The law makes it illegal in Arizona to knowingly video police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer without an officer's permission.
Obviously this will be upheld by the Supreme Court because cell phones weren't around when the constitution was written. (*flames coming from the side of my face*)
Cops will simply approach anyone filming to inform them they cannot film them, and they will have come within 8 feet of them to tell them they can't film.
Better yet, bring back Famous Chicagoan Mayor Daly's ,"Let em Bust heads ," at the 60s Democratic convention and accuse those of impeding Police in anyway for, "Inciting Mob Action". charges against those who are taking video, photos of said Police.
Because we know the Fascist are gonna run with it soon. *Mean glances Tom "Loot the Iraq Palace" Cotton.*
Ticaldfjam on
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Quiant Kelley, 23, was indicted May 3 on charges of armed robbery, a second-degree felony; conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a third-degree felony; unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; conspiracy to commit unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; and battery, a petty misdemeanor.
He was on parole for the above crimes, and violated his parole agreement, which is why the police were attempting to put him in custody.
Kelley was also wanted for questioning in connection to a police shooting May 5, a man's fatal shooting June 26 and an undated armed robbery reportedly being investigated by police and federal authorities.
There is enough cause to be upset with the police response without downplaying a series of violent crimes to simply "theft".
0
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Quiant Kelley, 23, was indicted May 3 on charges of armed robbery, a second-degree felony; conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a third-degree felony; unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; conspiracy to commit unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; and battery, a petty misdemeanor.
He was on parole for the above crimes, and violated his parole agreement, which is why the police were attempting to put him in custody.
Kelley was also wanted for questioning in connection to a police shooting May 5, a man's fatal shooting June 26 and an undated armed robbery reportedly being investigated by police and federal authorities.
There is enough cause to be upset with the police response without downplaying a series of violent crimes to simply "theft".
Lets clear something else up.
The kid that died, and the family that is now homeless had very little to do with the alleged criminal.
Meanwhile, the family that lived in the house is now homeless – and says they were innocent victims in all of this.
KOB 4 spoke with a woman whose sister and her family lived there. She said the people involved in the SWAT standoff weren’t related to her family and did not live there, but were acquaintances of her nephew who stopped by to pick up a bike. Now, she’s questioning how police and the SWAT team handled the situation.
The police thugs committed felony arson, and felony murder (though they're not going to be charged with such because LOL), all because some 14-year old was like, "yea, come over and pick up this bike".
So. Conspiracy, theft, and wanted for questioning justifies arson and murder of innocent civilians by the blue thugs? Pffftt. No. Try again
So. Conspiracy, theft, and wanted for questioning justifies arson and murder of innocent civilians by the blue thugs? Pffftt. No. Try again
Yeah I literally never said that.
I can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of that person's crimes than to brush it off as "theft". It makes it sound like he stole a candy bar from the grocery store, not ganged up on a stranger and then beat and robbed them at gunpoint.
Again, there is enough here that you can be angry at the police for their response without resorting to making up lies in order to make them look worse than they already do. The bare minimum for reasonable discussion should be an accurate description of what it is you are discussing. Please, try and reach the bare minimum.
The cops murdered a kid and made a family homeless not even over theft but over fucking parole violations.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+37
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
So. Conspiracy, theft, and wanted for questioning justifies arson and murder of innocent civilians by the blue thugs? Pffftt. No. Try again
Yeah I literally never said that.
I can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of that person's crimes than to brush it off as "theft". It makes it sound like he stole a candy bar from the grocery store, not ganged up on a stranger and then beat and robbed them at gunpoint.
Again, there is enough here that you can be angry at the police for their response without resorting to making up lies in order to make them look worse than they already do. The bare minimum for reasonable discussion should be an accurate description of what it is you are discussing. Please, try and reach the bare minimum.
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
So, yah, you literally said that.
I could thing of something more disrespectful than an alleged (not proven with evidence) crime: Burning down a house and murdering an innocent civilian.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
Holy shit start paying attention - it was "proven in a court of law", he was tried and convicted for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early for some reason. That's what parole is.
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
Holy shit start paying attention - it was "proven in a court of law", he was tried and convicted for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early for some reason. That's what parole is.
Who the fuck cares? Police happened and now a 14 year old is dead because of them. Somehow this dangerous individual did not do any of the killing.
It is the same goddamn story everytime: the police "want someone for questioning" and they apparently can't wait in anyway to do it before a SWAT team is crashing into the wrong house or setting fire to it or some other BS.
Police said the suspect, Qiaunt Kelley, was wanted on a federal felony warrant for robbery
That's from the article. Where are you getting "parole" from?
Also there's no way in hell someone is on parole for something they were indicted for in May . So either that sourceless quote you led with is missing a year or it's wrong. (Or the article was edited to remove it)
+4
Options
Blackhawk1313Demon Hunter for HireTime RiftRegistered Userregular
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
Holy shit start paying attention - it was "proven in a court of law", he was tried and convicted for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early for some reason. That's what parole is.
Clearly worth arson and murder, are you seriously “but actually” on a situation where an innocent child was killed and a family rendered homeless. I’m usually pretty quiet but I’m calling a spade a spade here, you consistently defend and minimize the behavior of police and it’s actually infuriating, not because you are that way, but because you try so hard to play it off like you totally don’t love that thin blue line.
Who the fuck cares? Police happened and now a 14 year old is dead because of them. Somehow this dangerous individual did not do any of the killing.
It is the same goddamn story everytime: the police "want someone for questioning" and they apparently can't wait in anyway to do it before a SWAT team is crashing into the wrong house or setting fire to it or some other BS.
Yes, it is pretty clear that the police response was reprehensible, no one is disagreeing there, but the point is you don't need to lie to make them look more reprehensible than they already are. Saying that they were after him for "theft" is pretty disingenuous.
Police said the suspect, Qiaunt Kelley, was wanted on a federal felony warrant for robbery
That's from the article. Where are you getting "parole" from?
Also there's no way in hell someone is on parole for something they were indicted for in May . So either that sourceless quote you led with is missing a year or it's wrong. (Or the article was edited to remove it)
There is more than one article about the situation on the internet. "May" was May of 2018.
So. Conspiracy, theft, and wanted for questioning justifies arson and murder of innocent civilians by the blue thugs? Pffftt. No. Try again
Yeah I literally never said that.
I can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of that person's crimes than to brush it off as "theft". It makes it sound like he stole a candy bar from the grocery store, not ganged up on a stranger and then beat and robbed them at gunpoint.
And i can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of the Albuquerque police than hijacking a conversation about a murdered teenager to pitch a fit over whether "theft" is an acceptable synonym for "robbery"
I'm not defending the virtuousness of a piece of shit criminal, so maybe you need to look inward the next time you ask that question. I have a fairly low opinion of carjackers, if you don't than you are the one with the error.
Instead of acting all self righteous after being called out, take another look at what I said earlier:
Yes, it is pretty clear that the police response was reprehensible, no one is disagreeing there, but the point is you don't need to lie to make them look more reprehensible than they already are.
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
Holy shit start paying attention - it was "proven in a court of law", he was tried and convicted for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early for some reason. That's what parole is.
No, you are wrong, based entirely on your quotes. (Which I seem to be missing a source for?) The First set was not "proven in a court of law".
Quiant Kelley, 23, was indicted May 3 on charges of armed robbery, a second-degree felony; conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a third-degree felony; unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; conspiracy to commit unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (first offense), a fourth-degree felony; and battery, a petty misdemeanor.
He was on parole for the above crimes, and violated his parole agreement, which is why the police were attempting to put him in custody.
Kelley was also wanted for questioning in connection to a police shooting May 5, a man's fatal shooting June 26 and an undated armed robbery reportedly being investigated by police and federal authorities.
There is enough cause to be upset with the police response without downplaying a series of violent crimes to simply "theft".
NEITHER of these is proven in a court of law, nor are they justification for murder/wanton violence by the cops.
Now, let's assume he DID do those things. Arguing that "oh, this discussion is downplaying the series of violent crimes too much" is just goosery. Barring any other info, the police murdered him, plain and simple.
Yes, they were, he was charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early on parole. He violated his parole agreement, which is one of the reasons why the police were looking for him.
Isn’t the point that the police burned down the house to smoke the criminal out, killing a kid? Even if the criminal was the only person in the house, that’s absolutely psycho.
+31
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Yes, they were, he was charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early on parole. He violated his parole agreement, which is one of the reasons why the police were looking for him.
nor are they justification for murder/wanton violence by the cops.
No one is saying this!
hey sport, why didn't the cops attempt to put the fire out? they definitely had extinguishers on hand, swat and patrol vehicles have them as standard equipment. they didn't even fucking call emergency response until the suspect fled the house IN FLAMES.
Yes, they were, he was charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early on parole. He violated his parole agreement, which is one of the reasons why the police were looking for him.
nor are they justification for murder/wanton violence by the cops.
No one is saying this!
hey sport, why didn't the cops attempt to put the fire out? they definitely had extinguishers on hand, swat and patrol vehicles have them as standard equipment. they didn't even fucking call emergency response until the suspect fled the house IN FLAMES.
you fuckin suck.
I'm gonna assume that you haven't actually read any posts on this page except for the one you quoted, which you misunderstood, and then, mouth frothing with impotent rage, you felt compelled to make an ass out of yourself with an immediate reply, so I will refer you to the point I have made several times so far on this page alone:
Yes, it is pretty clear that the police response was reprehensible, no one is disagreeing there, but the point is you don't need to lie to make them look more reprehensible than they already are.
Let me know if any part of this statement doesn't make sense to you, and I will do my best to dumb it down.
SmokeStacks on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Yes, they were, he was charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early on parole. He violated his parole agreement, which is one of the reasons why the police were looking for him.
nor are they justification for murder/wanton violence by the cops.
No one is saying this!
hey sport, why didn't the cops attempt to put the fire out? they definitely had extinguishers on hand, swat and patrol vehicles have them as standard equipment. they didn't even fucking call emergency response until the suspect fled the house IN FLAMES.
you fuckin suck.
I'm gonna assume that you haven't actually read any posts on this page except for the one you quoted, which you misunderstood, and then, mouth frothing with impotent rage, you felt compelled to make an ass out of yourself with an immediate reply, so I will refer you to the point I have made several times so far on this page alone:
Yes, it is pretty clear that the police response was reprehensible, no one is disagreeing there, but the point is you don't need to lie to make them look more reprehensible than they already are.
Let me know if any part of this statement doesn't make sense to you, and I will do my best to dumb it down.
this isn't even close to the first time i've seen you carrying water for violent police, dummy. in fact you seem to be a hair's breadth away from joining a fuckin Patriot Front march from what i can tell of your posting history, you absolute buffoon.
edit: like you understand no one's got a gun to your head forcing you to "well ackchually " the ongoing epidemic of police violence in america, right? you're doing a whole lot of unnecessary legwork defending an indefensible institution that was built on, and perpetuates to this day, slavery and racism.
this isn't even close to the first time i've seen you carrying water for violent police, dummy. in fact you seem to be a hair's breadth away from joining a fuckin Patriot Front march from what i can tell of your posting history, you absolute buffoon.
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, I'm not really sure what part of that statement is mysterious or even controversial. Literally no one here is "carrying water for violent police", so maybe drop that ridiculous angle.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
this isn't even close to the first time i've seen you carrying water for violent police, dummy. in fact you seem to be a hair's breadth away from joining a fuckin Patriot Front march from what i can tell of your posting history, you absolute buffoon.
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, I'm not really sure what part of that statement is mysterious or even controversial. Literally no one here is "carrying water for violent police", so maybe drop that ridiculous angle.
"calm down" shut up, Tucker Carlson. your cool, unemotional logic does not make you automatically correct, it makes you the dumbest robot ever constructed. what you're doing is obvious and pathetic. support the police with your whole chest if you're gonna make excuses and blame the obvious victims in these scenarios, as has been your repeated pattern of behavior. you're not even brave enough to be an actual shithead, you have to cloak it.
Everyone’s just primed to jump on SS because there’s a pattern of bringing up a suspect’s or victim’s criminal record as a rebuttal/distraction/justification to police violence
"calm down" shut up, Tucker Carlson. your cool, unemotional logic does not make you automatically correct, it makes you the dumbest robot ever constructed. what you're doing is obvious and pathetic. support the police with your whole chest if you're gonna make excuses and blame the obvious victims in these scenarios, as has been your repeated pattern of behavior. you're not even brave enough to be an actual shithead, you have to cloak it.
Your manic, ridiculous outbursts don't make you automatically correct either. Show me exactly where a statement like "accurately describe the situation" is defending the police in this instance in any way, shape, or form. Do you not know what the word "reprehensible" means?
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Isn’t the point that the police burned down the house to smoke the criminal out, killing a kid? Even if the criminal was the only person in the house, that’s absolutely psycho.
No no let's be fair, they "just" threw flashbangs into the house with the 14 year old and an unrelated family in order to incapacitate the robbery suspect, and the flashbangs started the fire. And the police apparently did fuck and all to stop it. Because apparently waiting for the robbery suspect to leave his house to arrest him or, god forbid, waiting for the uninvolved civilians to leave before throwing flashbangs in was too risky or something.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+11
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
"calm down" shut up, Tucker Carlson. your cool, unemotional logic does not make you automatically correct, it makes you the dumbest robot ever constructed. what you're doing is obvious and pathetic. support the police with your whole chest if you're gonna make excuses and blame the obvious victims in these scenarios, as has been your repeated pattern of behavior. you're not even brave enough to be an actual shithead, you have to cloak it.
Your manic, ridiculous outbursts don't make you automatically correct either. Show me exactly where a statement like "accurately describe the situation" is defending the police in this instance in any way, shape, or form. Do you not know what the word "reprehensible" means?
Which part of your description included the police standing idle while a child burned to death in a fully preventable incident? Make more excuses, Steve Doocy.
edit: and again, this isn't even the only time you've done this, come into a thread specifically about police violence to hem and haw and all but say "well cops have a hard job." How much thin blue line merchandise do you own, Officer Dipshit?
Which part of your description included the police standing idle while a child burned to death in a full preventable incident? Make more excuses, Steve Doocy.
Show me where I have made excuses for the police who burned that house down.
edit: and again, this isn't even the only time you've done this, come into a thread specifically about police violence to hem and haw and all but say "well cops have a hard job." How much thin blue line merchandise do you own, Officer Dipshit?
Show me where I have said "well cops have a hard job" regarding this incident.
SmokeStacks on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Isn’t the point that the police burned down the house to smoke the criminal out, killing a kid? Even if the criminal was the only person in the house, that’s absolutely psycho.
If we compare it to Waco, is that enough to stop being an apologist for the police?
It doesn't matter to me what crime someone is accused of, or what crimes they had previously been convicted for.
It does not justify the police extrajudicially executing a human being when they were not posing a threat to anyone but the police officer's overactive imagination.
And it sure as shit doesn't justify killing innocent bystanders.
I'm sure the police will try to charge the suspect they were after with the death of the teenager and the destruction of the home. And that's okay, right? After all, that all only happened because he didn't follow the police's instructions, right? We need to hold people accountable for their actions!
(Not the police, though. Their actions are always justified.)
So I'm not sure what was meant by this person being "on parole".
The police said that the person was on parole. Since the police are trying to justify their burning a house down and killing a child, maybe we shouldn't just take the police at their word on everything.
And, again, even if what they are saying about a parole violation is true, that does not justify what they did. The attitude of "he was no angel" is to assert that any violation of the law justifies any and all brutality up to and including being murdered by the police at any point in time during the rest of your life.
Thread combo bonus. Trans dude is forced to use the woman's restroom by a bigoted campground operator. A group of people attack him over it the police show up annnd
Arrest the person being attacked.
+15
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2022
I want to be super clear
The use of high explosive materials (and yes, a flashbang is absolutely a high explosive) in order to apprehend people should have been enough to give people pause alone. The fact that they incited an incident in what they themselves are calling a standoff should have been enough for people to stop and say "Hey, maybe this is a shit way to do things." Further, the fact that none of this would have happened if the cops hadn't acted like they did is further proof that they are not a salve for societal ills, but a jackboot enforcement troop for the state/corps comfortable with collateral damage.
Just to further cement this, a flashbang burning down a house and injuring/killing unintended people has already happened. A lot.
So I'm not sure what was meant by this person being "on parole".
The police said that the person was on parole. Since the police are trying to justify their burning a house down and killing a child, maybe we shouldn't just take the police at their word on everything.
And, again, even if what they are saying about a parole violation is true, that does not justify what they did. The attitude of "he was no angel" is to assert that any violation of the law justifies any and all brutality up to and including being murdered by the police at any point in time during the rest of your life.
Very true, though I think the point Smokestakes was making, was that if you were to use this incident to convince others that policing in the US is a fucking horrorshow and must be replaced, then you can't gloss over details that seem to equivalate people like Trayvon Martin or George Floyd with people like Quiant Kelley. As if you do, the next time you bring up someone who has done something trivial they'll think armed robber, and you also don't want to spend time - as we have here, having to argue that the fact they they were a violent criminal doesn't matter because it seems you're glossing over the facts.
Doesn't matter what he did, that the police accidently set fire to the house of a family friend and then did not render aid, resulting in the death of a child is awful enough. It was the wrong house, he wasn't there, so what he did doesn't isn't important and if he was it was still overkill. Focus on the actual victim, the dead child and their family, and the vicious incompetence of the police.
I'm also not sure why they would be throwing a flashbang into a house without then going in afterwards, where they would be able to recover people before the fire got out of hand. Seems pointless (or actively malicious) to just chuck one in.
Tastyfish on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
So I'm not sure what was meant by this person being "on parole".
The police said that the person was on parole. Since the police are trying to justify their burning a house down and killing a child, maybe we shouldn't just take the police at their word on everything.
And, again, even if what they are saying about a parole violation is true, that does not justify what they did. The attitude of "he was no angel" is to assert that any violation of the law justifies any and all brutality up to and including being murdered by the police at any point in time during the rest of your life.
Very true, though I think the point Smokestakes was making, was that if you were to use this incident to convince others that policing in the US is a fucking horrorshow and must be replaced, then you can't gloss over details that seem to equivalate people like Trayvon Martin or George Floyd with people like Quiant Kelley. As if you do, the next time you bring up someone who has done something trivial they'll think armed robber, and you also don't want to spend time - as we have here, having to argue that the fact they they were a violent criminal doesn't matter because it seems you're glossing over the facts.
Doesn't matter what he did, that the police accidently set fire to the house of a family friend and then did not render aid, resulting in the death of a child is awful enough. It was the wrong house, he wasn't there, so what he did doesn't isn't important and if he was it was still overkill. Focus on the actual victim, the dead child and their family, and the vicious incompetence of the police.
The problem is there isn't a justification, no matter what the person did, for the police actions. It doesn't matter, any of it, and it should be glossed over because it's absolutely irrelevant to what happened. It doesn't matter. If someone draws a gun on cops and gets shot, then we can talk about the person drawing a gun on cops. But that didn't happen, the criminals actions are irrelevant, and we need to stop using it as a distraction point from what actually happened.
The "well this guy did some things!" talking point is a means to justify these actions, distract from the police action, or a leftover bad habit from decades of appealing to authority in American policing.
I think we're agreeing, Police killed a child by burning the house down whilst going to the wrong house. Shit's fucked up.
Implying that "it was just a thief as well" rather than a violent criminal is the extra information that has derailed us. It was a violent criminal, but it doesn't change the fuck up in anyway.
Posts
Better yet, bring back Famous Chicagoan Mayor Daly's ,"Let em Bust heads ," at the 60s Democratic convention and accuse those of impeding Police in anyway for, "Inciting Mob Action". charges against those who are taking video, photos of said Police.
Because we know the Fascist are gonna run with it soon. *Mean glances Tom "Loot the Iraq Palace" Cotton.*
New Mexico police and their subservient local news call it a "standoff" instead of the proper term, "murder via incompetence."
He was on parole for the above crimes, and violated his parole agreement, which is why the police were attempting to put him in custody.
There is enough cause to be upset with the police response without downplaying a series of violent crimes to simply "theft".
Lets clear something else up.
The kid that died, and the family that is now homeless had very little to do with the alleged criminal.
The police thugs committed felony arson, and felony murder (though they're not going to be charged with such because LOL), all because some 14-year old was like, "yea, come over and pick up this bike".
So. Conspiracy, theft, and wanted for questioning justifies arson and murder of innocent civilians by the blue thugs? Pffftt. No. Try again
Yeah I literally never said that.
I can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of that person's crimes than to brush it off as "theft". It makes it sound like he stole a candy bar from the grocery store, not ganged up on a stranger and then beat and robbed them at gunpoint.
Again, there is enough here that you can be angry at the police for their response without resorting to making up lies in order to make them look worse than they already do. The bare minimum for reasonable discussion should be an accurate description of what it is you are discussing. Please, try and reach the bare minimum.
The cops murdered a kid and made a family homeless not even over theft but over fucking parole violations.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You literally listed the alleged crimes that summed up where: Conspiracy, and Theft (and the non-crime of Wanted for Questioning) in a deliberate way to justify the criminal actions of the SWAT team.
So, yah, you literally said that.
I could thing of something more disrespectful than an alleged (not proven with evidence) crime: Burning down a house and murdering an innocent civilian.
Like, I'd be pretty upset if SWAT murdered some 14-year old kid and burned down someone innocent civilian's house just to catch someone they think (not proven in a court of law) might have robbed me.
No, I literally did not.
Holy shit start paying attention - it was "proven in a court of law", he was tried and convicted for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early for some reason. That's what parole is.
Who the fuck cares? Police happened and now a 14 year old is dead because of them. Somehow this dangerous individual did not do any of the killing.
It is the same goddamn story everytime: the police "want someone for questioning" and they apparently can't wait in anyway to do it before a SWAT team is crashing into the wrong house or setting fire to it or some other BS.
That's from the article. Where are you getting "parole" from?
Also there's no way in hell someone is on parole for something they were indicted for in May . So either that sourceless quote you led with is missing a year or it's wrong. (Or the article was edited to remove it)
Clearly worth arson and murder, are you seriously “but actually” on a situation where an innocent child was killed and a family rendered homeless. I’m usually pretty quiet but I’m calling a spade a spade here, you consistently defend and minimize the behavior of police and it’s actually infuriating, not because you are that way, but because you try so hard to play it off like you totally don’t love that thin blue line.
Yes, it is pretty clear that the police response was reprehensible, no one is disagreeing there, but the point is you don't need to lie to make them look more reprehensible than they already are. Saying that they were after him for "theft" is pretty disingenuous.
edit:
There is more than one article about the situation on the internet. "May" was May of 2018.
And i can't think of anything more incredibly disrespectful to the victims of the Albuquerque police than hijacking a conversation about a murdered teenager to pitch a fit over whether "theft" is an acceptable synonym for "robbery"
Jesus fucking Christ, what's wrong with you
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I'm not defending the virtuousness of a piece of shit criminal, so maybe you need to look inward the next time you ask that question. I have a fairly low opinion of carjackers, if you don't than you are the one with the error.
Instead of acting all self righteous after being called out, take another look at what I said earlier:
No, you are wrong, based entirely on your quotes. (Which I seem to be missing a source for?) The First set was not "proven in a court of law".
To quote you:
NEITHER of these is proven in a court of law, nor are they justification for murder/wanton violence by the cops.
Now, let's assume he DID do those things. Arguing that "oh, this discussion is downplaying the series of violent crimes too much" is just goosery. Barring any other info, the police murdered him, plain and simple.
The carjacker's absence from the story is, in fact, a significant detail
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Yes, they were, he was charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for the crimes I mentioned, and let out early on parole. He violated his parole agreement, which is one of the reasons why the police were looking for him.
No one is saying this!
hey sport, why didn't the cops attempt to put the fire out? they definitely had extinguishers on hand, swat and patrol vehicles have them as standard equipment. they didn't even fucking call emergency response until the suspect fled the house IN FLAMES.
you fuckin suck.
I'm gonna assume that you haven't actually read any posts on this page except for the one you quoted, which you misunderstood, and then, mouth frothing with impotent rage, you felt compelled to make an ass out of yourself with an immediate reply, so I will refer you to the point I have made several times so far on this page alone:
Let me know if any part of this statement doesn't make sense to you, and I will do my best to dumb it down.
this isn't even close to the first time i've seen you carrying water for violent police, dummy. in fact you seem to be a hair's breadth away from joining a fuckin Patriot Front march from what i can tell of your posting history, you absolute buffoon.
edit: like you understand no one's got a gun to your head forcing you to "well ackchually
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, I'm not really sure what part of that statement is mysterious or even controversial. Literally no one here is "carrying water for violent police", so maybe drop that ridiculous angle.
"calm down" shut up, Tucker Carlson. your cool, unemotional logic does not make you automatically correct, it makes you the dumbest robot ever constructed. what you're doing is obvious and pathetic. support the police with your whole chest if you're gonna make excuses and blame the obvious victims in these scenarios, as has been your repeated pattern of behavior. you're not even brave enough to be an actual shithead, you have to cloak it.
This is an especially silly tangent because
Your manic, ridiculous outbursts don't make you automatically correct either. Show me exactly where a statement like "accurately describe the situation" is defending the police in this instance in any way, shape, or form. Do you not know what the word "reprehensible" means?
No no let's be fair, they "just" threw flashbangs into the house with the 14 year old and an unrelated family in order to incapacitate the robbery suspect, and the flashbangs started the fire. And the police apparently did fuck and all to stop it. Because apparently waiting for the robbery suspect to leave his house to arrest him or, god forbid, waiting for the uninvolved civilians to leave before throwing flashbangs in was too risky or something.
Which part of your description included the police standing idle while a child burned to death in a fully preventable incident? Make more excuses, Steve Doocy.
edit: and again, this isn't even the only time you've done this, come into a thread specifically about police violence to hem and haw and all but say "well cops have a hard job." How much thin blue line merchandise do you own, Officer Dipshit?
Show me where I have made excuses for the police who burned that house down.
edit:
Show me where I have said "well cops have a hard job" regarding this incident.
If we compare it to Waco, is that enough to stop being an apologist for the police?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It does not justify the police extrajudicially executing a human being when they were not posing a threat to anyone but the police officer's overactive imagination.
And it sure as shit doesn't justify killing innocent bystanders.
I'm sure the police will try to charge the suspect they were after with the death of the teenager and the destruction of the home. And that's okay, right? After all, that all only happened because he didn't follow the police's instructions, right? We need to hold people accountable for their actions!
(Not the police, though. Their actions are always justified.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So I'm not sure what was meant by this person being "on parole".
The police said that the person was on parole. Since the police are trying to justify their burning a house down and killing a child, maybe we shouldn't just take the police at their word on everything.
And, again, even if what they are saying about a parole violation is true, that does not justify what they did. The attitude of "he was no angel" is to assert that any violation of the law justifies any and all brutality up to and including being murdered by the police at any point in time during the rest of your life.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Thread combo bonus. Trans dude is forced to use the woman's restroom by a bigoted campground operator. A group of people attack him over it the police show up annnd
Arrest the person being attacked.
The use of high explosive materials (and yes, a flashbang is absolutely a high explosive) in order to apprehend people should have been enough to give people pause alone. The fact that they incited an incident in what they themselves are calling a standoff should have been enough for people to stop and say "Hey, maybe this is a shit way to do things." Further, the fact that none of this would have happened if the cops hadn't acted like they did is further proof that they are not a salve for societal ills, but a jackboot enforcement troop for the state/corps comfortable with collateral damage.
Just to further cement this, a flashbang burning down a house and injuring/killing unintended people has already happened. A lot.
Very true, though I think the point Smokestakes was making, was that if you were to use this incident to convince others that policing in the US is a fucking horrorshow and must be replaced, then you can't gloss over details that seem to equivalate people like Trayvon Martin or George Floyd with people like Quiant Kelley. As if you do, the next time you bring up someone who has done something trivial they'll think armed robber, and you also don't want to spend time - as we have here, having to argue that the fact they they were a violent criminal doesn't matter because it seems you're glossing over the facts.
Doesn't matter what he did, that the police accidently set fire to the house of a family friend and then did not render aid, resulting in the death of a child is awful enough. It was the wrong house, he wasn't there, so what he did doesn't isn't important and if he was it was still overkill. Focus on the actual victim, the dead child and their family, and the vicious incompetence of the police.
I'm also not sure why they would be throwing a flashbang into a house without then going in afterwards, where they would be able to recover people before the fire got out of hand. Seems pointless (or actively malicious) to just chuck one in.
The problem is there isn't a justification, no matter what the person did, for the police actions. It doesn't matter, any of it, and it should be glossed over because it's absolutely irrelevant to what happened. It doesn't matter. If someone draws a gun on cops and gets shot, then we can talk about the person drawing a gun on cops. But that didn't happen, the criminals actions are irrelevant, and we need to stop using it as a distraction point from what actually happened.
The "well this guy did some things!" talking point is a means to justify these actions, distract from the police action, or a leftover bad habit from decades of appealing to authority in American policing.
Implying that "it was just a thief as well" rather than a violent criminal is the extra information that has derailed us. It was a violent criminal, but it doesn't change the fuck up in anyway.