Nah, this would never happen.......it has.

[skycop 0]

Quote

That there are groups of crazy or odd people with an agenda in this country?
Tons of them. Lots of different agendas for that matter.

Ya think?

I'm talking specifically about media outlets, social media, and the truth no longer mattering.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[normiss 622]

That damn first amendment and the dumbing down of America.

[skycop 0]

Quote

That damn first amendment and the dumbing down of America.

The 1st Amendment is alive and doing fine, it's that pesky truth and journalistic integrity that seems to be lacking.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wmw999 2,121]

The thing is that the police also have an agenda, just as everyone else does (yes, including some of the media). Trying to look at something from someone else's viewpoint is worthwhile.

Media are going to sensationalize, and appeal to emotions. That sainted capitalism means they have to in order to sell. If it weren't for capitalism, they'd pander to the opinion of whoever is providing the money. It's what money does.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,122]

skycop

Quote

That there are groups of crazy or odd people with an agenda in this country?
Tons of them. Lots of different agendas for that matter.

Ya think?

I'm talking specifically about media outlets, social media, and the truth no longer mattering.

Yet, for decades cops have been able to get their stories "straight" after every incident. Is that the truth mattering?

[skycop 0]

Quote

Trying to look at something from someone else's viewpoint is worthwhile.

I use empathy everyday as a tool to help people in crisis.

The stories I linked aren't empathic, they are FALSE.

I understand the sensationalism, this goes well beyond that.
If it bleeds, it leads.

However, I tried to show the logical progression of how false narratives gain traction.

In the stories I linked, the progression is undeniable.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

Yet, for decades cops have been able to get their stories "straight" after every incident. Is that the truth mattering?

More platitudes, now that's surprising.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[SkyDekker 1,122]

skycop

Quote

Yet, for decades cops have been able to get their stories "straight" after every incident. Is that the truth mattering?

More platitudes, now that's surprising.

The fact police is referring to those incidents as platitudes sums up why so many have issues with the police.

[skycop 0]

Answering platitudes with..............platitudes.

Just say pig, it's easier and way more specific. Seems to work for other groups.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

skycop

Answering platitudes with..............platitudes.

Just say pig, it's easier and way more specific. Seems to work for other groups.

No, how about "corrupt cop"?

I asked this before, and you posted a long diatribe touting the bravery of a couple cops who had a fake bomb tossed in their van (they didn't know the bomb was fake, but their bravery was real - but that has nothing to do with this).

One more time - The incidents in Chicago, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, South Charleston and Miami were all "bad" shoots. The cop in each incident was way out of line, and either has been or should be charged criminally.

But in each case, the cop claimed to be "threatened". And that he acted properly.

As they always do. And before the proliferation of video cameras, they were almost always believed. How many cops have been charged in the last couple years? How many have been charge in the previous 20? 30? 40?

Do you think that any of those incidents would have resulted in anything other than a "clean shoot" declaration without the video?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 622]

The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,254]

turtlespeed

***The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skycop 0]

Quote

Let’s take an in-depth look at the suspects killed by U.S. police in 2015, as reported by the Washington Post.

Note: This is my analysis as determined by reviewing the ongoing Washington Post reports and the news links associated with these stories or by conducting an Internet search.

According to the Washington Post series, 990 subjects were shot and killed by law enforcement in 2015. By using the filters available at their site we see that 80 percent of the subjects were armed with a deadly weapon (782 out of 990). But what about the 93 subjects listed as "unarmed"?

First of all let’s eliminate those subjects accidentally or negligently shot by police. These six individuals were not the intentional recipients of gunfire by police. Some were accidentally shot when police fired on armed men, one was shot by a pistol by accident when the officer meant to fire a TASER, and one was shot negligently when an officer had his finger on the trigger while approaching a man in a vehicle. Though tragic these acts were not intentional.

Then there are the three subjects killed in what I would term "death by misadventure." In these cases the deceased — though unarmed — was in close proximity to an armed associate who was actively firing at officers. In one case a girlfriend was killed when her boyfriend starting shooting at officers while they were in their car. In another, an unarmed "buddy" was shot and killed when he voluntarily gave a ride to an armed murder suspect who chose to shoot at police from inside the vehicle.

What is confusing, however, is that the Post included four incidents in which the subject was in fact armed. Bennie Lee Tignor, Jeremy Linhart, and Rodney Biggs all were armed and were reaching/drawing when shot and killed. Rafael Cruz Jr. was shot and killed after shots were fired from the car he was in and then the driver attempted to run over officers.

One case particularly perplexing (and with little news reports available) is that of Roberto Leon. According to the Post website, "Following a traffic stop, Leon exchanged gunfire with police, stole another car at gunpoint and fled. He was later found dead inside a home." How this case and the others are included in the Washington Post project is confounding.

Revised numbers
If we subtract these 13 subjects from the 990 total, we see that 80 subjects were "unarmed" in the traditional sense but there is more to these stories as well.

By my count, 10 subjects had some type of contact weapon. That’s 7 percent of the 80 total. These included incidents in which the subject threw a hatchet at officers, attacked with a large metal spoon (after a TASER failed to stop the mentally ill subject who then tried to throw the officer over an apartment balcony), or was armed with a tree branch, stick, or an officer’s own handcuffs. In one case two officers were savagely beaten with a police radio.

A full 62 percent of these 80 individuals were actively attacking officers. Some of these attacks included attempts at disarming (12.5 percent) and attempts at drowning the officers in two incidents. Injuries in these cases included broken bones and head injuries.

My count of "attacks in progress," as the Washington Post describes these shootings, finds 50 incidents. The Washington Post lists only 34 incidents. Once again, by reading the news reports or conducting an Internet search and reading news reports, I was able to properly document the assaults.

Less-deadly forms of control were routinely attempted. TASERS failed to control the subjects in 22.5 percent of the 80 incidents.

Based on a review of the incidents, 13 shootings or 10 percent appear to be police-assisted suicide. Some had mentioned they would make police kill them or were wanted on seriously violent felony charges. According to my count, 15 percent of the subjects shot and killed made drawing motions.

These subjects’ intent is unclear — at least one subject pointed a cellphone at officers.

Indicted officers
It appears that of these 80 incidents, nine officers have been or may be indicted. Whether clearly negligent (and possibly a slip and capture incident as defined by Bill Lewinski of Force Science), or the yet-to-be adjudicated cases of the shooting of Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati and the shooting of Walter Scott in Charleston, most of the shootings described by the Washington Post as unarmed have resulted in no indictment by a grand jury or the officer was cleared by his own agency.

The reason these officers have been cleared in the shootings is based on the "totality of the circumstances." For instance, while Victor Emanuel Larosa is described as unarmed, research into the 23-year-old’s shooting death indicates that after an observed dope deal he hit a Jacksonville PD officer with his car in an attempt to escape. The officer flew through the air at such a height that Larosa was able to drive under the officer. He rammed a police car, fled on foot and made a drawing motion as officers pursued him on foot.

Former Arlington, Texas Officer Brad Miller was cleared by a grand jury in the shooting death of Christian Taylor. Taylor, while under the influence of synthetic drugs and acting aggressively toward cars at a dealership, was shot and killed by Miller – a rookie police officer. Once again, when the totality of the circumstances is presented to an informed grand jury, officers are correctly vindicated.

Dangerous men
Many of the suspects were very dangerous men; many were under the influence of drugs – meth, cocaine, OxyContin and alcohol, or a combination.

When police shot and killed Richard Jacquez, a suspect in a homicide, he may not have been armed but he was considered a threat to officers and citizens when officers chased him as he ran from a car crash after police pursuit.

Frank Shephard had an outstanding warrant for assault on a family member when police attempted to pull him over for "suspicious activity." During the chase, he called 911 and threatened to harm a small child in his car. When police stopped Shephard and ordered him to raise his hands, he reached back into the car. At that point two police officers opened fire. Turns out Shephard had no child in the car.

A 19-year-old by the name of Ebin Proctor was shot and killed in Cottonwood, Arizona. The suspect had an active warrant on file for probation violation for assault on a police officer. A TASER failed to stop him, pepper spray failed to stop him, and then he attempted to disarm the officer after attacking him.

In conclusion
The Washington Post, though coming to questionable conclusions on some of the incidents, has done law enforcement a service. By examining these incidents, we can conclude that of the 80 unarmed subjects intentionally shot in incidents, the vast majority (62 percent) was actively attacking officers. Those 80 subjects only comprise eight percent of the total suspects (990) who were shot and killed, and obvious deadly threats.

Can we improve? Absolutely, and training — as always — is the key

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

******The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.
I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

turtlespeed

*********The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.
I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability?

Are you talking legal or illegal protective steps?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

GeorgiaDon

A while ago I read an article about how the deaf are disproportionately likely to have a violent encounter with the police, as are the mentally challenged (such as the autistic fellow in Miami). The problem was explained to be that the police are trained to expect immediate compliance with their orders, and to treat any hesitation as resistance and a threat. Of course that puts people who can't hear, and people who can't understand, in danger. That also applies to people who don't understand English well, such as in the incident in Alabama a while ago where a visitor from India was body slammed to the ground, breaking his neck and paralyzing him, because he could not understand and comply with the cops.

Another factor seems to be people who misinterpret a situation (again often according to their biases), call 911, and then the cops don't take the time to determine if the caller described the situation accurately. I can think of many instances that resulted in death or significant injury to an innocent person. The police should know that such 911 calls are extremely subjective and are likely to completely misinterpret an innocent situation.

Don

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,122]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

England last night is a pretty decent example. Mentally unstable man with a knife, killed one and wounded others.

British police used a tazer to apprehend him. I have no doubt in the US this man would have been shot.

[kallend 1,623]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

You don't think 2 seconds is long enough for a 12 year old boy to comply?

Officers claim they asked Rice to put his hands up and he didn't comply. In the video above, the police car comes to a stop at 0:19, and by 0:21 the boy is already doubled over and falling to the ground, mortally wounded. Rice was rushed to the hospital, where he died Sunday morning.

gawker.com/video-cops-shot-12-year-old-two-seconds-after-arriving-1663814827

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

kallend

***

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

You don't think 2 seconds is long enough for a 12 year old boy to comply?

Officers claim they asked Rice to put his hands up and he didn't comply. In the video above, the police car comes to a stop at 0:19, and by 0:21 the boy is already doubled over and falling to the ground, mortally wounded. Rice was rushed to the hospital, where he died Sunday morning.

gawker.com/video-cops-shot-12-year-old-two-seconds-after-arriving-1663814827



Yup which then gets labelled a justified shooting and cops can tell us it really isn't that bad and these are just platitudes.

[nolhtairt 0]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

England last night is a pretty decent example. Mentally unstable man with a knife, killed one and wounded others.

British police used a tazer to apprehend him. I have no doubt in the US this man would have been shot.

Not all cops here have tasers. But they all do have guns.

Even then, people have died after being tased.

[kallend 1,623]

nolhtairt

Even then, people have died after being tased.

Well, I guess that justifies shooting them instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

nolhtairt

******

Quote

Noncompliance with orders is always going to be perceived as a threat, regardless of reason until the potential threat is mitigated.

You seem to be implying that it's OK for a cop to kill someone because they are deaf and can't hear the "orders" or they are autistic and don't understand what is going on. Do the police not have any responsibility to assess the situation and determine if there is an actual threat, beyond a failure to instantly comply?

Don

England last night is a pretty decent example. Mentally unstable man with a knife, killed one and wounded others.

British police used a tazer to apprehend him. I have no doubt in the US this man would have been shot.

Not all cops here have tasers. But they all do have guns.

Even then, people have died after being tased.

People have died from positional asphyxiation after being handcuffed. I guess with your logic that means we are better off shooting people than handcuffing them.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bolas

************The strong support of the blue line is a very large part of the problem yet you choose to not only ignore that, you support it.

You're part of the problem!

So you wouldn't protect your family, even if it was their fault?

Thus illustrating the bullshit indoctrination that helps create the problem in the first place.
I'm just curious. People say things, and may have the best noble intentions, but when the shit gets real, and a family member fucks up, who here would not protect their close family member to the best of their ability?

Are you talking legal or illegal protective steps?

It's not about me.

BUT - it would depend on your POV. There is a grey area there. If, for instance, a loved one - say . . . Wife or Sister . . . was in jeopardy because of something severe injuries she didn't mean to do, but nonetheless caused. The brother/husband has information that would absolutely convict her - does he volunteer that info? Does he deny the information knowing that it would be detrimental to her?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun