then that is first degree cold blooded murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) When the cop asks for your "license and registration" and then shots you dead for complying, then that is first degree cold blooded murder. So yeah, we are supposed to buy into the woman's story full on - right? Anyone remember the name Dorian Johnson? Edited July 11, 2016 by Hal 9000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 OK, we have a woman saying that he was reaching for his wallet and that he had a conceal permit, we have a cop frantically saying something about the dude reaching for it - presumably a gun. Now, as we find out he didn't have a conceal permit and there was a gun was in his lap. We also see video of him and his woman smoking weed with their kid in the car - which speaks to character. I'm not going to predict anything, but if it comes out that the guy robbing the store was in fact the guy that was shot, my surprise level will be pretty low. I feel we may be slipping down this whole Michael Brown "hands up - don't shoot" bullcrap slide. How do you go from they smoked weed so it naturally follows that he must have been going for his gun when they pulled him over. Quite the stretch no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 11, 2016 Report Share Posted July 11, 2016 How do you go from they smoked weed so it naturally follows that he must have been going for his gun when they pulled him over. Quite the stretch no? It would be quite the stretch, wouldn't it? But, then again, nobody made that connection - did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 It would be quite the stretch, wouldn't it? But, then again, nobody made that connection - did they? You questioned whether he really reached for his gun and you also said he did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You went on to talk about him smoking pot with his girlfriend and left off with you wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be the robber. So yes, you are making the stretch that just because he smoked pot (the only thing you know for sure) you question the actuality of him reaching for the gun and/or being a bank robber. OK, we have a woman saying that he was reaching for his wallet and that he had a conceal permit, we have a cop frantically saying something about the dude reaching for it - presumably a gun. Now, as we find out he didn't have a conceal permit and there was a gun was in his lap. We also see video of him and his woman smoking weed with their kid in the car - which speaks to character. I'm not going to predict anything, but if it comes out that the guy robbing the store was in fact the guy that was shot, my surprise level will be pretty low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 You questioned whether he really reached for his gun and you also said he did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You went on to talk about him smoking pot with his girlfriend and left off with you wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be the robber. So yes, you are making the stretch that just because he smoked pot (the only thing you know for sure) you question the actuality of him reaching for the gun and/or being a bank robber. You're either intentionally misreading or just no too bright. I don't think you're dumb, I think you know the likeliest possibility is that he reached for his gun and like any good progressive, now you're misinterpreting to put pressure on me, you're deflecting - you're trolling. The period and the structure denotes two separate thoughts. You see, smoking weed with his kid in the car shows his character, the cops words, actions and demeanour along with fact that there was a gun on his seat lead me to suggest that he may have/ probably reached for his gun. To bring it right down to a 60 IQ - so that you get it, one issue - the weed video, shows what kind of people they are, that you're trusting in. The evidence, however small shows that it is more than possible that the dude grabbed for his gun. Why would he grab for his gun? Well, why would Michael Brown charge an armed cop? Because he was a dumb Fack POS! Why would the witness lie? Well, why would Dorian Johnson lie? Because they're also dumb fack POS's! The logic is; if the cop saw a gun and the guy was reaching for his wallet and NOT the gun, he'd still be alive. From listening to the cop, common sense says, he was reaching for the gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) The logic Hal is using to defend the killing of Philando Castile is no better than the logic Micah Johnson used. That said it would have been justified if it was used against Hal. Edited July 12, 2016 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted July 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) As usual a passive aggressive inane attempt at an insult from Eye and no contribution by him to the actual issues being disputed. What Hal stated and I will reinstate for those of you trying to misrepresent what he stated is that none of you have the full story on what happened. You have one side from a woman who was stoned. You do not know for a fact the full events leading up to the deceased reaching in his pocket and subsequent shooting, Ghost is now an expert on what poses as a threat to a police officer and Impact has added information to the circumstances that he takes as a given but has never been proven and makes no sense (impact claims the officer told the deceased to reach into his pocket) The police officer stopped the car. Some believe it was stopped soley because the people in it were black. That is an unproven assumption after the fact based on the preconceived notion this officer was shaking down a black driver for no reason other than he was black. None of you know that is true and many of you assume its true based on your own subjective preconceived bigoted belief all cops are racist and shake down any black driving a car. What some of you clearly do not understand is that it is standard procedure in a traffic stop for the police officer to tell you to put your hands out in front where they can see them and on the dash and make no sudden movements. However none of you know the dialogue the police officer engaged in when he first leaned in and talked to the driver. A police officer at a traffic stop has been strictly trained to have the suspects in a car freeze and reach in their pockets or move for any reason. On a traffic stop police are strictly trained to tell you to not move, put your hands on the dashboard and never allow people to move. It is the police not you in a traffic stop who will ten search your car or person for any identification precisely because they can control your movements precisely because a police officer can not tell when you move anywhere whether its for a weapon or anything else. The stoned wife said her husband told the police officer he had a concealed gun and gun permit. That could very well be true but how does that change things? If the deceased said this it actually confirms the officer's apprehension of a gun being reached for. Stop and think how does a cop know when you reach for a concealed weapon or gun? Some of you need to put your pitchforks and burning torches and mob mentality to the curb on this one and stop and think. If I am sitting in a car wioth a gun pointed by an officer and tell him I have concealed gun and a gun license the last thing I want to do is make any movements let alone reach into my pocket. In spit of the brilliant police training and insights of Ghost even he can not say in that same split second decisionas the deceased reached into his pocket the officer could know the difference between him reaching for his license and not gun and should be willing to die and not see his wife and kids again that day and die if he's wrong. No you do not reach for your pocket after telling an officer pointing a gun at you that you have a concealed weapon and while none of us heard the dialogue leading up to the shots, and only have the wife's stoned comments, we do have the comments of the officer that can be heard on the wife's video saying the officer told him not to move because he had a gun. I am inclined to believe without proper proof the wife is probably telling the truth and the husband innocently reached for his license but the cop had no way of knowing that and shot him thinking he could be reaching for his gun. You mob zombies all suspend that and just assume its not the fear of him having a gun that got the deceased shot, bit his skin colour. All you arm chair geniuses far removed from the moment of crisis think you know. Listen to your crap. You know reaching for a license and reaching for a gun are not the same. I mean after all, police are psychics or the moment to a gun or license in a pocket are not the same. What crap. All you geniuses ready to hang this cop have a preconceived bias and you are exactly why we have courts and legal procedures and a presumption of innocence. You have no clue if this officer is a racist you just assume he is. To even compare the Minnesota incident to the one in Louisiana or the Yatim case by some of you also shows you can't see the difference in facts or issues because of your preconceived bias that prevents you seeing anything but skin colour as the issue,. Hal has simply restated the issue-did the reaching into the pocket constitute a threat seriousness enough to constitute shooting? For those of you with the little information you have to go into a mob frenzy complete with your torches and pitch forks after the cop is sad. None of us knows what happened and none of us can say with certainty a black cop in the exact same situation wouldn't have done the exact same thing, If this latino officer had dark skin would you arm chair experts be caling him racist? Well? Skin colour is preventing some of you from seeing other issues. You are as blind to those issues with bigoted assumptions about police as some are including some police about blacks. Often what we see is a police officer acting the way they do because they feel threatened by guns not skin colour. Would you know the difference? Well? We all agree no one wants to see any innocent person injured or killed for any reason, No I do not want incompetent police on the streets anymore than anyone else but some of you are naïve to think when you are told to freeze you can reach your hands in your pocket and not cause an officer to react. When was the last time any of you police experts were on the street and had a split second to decide life from death? Which one of you claims to know how the shooting officer now feels as you scream for his head? I hope that officer despite al you mob mentality zombies can meet the child in the back seat and say how bad he feels at what he did and why he did what he did and it was not because he hated black people. I hope that day happens in spite of you police hate mongers on this board looking for something to burn at he stake. Man what would a day be on this forum without gentiles screaming to nail someone to a cross. Excuse me if I help Frankenstein escape. Edited July 12, 2016 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 You have one side from a woman who was stoned. You do not know for a fact the full events leading up to the deceased reaching in his pocket and subsequent shooting, (impact claims the officer told the deceased to reach into his pocket) #1 - I never made any claim in this specific case, go back and read what I wrote. #2 - You have several times made the claim that the woman was stoned. What is you evidence for that? Not some wild claim the she smoked weed in the past, but that she was stoned when pulled over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted July 12, 2016 Report Share Posted July 12, 2016 In a thread about white racist cops shooting black men and how race is a prime motivator it is interesting to note the police officer in the Castile shooting was not white therefore removing the racist component. However it is reported Castile was pulled over for investigation as he was thought to resemble someone wanted for armed robbery. Being that the suspect and Castile are both black this is apparently a police issue as Castile is being racially profiled. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/08/confirmed-philando-castile-was-an-armed-robbery-suspect-false-media-narrative-now-driving-cop-killings/ As others have said, wait for the facts to come in. But the police are muzzled as their facts must be kept for the investigation so that leaves all the others to make claims like white racist cop and outstanding black citizen with permitted weapon. No, dont wait for facts. Just spread a lot of speculation and accusations until 12 law enforcement officers are gunned down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) You're either intentionally misreading or just no too bright. I don't think you're dumb, I think you know the likeliest possibility is that he reached for his gun and like any good progressive, now you're misinterpreting to put pressure on me, you're deflecting - you're trolling. The period and the structure denotes two separate thoughts. You see, smoking weed with his kid in the car shows his character, the cops words, actions and demeanour along with fact that there was a gun on his seat lead me to suggest that he may have/ probably reached for his gun. To bring it right down to a 60 IQ - so that you get it, one issue - the weed video, shows what kind of people they are, that you're trusting in. The evidence, however small shows that it is more than possible that the dude grabbed for his gun. Why would he grab for his gun? Well, why would Michael Brown charge an armed cop? Because he was a dumb Fack POS! Why would the witness lie? Well, why would Dorian Johnson lie? Because they're also dumb fack POS's! The logic is; if the cop saw a gun and the guy was reaching for his wallet and NOT the gun, he'd still be alive. From listening to the cop, common sense says, he was reaching for the gun. You're free to think he must've been going for his gun, I'm free to think that the cop gave conflicting instruction and then shot him when he went for his ID. You weren't there and neither was I. That's all good and well but that's not what I'm calling you out on. I agree, you should not smoke weed in front of children but WTF does him smoking weed have to do with you reaching your conclusion??? You can smoke in front of your kid, it doesn't make you a potential cop killer. I'm not playing dumb. Your argument is not sound. You're just smearing a dead man. Edited July 13, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 13, 2016 Report Share Posted July 13, 2016 You're free to think he must've been going for his gun, I'm free to think that the cop gave conflicting instruction and then shot him when he went for his ID. You weren't there and neither was I. That's all good and well but that's not what I'm calling you out on. I agree, you should not smoke weed in front of children but WTF does him smoking weed have to do with you reaching your conclusion??? You can smoke in front of your kid, it doesn't make you a potential cop killer. I'm not playing dumb. Your argument is not sound. You're just smearing a dead man. I'll agree with this! WoW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.