Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
The length of time required to complete academy training averaged 19 weeks as of 2006, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Memphis Police Department Academy usually takes 21 weeks to complete, while San Diego's program lasts six months.
Information for the topic, this does not include probation.
I cannot believe the chief would have not watched the video in its entirety at that point. You are on national news, maybe make it a priority.
And the official account probably sounds bogus because the officers involved needed to be sure the magic words making it justified would make it in. Hopefully the body cam footage will match the account.
I cannot believe the chief would have not watched the video in its entirety at that point. You are on national news, maybe make it a priority.
And the official account probably sounds bogus because the officers involved needed to be sure the magic words making it justified would make it in. Hopefully the body cam footage will match the account.
Odds are they only have to rely on the bare minimum to spin this into nothing. It's not arrogance when you know you can get away with it.
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
Institutional racism effects everybody.
See, that's part of the problem. He cannot be a police officer, he has to be a black police officer. We aren't free to be defined by our choices/character first, it's only the skin color that matters.
This has never truly been about race, it has been about abuse of power against a segment of the population unfairly characterized as living, breathing incredible hulks impervious to pain and reason.
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
Institutional racism effects everybody.
See, that's part of the problem. He cannot be a police officer, he has to be a black police officer. We aren't free to be defined by our choices/character first, it's only the skin color that matters.
This has never truly been about race, it has been about abuse of power against a segment of the population unfairly characterized as living, breathing incredible hulks impervious to pain and reason.
It's both. Race is definitely a factor at play here.
Harry Dresden on
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Putney, the police chief, said officers were searching for a suspect Tuesday afternoon at the Village at College Downs apartment complex.
Police said Scott had been sitting in a parked car at the apartment complex and then exited the vehicle holding a firearm. As officers approached, Scott again emerged from the car with the firearm and “posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said...
The police chief also said that the officer was not wearing a body camera but that other officers on the scene were; Wednesday morning, he said he had not yet watched the footage in its entirety.
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.
Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.
Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four had voted to convict him, and after a judge declared a retrial the state said it would not seek another trial.
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
Which part of what's been going on would make shooting someone less appealing?
Has there been a rash of actual consequences for police shooters that I missed?
Well, it's not punishing the men that stalk and harass women and little girls (one of the few things I'll agree with Curt Schilling about), but it's nice to see Twitter taking a stand on some of the obvious stuff.
But he said all of the evidence together backs up "the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr Scott".
But he said all of the evidence together backs up "the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr Scott".
"The version of the truth."
Oh do fuck off.
That is the definition of tone deaf, complete ignorance and indifference to how your words and actions sound to others, right?
But he said all of the evidence together backs up "the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr Scott".
"The version of the truth."
Oh do fuck off.
I'll reiterate:
"If you know how to write it, it's justified."
- An actual Seattle police officer I know personally
Again, this is a profession where, for the most part, the legal system is happy to believe whatever you decide to write down, absent very compelling evidence to the contrary.
Where one officer's word can be enough to override the presumption of innocence for a common citizen.
So yes, they're very comfortable speaking about a "version of the truth."
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Like, how dare these students overreact to their teacher's gross and disproportionate disciplinary measures! They should be mature and responsible enough to respond civilly and constructively when faced with abuse from authority figures who should know better! They should take on the responsibility of fixing their teacher's behaviour, and of rectifying the missing oversight that enabled that teacher in the first place, as well as fixing the cultural problems amongst teachers in their school. Shock, horror, pearls clutched, children thought of. No, it's not an improvement; it's not their job to improve things!
The student got an F? Let's immediately assume he got an F because he was black, get a group of people to lie in court swearing that they saw him study, and then light our desks on fire.
We'll have 200,000 retweets before anyone even thinks to take a look at the test he turned in to see what his answers were.
Straw man.
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
Like, how dare these students overreact to their teacher's gross and disproportionate disciplinary measures! They should be mature and responsible enough to respond civilly and constructively when faced with abuse from authority figures who should know better! They should take on the responsibility of fixing their teacher's behaviour, and of rectifying the missing oversight that enabled that teacher in the first place, as well as fixing the cultural problems amongst teachers in their school. Shock, horror, pearls clutched, children thought of. No, it's not an improvement; it's not their job to improve things!
The student got an F? Let's immediately assume he got an F because he was black, get a group of people to lie in court swearing that they saw him study, and then light our desks on fire.
We'll have 200,000 retweets before anyone even thinks to take a look at the test he turned in to see what his answers were.
Straw man.
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
That's just claiming anything that doesn't agree with you is a straw man.
Chief Putney, who has resisted demands from the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and others to release all video of the shooting recorded by other officers and by cameras mounted on patrol cars, said that his department only releases footage “when we think it is in the public’s interest.” In this case, he told reporters at a news conference, “you shouldn’t expect it to be released.”
Asked by one incredulous reporter how withholding the visual evidence could be squared with the city’s promise of full transparency, Putney said, “I never said ‘full transparency.’ I said ‘transparency,’ and transparency’s in the eye of the beholder.”
Chief Putney, who has resisted demands from the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina and others to release all video of the shooting recorded by other officers and by cameras mounted on patrol cars, said that his department only releases footage “when we think it is in the public’s interest.” In this case, he told reporters at a news conference, “you shouldn’t expect it to be released.”
Asked by one incredulous reporter how withholding the visual evidence could be squared with the city’s promise of full transparency, Putney said, “I never said ‘full transparency.’ I said ‘transparency,’ and transparency’s in the eye of the beholder.”
That is some next-level doublespeak right there.
Does this man not understand that the death of civilian is not something that be QED'd away?
The police and their immediate default statement of "He had a gun, therefore the shooting was justified" and the BLM and their immediate default statement of "He was an innocent man gunned down in cold blood" are literally two sides of the same coin at this point. Burning up goodwill has nothing to do with it.
The reason your argument fails is because it's really, really easy to find examples of police officers killing black people without generating protest from the black community, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Where as you will pretty much never find a case where a cop kills a black person and the police department doesn't stand behind the shooter.
BLM is saying that killings by cops are sometimes unjustified.
Cops are saying that killings by cops are never unjustified.
There are bad cops out there. There are also bad black men out there. Saying "some cops are bad so I assume they're all bad" is no different from saying "some black men are bad so I assume they're all bad".
Who is exactly saying the former?
Because we have lots of examples of police engaged in the latter when they design racial profiling models specifically on the assumption that all black people are bad.
That's the problem, it should be. The assumption that everytime that there is a police involved shooting it's because the police are corrupt and racist is no better than the police assuming every black man they see is a criminal. They are both grossly untrue assumptions and as long as both sides are coming at it like that, nothing is going to be fixed.
That really isn't true at all.
Right now, we don't even have reliable data for how many people get killed by police officers per year because the status quo has so much faith that everything is on the up and up that our society doesn't even think this number is even worth tracking.
I will admit that I was late to admitting that there was a problem, and a big part of that had to do with several of the incidents that gave rise to BLM being centered around individuals who were, or had just committed a crime at the time as opposed to incidents where it occurred to actual innocent victims such as Philando Castille, who I knew were out there.
I don't think you understand what "Black Lives Matter" actually means.
It doesn't mean "Every black person is a total saint and therefore the police shouldn't be allowed to kill them."
What it means is, "Yeah, maybe Michael Brown grabbed a box of cigars. And that was wrong. But you know what? I think that a human life is worth more than a box of smokes."
And that's the real question. Do you think that the life of a black person is worth more than a box of cigars? Do you think the life of a black person is worth more than a jaywalking charge in a residential street? etc.
Like, how dare these students overreact to their teacher's gross and disproportionate disciplinary measures! They should be mature and responsible enough to respond civilly and constructively when faced with abuse from authority figures who should know better! They should take on the responsibility of fixing their teacher's behaviour, and of rectifying the missing oversight that enabled that teacher in the first place, as well as fixing the cultural problems amongst teachers in their school. Shock, horror, pearls clutched, children thought of. No, it's not an improvement; it's not their job to improve things!
The student got an F? Let's immediately assume he got an F because he was black, get a group of people to lie in court swearing that they saw him study, and then light our desks on fire.
We'll have 200,000 retweets before anyone even thinks to take a look at the test he turned in to see what his answers were.
Straw man.
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
That's just claiming anything that doesn't agree with you is a straw man.
People are protesting government corruption.
You point out one instance where a government official was accused of corruption but it turns out not to have been true!
That's a straw man. The people aren't mad about that one particular government official. They're mad about something else that's related.
You cannot disprove the general case with a singular specific counter-example.
Like, how dare these students overreact to their teacher's gross and disproportionate disciplinary measures! They should be mature and responsible enough to respond civilly and constructively when faced with abuse from authority figures who should know better! They should take on the responsibility of fixing their teacher's behaviour, and of rectifying the missing oversight that enabled that teacher in the first place, as well as fixing the cultural problems amongst teachers in their school. Shock, horror, pearls clutched, children thought of. No, it's not an improvement; it's not their job to improve things!
The student got an F? Let's immediately assume he got an F because he was black, get a group of people to lie in court swearing that they saw him study, and then light our desks on fire.
We'll have 200,000 retweets before anyone even thinks to take a look at the test he turned in to see what his answers were.
Straw man.
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
That's just claiming anything that doesn't agree with you is a straw man.
People are protesting government corruption.
You point out one instance where a government official was accused of corruption but it turns out not to have been true!
That's a straw man. The people aren't mad about that one particular government official. They're mad about something else that's related.
You cannot disprove the general case with a singular specific counter-example.
Reminds me of when Obama through that lady under the bus thanks to an edited video.
Like, how dare these students overreact to their teacher's gross and disproportionate disciplinary measures! They should be mature and responsible enough to respond civilly and constructively when faced with abuse from authority figures who should know better! They should take on the responsibility of fixing their teacher's behaviour, and of rectifying the missing oversight that enabled that teacher in the first place, as well as fixing the cultural problems amongst teachers in their school. Shock, horror, pearls clutched, children thought of. No, it's not an improvement; it's not their job to improve things!
The student got an F? Let's immediately assume he got an F because he was black, get a group of people to lie in court swearing that they saw him study, and then light our desks on fire.
We'll have 200,000 retweets before anyone even thinks to take a look at the test he turned in to see what his answers were.
Straw man.
How? There have been incidents where this was the case. Not the lying in court, but there was an incident in Minneapolis last winter where the claim was the the individual was handcuffed and then shot executioner style. After months of protest, the videos were released clearly showing the individual (Jamar Clark if you'd like to
look it up http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jamar-clark-shooting-no-charges-against-2-minneapolis-cops-involved-n547941 ) was not handcuffed, and was wrestling on the ground with one of the cops when he was shot.
It's not a straw man when there are precedents of it happening.
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
That's just claiming anything that doesn't agree with you is a straw man.
People are protesting government corruption.
You point out one instance where a government official was accused of corruption but it turns out not to have been true!
That's a straw man. The people aren't mad about that one particular government official. They're mad about something else that's related.
You cannot disprove the general case with a singular specific counter-example.
Reminds me of when Obama through that lady under the bus thanks to an edited video.
Republicans acting like that video was legitimate and stirring up a bunch of public outrage is what drove the firing.
Posts
Here's the 'official version' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/21/protests-break-out-in-charlotte-after-police-fatally-shoot-man-they-say-wielded-firearm/
How has the chief of police, the person going around telling people the shooting was justified NOT WATCHED THE FUCKING VIDEO OF THE SHOOTING YET!?
Its NC, a fucking open carry state. Him having a gun on him wasn't a crime. Why they even approach him?
Frankly at this point "imminent deadly threat" for police needs to be redefined as "shots fired". We send soldiers into far more dangerous places than Charlotte NC, with ROEs tighter than "shoot everyone you think might have a gun".
Also less people have forgotten about this incident:
Police murdering a black man is a crime only is the same way downloading a movie is a crime. Technically against the law but you'll never get convicted of anything.
Information for the topic, this does not include probation.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
And the official account probably sounds bogus because the officers involved needed to be sure the magic words making it justified would make it in. Hopefully the body cam footage will match the account.
Odds are they only have to rely on the bare minimum to spin this into nothing. It's not arrogance when you know you can get away with it.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I think the bigger question that rarely gets asked, is why - with all this shit going on - would a black man ever get out of his car waving a gun at police?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
With all thats going on why would a black police officer take a shot at another black man?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Institutional racism effects everybody.
See, that's part of the problem. He cannot be a police officer, he has to be a black police officer. We aren't free to be defined by our choices/character first, it's only the skin color that matters.
This has never truly been about race, it has been about abuse of power against a segment of the population unfairly characterized as living, breathing incredible hulks impervious to pain and reason.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
It's both. Race is definitely a factor at play here.
Do we even have evidence that this gun was the deceased's?
Which part of what's been going on would make shooting someone less appealing?
Has there been a rash of actual consequences for police shooters that I missed?
Someone made up a story about this young man losing his life several states over.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550193/15-year-old-identified-St-Louis-police-shooting-victim.html
Is there such a shortage of black teens being shot by police that people need to make up stories?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Remember kids: measured responses to terrible situations are only for some.
By the way, Twitter suspended his account. Part of Reynolds response?
He claims he's done with Twitter anyway, apparently...
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I wonder if they'll ever see the line before they cross it...
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
"The version of the truth."
Oh do fuck off.
That is the definition of tone deaf, complete ignorance and indifference to how your words and actions sound to others, right?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I'll reiterate:
"If you know how to write it, it's justified."
- An actual Seattle police officer I know personally
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/cops-record-themselves-allegedly-fabricating-charges-with-suspects-camera/
Again, this is a profession where, for the most part, the legal system is happy to believe whatever you decide to write down, absent very compelling evidence to the contrary.
Where one officer's word can be enough to override the presumption of innocence for a common citizen.
So yes, they're very comfortable speaking about a "version of the truth."
Police camera footage no longer public record by North Carolina law, as of 10/1.
FFFFFfffffff!
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Move to Oklahoma, where your lives matter.
Sincerely,
Tulsa DA
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yes, it is.
That's just a straw man with a printout of a real person's face stapled onto it.
That's just claiming anything that doesn't agree with you is a straw man.
That is some next-level doublespeak right there.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Does this man not understand that the death of civilian is not something that be QED'd away?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
The reason your argument fails is because it's really, really easy to find examples of police officers killing black people without generating protest from the black community, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Where as you will pretty much never find a case where a cop kills a black person and the police department doesn't stand behind the shooter.
BLM is saying that killings by cops are sometimes unjustified.
Cops are saying that killings by cops are never unjustified.
See the difference?
Who is exactly saying the former?
Because we have lots of examples of police engaged in the latter when they design racial profiling models specifically on the assumption that all black people are bad.
That really isn't true at all.
Right now, we don't even have reliable data for how many people get killed by police officers per year because the status quo has so much faith that everything is on the up and up that our society doesn't even think this number is even worth tracking.
I don't think you understand what "Black Lives Matter" actually means.
It doesn't mean "Every black person is a total saint and therefore the police shouldn't be allowed to kill them."
What it means is, "Yeah, maybe Michael Brown grabbed a box of cigars. And that was wrong. But you know what? I think that a human life is worth more than a box of smokes."
And that's the real question. Do you think that the life of a black person is worth more than a box of cigars? Do you think the life of a black person is worth more than a jaywalking charge in a residential street? etc.
People are protesting government corruption.
You point out one instance where a government official was accused of corruption but it turns out not to have been true!
That's a straw man. The people aren't mad about that one particular government official. They're mad about something else that's related.
You cannot disprove the general case with a singular specific counter-example.
Reminds me of when Obama through that lady under the bus thanks to an edited video.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Republicans acting like that video was legitimate and stirring up a bunch of public outrage is what drove the firing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar