Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math???

Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math??? (Page 9)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And this is why I'm somewhat sympathetic to the officer.

Part of the cop job description is "expect people to try and kill you". Not "it may happen", but "expect it".

Was this a colossal ****up? No question. I have trouble throwing my stones too hard because I've been known to **** things up before.
I spoke earlier about how it is questionable at best that the first thing that popped into this trooper's mind was that the guy was going for a gun when he had just asked the guy for his license. As if the guy simply complying with his request was unfathomable or something. So I won't belabor that point. All I will say is that if the trooper is that jumpy then he has absolutely no business being a police officer. Period.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I spoke earlier about how it is questionable at best that the first thing that popped into this trooper's mind was that the guy was going for a gun when he had just asked the guy for his license. As if the guy simply complying with his request was unfathomable or something. So I won't belabor that point. All I will say is that if the trooper is that jumpy then he has absolutely no business being a police officer. Period.

OAW
Since you aren't a cop, and obviously have never had to deal with that type of pressure (and thus have no idea what you're talking about), what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I spoke earlier about how it is questionable at best that the first thing that popped into this trooper's mind was that the guy was going for a gun when he had just asked the guy for his license. As if the guy simply complying with his request was unfathomable or something. So I won't belabor that point. All I will say is that if the trooper is that jumpy then he has absolutely no business being a police officer. Period.

OAW
Why even bother with a rule 3 then? Proper intent should be enough, right?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Since you aren't a cop, and obviously have never had to deal with that type of pressure (and thus have no idea what you're talking about), what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement?
This. Cops get murdered pulling people over for traffic violations. It's one of the more dangerous parts of the job.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Since you aren't a cop, and obviously have never had to deal with that type of pressure (and thus have no idea what you're talking about), what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement?
Please check your ad hominems at the front desk before entering the PL. It is not the job of the police to protect themselves from the public, it is to protect the public. And it is perfectly reasonable for people (who don't know the ins and outs of being a member of the police force) to want such a police force. There is a million different ways the cop could have reacted without having to pull a gun (e. g. asking what the guy is doing).

The real problem is that the trooper unnecessarily assumed the worst (I reckon he would not have started shooting if an old white man would have reached into the car). And exactly this is what adds to the animosity between the black community and cops.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Ultimately, we are discussing statistics. Whether going back into the car to get your wallet is considered usual or not is going to directly correlate with the incidence of males, at a gas station, not at a pump, leaving their car without their wallet... whether it be in their pocket, backpack, bag, or man-purse.

I'm saying this incidence is low.
How do you know it is low? And even if it is low, what exactly does that mean? All I'm saying is that it's often enough to be considered a variant of normal behavior. Whether the majority of males keeps their wallet in their back pocket is besides the point.

And even if you think it is unusual behavior, I still don't understand how you can feel sympathy for the cop: he made a big mistake the moment he unnecessarily pulled the gun. And then he started shooting without warning.

This is one of the rare cases where it is 100 % clear what has happened because it is on video. Just imagine the situation if the shooting was not recorded, we'd argue forever how the other guy may have turned in what situation, whether he »looked suspicious« and how far he was from the cop.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 11:21 AM
 
I know the incidence is low because if you're at a gas station and don't have your wallet accessible, you can't buy shit.

It's relevant because of the continued construction "he was just doing what the officer told him". It is clear the officer did not expect that response. I am explaining why he did not expect that response. Note: "why" != "justification".

I feel sympathy for the officer because he has a difficult, dangerous, and thankless job. He made a huge mistake. I could make that mistake. There but for the grace of God...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Please check your ad hominems at the front desk before entering the PL. It is not the job of the police to protect themselves from the public, it is to protect the public. And it is perfectly reasonable for people (who don't know the ins and outs of being a member of the police force) to want such a police force. There is a million different ways the cop could have reacted without having to pull a gun (e. g. asking what the guy is doing).

The real problem is that the trooper unnecessarily assumed the worst (I reckon he would not have started shooting if an old white man would have reached into the car). And exactly this is what adds to the animosity between the black community and cops.
An ad hominem means there's an irrelevant fact stated that diverts from the main point, my comment was entirely relevant. When people are known to take shots at police who make traffic stops, and LEOs are regularly killed during them, they tend to take sudden and unexpected moves very seriously. Yes, it most certainly is a LEO's job to protect him (or her) self from the public. Otherwise, the likelihood of you ending up dead goes up dramatically. This is drilled into every cadet's head at the academy, repeatedly. Hell, it's every person's duty to protect themselves and be diligent WRT their own welfare, because you can never fully rely on anyone else to do it. Most of the time, cops aren't around to protect anyone, more often than not they only get to investigate and enforce the law, ex post facto. The whole scenario of nabbing the bad guy right after he committed a crime, or protecting innocents when they're in danger? That's in the movies and on TV. Nearly all violent crimes are committed long before the police can respond.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, it most certainly is a LEO's job to protect him (or her) self from the public.
To me that's akin to saying that a fire fighter's job is to protect him- or herself from fire. Even though it may be safer for the cops, it's unacceptable to bust a bunch of underage drinkers and stoners with the help of SWAT teams or to feel that using excessive force to »protect oneself« is justified. The primary concern isn't and shouldn't be the safety of cops but the safety of the public. If your priorities are reversed, you shouldn't become a cop -- just like you shouldn't become a fire fighter if you're not willing to risk limb and life for the benefit of the greater good. (I know that's asking a lot, but nobody forces people to become cops.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Since you aren't a cop, and obviously have never had to deal with that type of pressure (and thus have no idea what you're talking about), what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement?
And since you aren't African-American, chances are you have never had to deal with your people being shot and killed even though they were UNARMED because some white cop with a gun, badge, and the LAW on his side is acting like a LITTLE B*ITCH nevertheless. So what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement? Because it damned sure ain't aint a bunch of unarmed white dudes coming up shot and killed left and right by the police who then get to WALK with nary more than a "Oops!! My bad. I 'thought' he was reaching for a gun." Now is it? So don't sit up here and try to pretend that this is some sort of "across the board" phenomenon ... because it most definitely is not in degree, magnitude, or however you want to slice it.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 28, 2014 at 07:53 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
To me that's akin to saying that a fire fighter's job is to protect him- or herself from fire. Even though it may be safer for the cops, it's unacceptable to bust a bunch of underage drinkers and stoners with the help of SWAT teams or to feel that using excessive force to »protect oneself« is justified. The primary concern isn't and shouldn't be the safety of cops but the safety of the public. If your priorities are reversed, you shouldn't become a cop -- just like you shouldn't become a fire fighter if you're not willing to risk limb and life for the benefit of the greater good. (I know that's asking a lot, but nobody forces people to become cops.)
It's amazing that you said this! Because the funny thing is that just last night the Mrs. and I were hanging out with another couple and the topic of this South Carolina incident came up. And the brother said something to me that was very profound ...

"It's supposed to be the police officer's job to make the public feel safe. But when you are a black man in America it is imperative that you make the police officer feel safe. Otherwise your life may be forfeit ... innocent or guilty."

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
To me that's akin to saying that a fire fighter's job is to protect him- or herself from fire. Even though it may be safer for the cops, it's unacceptable to bust a bunch of underage drinkers and stoners with the help of SWAT teams or to feel that using excessive force to »protect oneself« is justified. The primary concern isn't and shouldn't be the safety of cops but the safety of the public. If your priorities are reversed, you shouldn't become a cop -- just like you shouldn't become a fire fighter if you're not willing to risk limb and life for the benefit of the greater good. (I know that's asking a lot, but nobody forces people to become cops.)
You swear to protect & serve. Protect whom? The public. From whom? The public. A fire won't act shifty and do desperate things to avoid an arrest. In any situation where a civil servant must deal with the public in touchy situations you're taught to watch your back, and if you think there's no difference between being careful/ready and going SWAT Rambo on someone, then I think I see where the problem lies. I already said the cop in that traffic stop screwed up, and he'll rightfully be punished, not because he was vigilant, but because he used deadly force without confirmation of a weapon and imminent threat.

Expecting a LEO to go in with just a smile and good intentions is crazy.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And since you aren't African-American, chances are you have never had to deal with your people being shot and killed even though they were UNARMED because some white cop with a gun, badge, and the LAW on his side is acting like a LITTLE B*ITCH nevertheless. So what makes you think you have any grounds to make such a statement? Because it damned sure ain't aint a bunch of unarmed white dudes coming up shot and killed left and right by the police who then get to WALK with nary more than a "Oops!! My bad. I 'thought' he was reaching for a gun." Now is it? So don't sit up here and try to pretend that this is some sort of "across the board" phenomenon ... because it most definitely is not in degree, magnitude, or however you want to slice it.

OAW
Yes, how many times have you been fired upon, since you're a vulnerable, hunted black man? As a cop it's been 3 for me, personally (once by whites and twice by hispanics). I didn't get a "Oops!! My bad." I guess they owe me one. Right?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yes, how many times have you been fired upon, since you're a vulnerable, hunted black man? As a cop it's been 3 for me, personally (once by whites and twice by hispanics). I didn't get a "Oops!! My bad." I guess they owe me one. Right?
This from the dude that supposedly had inside connections with the Sanford PD in the Trayvon Martin case. Who then supposedly had an inside connection with the PD in the case of that old man who shot and killed the guy in the movie theater who was on his cell phone. A "connection" who's info was co-signed on wholeheartedly even though it turned out to be complete BS. The dude who is supposedly so wealthy and takes any and every opportunity to remind the forum of such claims. As I've said before, your PATTERN seems to be no matter what the topic du jour is ... you ALWAYS claim to have some angle that puts you right in the thick of things. Something that makes you the "expert". Like how in the "Bendghazi" thread you are trying to act like you are some sort of authority on the size of pockets in men's jeans ... simple common sense, pictures, and a plethora of articles all over the internet notwithstanding. So I've said it before and I'll say it again. You come off as a POSER. And you know what? It just might turn out that I'm wrong about you and all your claims are true. But let's just say that I won't be betting any money on that.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 28, 2014 at 10:19 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 09:11 PM
 
I'm going to politely request my picture thread not be considered ammunition.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm going to politely request my picture thread not be considered ammunition.
No worries. It's not about the thread. It's about a certain individual being an asshole and getting dealt with accordingly. And of all those who posted please believe me there is just one.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 28, 2014 at 10:21 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 09:55 PM
 
The integrity of that thread is based on it being considered a safe place by all the participants.

I implore you not to make me regret having started that thread. Please, for me, leave that thread out of the PWL.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The integrity of that thread is based on it being considered a safe place by all the participants.

I implore you not to make me regret having started that thread. Please, for me, leave that thread out of the PWL.
Fair enough. I'll remove my comment referencing that. It's not like it's absolutely needed to make my point. Please accept my apologies.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:35 PM
 
How timely. Oreo, you want to see an ad hominem? This whole post was loaded with them.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
This from the dude that supposedly had inside connections with the Sanford PD in the Trayvon Martin case.
Distortion, I never said that. It was a talk I had with the local asst DA. Look it up.

Who then supposedly had an inside connection with the PD in the case of that old man who shot and killed the guy in the movie theater who was on his cell phone. A "connection" who's info was co-signed on wholeheartedly even though it turned out to be complete BS.
Fabrication, I never said that. It was 3rd hand water cooler discussion at the station, and I said as much in the post. Look it up.

The dude who is supposedly so wealthy and takes any and every opportunity to remind the forum of such claims.
I talk about my life, in a limited capacity, like anyone else around here. If me talking about the things I purchase and I do bothers you so much, use the ignore feature.

<personal attack from OAW omitted for the benefit of other parties>

As I've said before, your PATTERN seems to be no matter what the topic du jour is ... you ALWAYS claim to have some angle that puts you right in the thick of things. Something that makes you the "expert".
I make statements based on my opinions, I know that bothers you that not everyone thinks the way you do, but that's simply too bad. You disagree, fabricate, then lash out. It's your cycle.

Like how in the "Bendghazi" thread you are trying to act like you are some sort of authority on the size of pockets in men's jeans ...
Because I put my 6+ in my jeans' pocket and measured the amount of space left? I guess that actually does make me more of an authority on that than you.

So I've said it before and I'll say it again. You come off as a POSER. And you know what? It just might turn out that I'm wrong about you and all your claims are true. But let's just say that I won't be betting any money on that.

OAW
OAW, you have anger management issues, and you obviously can't keep from fabricating and distorting information to suit whatever agenda you're backing at the time, as if doing that will somehow change reality. Well, it doesn't, and I would think that by this stage in your life you would have figured that out.
( Last edited by Shaddim; Sep 28, 2014 at 10:53 PM. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Fair enough. I'll remove my comment referencing that. It's not like it's absolutely needed to make my point. Please accept my apologies.

OAW
Graciously offered. Also, accepted. Thank you.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No worries. It's not about the thread. It's about a certain individual being an asshole and getting dealt with accordingly. And of all those who posted please believe me there is just one.

OAW
Asshole? I'm afraid you have that designation all locked up right now, and the only things here that need to be dealt with are your made up "facts" and your raging temper. If this is the way you act in real life, then you need to seek professional help. Regular fits like that aren't good for your BP.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 10:44 PM
 
Subego,

Apparently someone grabbed a copy before I deleted that comment. Naturally I can't edit his post. So once again I extend my apologies to you.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Asshole? I'm afraid you have that designation all locked up right now, and the only things here that need to be dealt with are your made up "facts" and your raging temper. If this is the way you act in real life, then you need to seek professional help. Regular fits like that aren't good for your BP.
Tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. I really couldn't care less.

You think this trooper was justified in pulling his weapon. AFTER he asked the man to show him his license? Fine. And I say that if that's what you think then it's that mentality that's part and parcel of the problem. There are some police officers who think that the only person's life that matters is theirs. Consider yourself to be in "excellent" company. Assuming you being an LEO actually has a shred of truth to it that is.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2014, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Because I put my 6+ in my jeans' pocket and measured the amount of space left? I guess that actually does make me more of an authority on that than you.
No. Because you obviously don't have sense enough to realize that your own PERSONAL clothing choices aren't applicable to everyone. And if you could manage to realize that the world doesn't revolve around YOU then you might just be able to see the bigger picture.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself. I really couldn't care less.

You think this trooper was justified in pulling his weapon. AFTER he asked the man to show him his license? Fine. And I say that if that's what you think then it's that mentality that's part and parcel of the problem. There are some police officers who think that the only person's life that matters is theirs. Consider yourself to be in "excellent" company. Assuming you being an LEO actually has a shred of truth to it that is.

OAW
You really don't see the difference between drawing a weapon and pointing it? It's not like Hollywood, if a cop draws his firearm he isn't intending to shoot, he's covering, it's preparation just in case he needs to fire. If he points it AT you, he does. Someone makes a sudden move at a traffic stop, like in that video, you draw to cover, then wait to see if there's a visual confirmation, and if there is, you disengage the safety and point to shoot, and if you shoot, you shoot to kill. It's all that simple, that's how they (we) as LEOs are trained. The perp's race; white, black, brown, or plaid, doesn't matter.

Look in a mirror, bub, it's not me. YOU are part of what's wrong in this country, because you (and others like you) firmly form opinions without knowing facts, go frothing at the mouth, and then distort or make up any sort of garbage to suit whatever you want. F*ck the truth, all of what you show here, all of what you say, is about what you want, and the end will always justify the means to you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 12:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No. Because you obviously don't have sense enough to realize that your own PERSONAL clothing choices aren't applicable to everyone. And if you could manage to realize that the world doesn't revolve around YOU then you might just be able to see the bigger picture.

OAW
Like you saying how people should just carry their phones in their sports coat? Well, you may not realize this, but not nearly as many people wear jackets as they do pants. And they carry their phones in their pants pockets. If the phone fits in the pants pocket (the 6+ does with most men), but can't reliably be carried that way, something is wrong with it.


(How in the hell is this in the PL? Oh yeah, it was part of OAW's tirade when he was personally attacking me. )
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 02:21 PM
 
Ferguson nametags: Department of Justice mandate not completely effective.
Per a Department of Justice letter sent to Ferguson police on Tuesday, Ferguson officers are in fact required to wear identification by the department's own regulations. The DOJ instructed officers to begin following this requirement immediately.
The Justice Department then reiterated the identification requirement in a second letter to Ferguson police (whose main purpose was demanding that officers stop wearing "I Am Darren Wilson" solidarity bracelets):

It further was reported to us that some officers affirmatively displaying these bracelets had black tape over their name plates. The practice of not wearing, or obscuring, name plates violates your own department's policies, which we advised you earlier this week when we requested that you end the practice imrnediately.
A gaggle of journalists standing near the protest spotted a police officer who was not wearing a name tag. When a cameraman asked his name, the officer refused to give it and left the area.
Anybody think his fellow officers will tell him he's out of line or report his behavior to his superiors? chortle
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You really don't see the difference between drawing a weapon and pointing it? It's not like Hollywood, if a cop draws his firearm he isn't intending to shoot, he's covering, it's preparation just in case he needs to fire. If he points it AT you, he does. Someone makes a sudden move at a traffic stop, like in that video, you draw to cover, then wait to see if there's a visual confirmation, and if there is, you disengage the safety and point to shoot, and if you shoot, you shoot to kill. It's all that simple, that's how they (we) as LEOs are trained. The perp's race; white, black, brown, or plaid, doesn't matter.
You are simply arguing a point that is not in dispute. And making a distinction without a difference while you are at it. The officer had no justification to even "draw" his weapon because even Stevie Wonder can clearly see on the video that Mr. Jones made no sudden move! He did NOT "dive headfirst into the car" as the trooper claimed. There was NOT any "aggressiveness" in his voice, demeanor, or actions. The man simply turned around and reached into his vehicle in order to produce his license as he was requested to do.

In announcing last week that he was terminating Groubert, Public Safety Director Leroy Smith said the trooper misread that Jones was a threat, used too much force for too long and violated several agency policies.

“This incident occurred in broad daylight. Mr. Groubert had a clear and unobstructed view of Mr. Jones,” Smith said in a statement.

“While Mr. Groubert was within the law to stop Mr. Jones for a safety-belt violation, the force administered in this case was unwarranted, inconsistent with how our troopers are trained and clearly in violation of department policies,” Smith said.

“Mr. Jones exited his vehicle in the convenience store parking lot, and Lance Cpl. Groubert asked for Mr. Jones’ license,” Smith said. “Mr. Jones turned to his vehicle and reached inside. For reasons that only Groubert can articulate at this point, he fired his service weapon multiple times while yelling repeatedly for Mr. Jones to ‘get out of the car.’
VIDEO RELEASED: SC trooper charged with felony in shooting at traffic stop over seat belt violation | CharlotteObserver.com

Even "drawing" a firearm falls onto the "Use of Force" spectrum ... and the Public Safety Director said unequivocally that "the trooper misread that Jones was a threat" when discussing why he was promptly terminated. Notice he did NOT say anything about the "level" or "degree" of the threat that Jones posed to the officer .... either real or perceived. Notice he did NOT say anything about a certain "level" or "degree" of the force administered being "unwarranted". There was absolutely no wiggle room afforded to the trooper in the assessment of his actions as was appropriate. Because in broad daylight with an unobstructed view it was clear that Jones did NOT pose any kind of threat to the trooper AT ALL. Therefore, no level of force ... even just "drawing" his weapon ... was justified in this situation. So again, the fact that you continue to insist that it was ... despite the assessment of South Carolina Department of Public Safety which oversees the State Highway Patrol ... is the mentality that's part and parcel of the problem.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Like you saying how people should just carry their phones in their sports coat? Well, you may not realize this, but not nearly as many people wear jackets as they do pants. And they carry their phones in their pants pockets. If the phone fits in the pants pocket (the 6+ does with most men), but can't reliably be carried that way, something is wrong with it.

(How in the hell is this in the PL? Oh yeah, it was part of OAW's tirade when he was personally attacking me. )
)
You are right. I've responded to this foolishness in the appropriate thread.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 02:59 PM
 
I'd say "too much force for too long" indicates wiggle room.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 03:36 PM
 
Ferguson demands high fees to turn over city files

Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
The city has demanded high fees to produce copies of records that, under Missouri law, it could give away free if it determined the material was in the public's interest to see. Instead, in some cases, the city has demanded high fees with little explanation or cost breakdown.

In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them. The AP has not paid for the search because it has yet to negotiate the cost.

Price-gouging for government files is one way that local, state and federal agencies have responded to requests for potentially embarrassing information they may not want released. Open records laws are designed to give the public access to government records at little or no cost, and have historically exposed waste, wrongdoing and corruption.
The story that keeps on giving (for a search fee, of course).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You are simply arguing a point that is not in dispute. And making a distinction without a difference while you are at it. The officer had no justification to even "draw" his weapon because even Stevie Wonder can clearly see on the video that Mr. Jones made no sudden move! He did NOT "dive headfirst into the car" as the trooper claimed. There was NOT any "aggressiveness" in his voice, demeanor, or actions. The man simply turned around and reached into his vehicle in order to produce his license as he was requested to do.

VIDEO RELEASED: SC trooper charged with felony in shooting at traffic stop over seat belt violation | CharlotteObserver.com

Even "drawing" a firearm falls onto the "Use of Force" spectrum ... and the Public Safety Director said unequivocally that "the trooper misread that Jones was a threat" when discussing why he was promptly terminated. Notice he did NOT say anything about the "level" or "degree" of the threat that Jones posed to the officer .... either real or perceived. Notice he did NOT say anything about a certain "level" or "degree" of the force administered being "unwarranted". There was absolutely no wiggle room afforded to the trooper in the assessment of his actions as was appropriate. Because in broad daylight with an unobstructed view it was clear that Jones did NOT pose any kind of threat to the trooper AT ALL. Therefore, no level of force ... even just "drawing" his weapon ... was justified in this situation. So again, the fact that you continue to insist that it was ... despite the assessment of South Carolina Department of Public Safety which oversees the State Highway Patrol ... is the mentality that's part and parcel of the problem.

OAW
I know, you've said all that. However, I went ahead and watched it again, and first, he shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle, when a cop pulls up behind you with his lights on, sit tight. Even better, place your hands on your steering wheel and in plain sight. If you are out of your vehicle for some reason and your wallet is in the car, explain to the officer what's going on and that you need to get back into the car to retrieve it. Otherwise, I do think he moved rather quickly (he didn't "dive") and it would have made me wonder what he's doing, and I would have reached for my firearm, possibly drawing it, while pointedly asking the man to explain his actions while watching every move he makes. That's just being careful and proactive, because not only am I potentially in danger, but so are all the bystanders at that gas station.

The cop in the video completely screws up in many areas; he freaked out (panicking never helps), he pointed his weapon, he shot the poor guy, he showed no remorse or concern for the man's injuries, he mistreated him while he was on the ground, and finally, he added insult to actual injury by cuffing him. I don't know what possessed him to act that way, but he so grossly overreacted that it's mindboggling. He shouldn't be a LEO, in fact it's so far outside of protocol that it makes me question the department's training and screening procedures that would allow someone like that on the street with a badge and gun. Not only should the cop be prosecuted but the dept needs to be thoroughly investigated from the top down.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 05:02 PM
 
Well put.

When I'm sitting in the comfort of my home and watching the video, it's abundantly clear the haste with which he turns and goes into the vehicle is an intent to comply as fast as possible.

In the split second the cop had to make a decision while on scene, it's also abundantly clear there's no way a could have made a successful determination about what was going on.

For the cop to do nothing, they would have to have made the determination the guy was getting his wallet.
For the cop to start filling the guy with lead, they would have to have made the determination the guy was armed.

The proper route when you can't make either determination is to prepare for both. Gun comes out to prepare for armed resistance, bullets stay in gun to prepare for compliance.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say "too much force for too long" indicates wiggle room.
Considering the fact that the use of force lasted a mere few seconds I would have to disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that the oversight agency didn't agree with any of the trooper's actions behind the initial stop. They pretty much said that explicitly.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2014, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I know, you've said all that. However, I went ahead and watched it again, and first, he shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle, when a cop pulls up behind you with his lights on, sit tight. Even better, place your hands on your steering wheel and in plain sight.
Well I would wholeheartedly agree with you if the trooper had actually pulled him over. As I stated earlier, the trooper did not turn his lights on behind Mr. Jones while he was driving. Mr. Jones had already parked in the gas station lot and was exiting his vehicle to go inside ... and that's when the trooper pulled up with the lights on. A very different situation.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If you are out of your vehicle for some reason and your wallet is in the car, explain to the officer what's going on and that you need to get back into the car to retrieve it.
On this we most definitely agree. Earlier I said that Mr. Jones "followed all the rules in the situation and STILL ended up shot." Upon further reflection I don't think that is the case. He followed 99% of the "Black Man's Guide for Dealing with the Police" because he should have done exactly what you said. That being said, a 99% still shouldn't result in being "flunked" and shot at by the police. At the end of the day Mr. Jones is a citizen and the trooper is a law enforcement professional. And we pay LEO's to exercise better judgement in these situations.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Otherwise, I do think he moved rather quickly (he didn't "dive") and it would have made me wonder what he's doing, and I would have reached for my firearm, possibly drawing it, while pointedly asking the man to explain his actions while watching every move he makes. That's just being careful and proactive, because not only am I potentially in danger, but so are all the bystanders at that gas station.
Had the trooper done just what you described we'd be having a very different discussion wouldn't you agree? Mr. Jones would not have been shot. The trooper would still have his job and not be facing charges. At most we'd be having a discussion about whether or not the trooper would have taken that same action if Mr. Jones were white. You would swear on a stack of bibles that the race of the person being stopped has nothing to with it. I would state how the historical record begs to differ ... and cite studies and statistics to prove it ... which you would then promptly ignore. But more likely we wouldn't be even discussing it at all because the fact of the matter is that black men get weapons drawn on them all day everyday by police officers ... whether it's warranted or not. The Stop & Frisk program in NYC being a prime example. So chances are it wouldn't have even made the news.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The cop in the video completely screws up in many areas; he freaked out (panicking never helps), he pointed his weapon, he shot the poor guy, he showed no remorse or concern for the man's injuries, he mistreated him while he was on the ground, and finally, he added insult to actual injury by cuffing him. I don't know what possessed him to act that way, but he so grossly overreacted that it's mindboggling. He shouldn't be a LEO, in fact it's so far outside of protocol that it makes me question the department's training and screening procedures that would allow someone like that on the street with a badge and gun. Not only should the cop be prosecuted but the dept needs to be thoroughly investigated from the top down.
I couldn't agree more!

As I mentioned earlier, this guy was previously honored as a "Trooper of the Year". But by your own assessment he shouldn't even be a LEO. And thank God he is not any longer. So I would ask you to consider that when the Darren Wilson supporters start citing his "commendation" in the Ferguson situation. IJS

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 30, 2014 at 03:15 PM. )
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 09:29 AM
 
For you OAW Cop Allegedly Shot Unarmed Man Parked In His Own Driveway
Ernest Satterwhite was a laid-back former mechanic with a habit of ignoring police officers who tried to pull him over — an act of defiance that ultimately got him killed.

The 68-year-old black great-grandfather was shot to death after a slow-speed chase as he parked in his own driveway, by a 25-year-old white police officer who repeatedly fired through the driver's side door.

Investigators determined that North Augusta Public Safety Officer Justin Craven broke the law. A prosecutor, in a rare action against a police officer, sought to charge him with voluntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. But the grand jury disagreed, indicting him on a misdemeanor.
In Satterwhite's case, prosecutors won't say why they sought a felony charge against Craven, who chased Satterwhite for 9 miles, beyond city limits and into Edgefield County.
Really hoping someone doesn't come in here and say not pulling over and leading them on a chase makes it ok that he gets shot in the end.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
On this we most definitely agree. Earlier I said that Mr. Jones "followed all the rules in the situation and STILL ended up shot." Upon further reflection I don't think that is the case. He followed 99% of the "Black Man's Guide for Dealing with the Police" because he should have done exactly what you said. That being said, a 99% still shouldn't result in being "flunked" and shot at by the police. At the end of the day Mr. Jones is a citizen and the trooper is a law enforcement professional. And we pay LEO's to exercise better judgement in these situations.
White, black, whatever, you don't quickly turn around and reach back into your vehicle during a traffic stop, that's not even close to being 99% correct. I already said he definitely shouldn't have been shot, however, so I'm not sure what else you want.

Had the trooper done just what you described we'd be having a very different discussion wouldn't you agree? Mr. Jones would not have been shot. The trooper would still have his job and not be facing charges. At most we'd be having a discussion about whether or not the trooper would have taken that same action if Mr. Jones were white. You would swear on a stack of bibles that the race of the person being stopped has nothing to with it. I would state how the historical record begs to differ ... and cite studies and statistics to prove it ... which you would then promptly ignore. But more likely we wouldn't be even discussing it at all because the fact of the matter is that black men get weapons drawn on them all day everyday by police officers ... whether it's warranted or not. The Stop & Frisk program in NYC being a prime example. So chances are it wouldn't have even made the news.
Current S&F ordinances are a result of bad city administration and the wrong people being in office.

As I mentioned earlier, this guy was previously honored as a "Trooper of the Year". But by your own assessment he shouldn't even be a LEO. And thank God he is not any longer. So I would ask you to consider that when the Darren Wilson supporters start citing his "commendation" in the Ferguson situation. IJS
People are neither 100% good or bad, it's always a mix. Righteous people do horrible things and bad people have performed the most noble of actions. My uncle told me that when he was in Nam there was a guy in his platoon who was a complete dick and always in trouble, he often started fights, was lazy, shirked his responsibilities, and was very unreliable, everyone hated him. Eventually he ended up punching his platoon leader, which resulted in him being busted in rank and landing in the brig for several months. After getting out he was pretty much the same, still an ass, but while on patrol he dove on a grenade, saving the lives of everyone in his squad. No one who knew him thought he was the type of person who would do something like that, maybe he even surprised himself in that moment before he died, but he instantly became the greatest hero that any of them would ever know and was buried in Arlington decorated with the Medal of Honor.

Humans are incredibly complex. The most complicated machine in the world might as well be a hammer, compared to the most simple of people.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Naturally I am not surprised in the slightest.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Really hoping someone doesn't come in here and say not pulling over and leading them on a chase makes it ok that he gets shot in the end.
Naturally I would not be surprised at that either.

From my reading of the article it sounds more like a "failure to promptly pull over" as opposed to a "chase". The guy wasn't "fleeing" or trying to "get away". He just drove home. And this cop just ran up to the car and opened fire through the driver's side door. And I dare say we all know why. He was pissed off because the man didn't pull over and made him follow him for several miles. He did it because he could. Naturally, there is the obligatory "he tried to grab my gun" BS ....

Edgefield County deputies who joined in the chase reported that Craven ran up to Satterwhite's parked car and fired several shots into the driver's side door, telling the other officers that Satterwhite tried to grab his gun. The other officers couldn't get Satterwhite's door open, so they broke the passenger side window, unlocked that door and dragged him out.
That's a really neat trick to try and grab and cop's gun when you are sitting INSIDE the car and the cop is standing OUTSIDE. When the other officers couldn't even get the driver's side door open and had to drag the mans body out from the passenger side.

I am heartened that in two instances now we see South Carolina law enforcement doing the right thing and charging these officers ... actually scratch that because they don't deserve the respect that comes with that term ... these cops with felonies. But I'm equally disheartened that a grand jury decided to go with a slap on the wrist in this instance.

Experts say it's the first time an officer was charged in a fatal shooting in roughly a decade. But the grand jury opted for "misconduct in office," a charge used for sheriffs who make inmates do their personal work, or officers who ask for bribes. Their single-page indictment, returned in August, contains no details other than accusing Craven of "using excessive force and failing to follow and use proper procedures."

Black leaders were astonished that an officially unjustified shooting of an unarmed man should merit such a light charge.

"It diminishes the nature of the violation — of the death. This man's life is only worth a misdemeanor?" said state Rep. Joe Neal, a Democrat who has spent decades speaking out against racism in law enforcement and demanding accountability through data and police cameras.
But of course, we are talking about a grand jury in the birthplace of the Confederacy. So naturally, I'm not surprised.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Oct 1, 2014 at 12:39 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
White, black, whatever, you don't quickly turn around and reach back into your vehicle during a traffic stop, that's not even close to being 99% correct. I already said he definitely shouldn't have been shot, however, so I'm not sure what else you want.
I don't "want" anything from you Shaddim. You are just stating your view and I'm just stating mine. That's all. Clearly we both agree that the officer should not have shot Mr. Jones. We also both agree that reaching back into his car really wasn't the best idea without clearing it with the officer trooper first. Sure we could quibble over the "percentage" to which he followed the "Black Man's Guide for Dealing with the Police" ... but I doubt we would ever come to a meeting of the minds on that. I suppose all I'm saying here is that given the fact that the trooper had just requested the man's license immediately before he reached back into his car ... one would think that would have crossed his mind and given him reason for pause. But clearly it did not because he went from 0-60 in 2.5 seconds on the brother! Would any LEO be wary of anyone ... regardless of ethnicity ... during a traffic stop if that person suddenly reached into a vehicle and their hands weren't visible to the officer? Absolutely! And they ought to be. Are black men viewed as "threatening" and "aggressive" and "violent" in American society? Absolutely! And study after study has proven just how ingrained this subconscious bias is in our culture. Are these two phenomena mutually exclusive? Absolutely NOT! Because when one takes a step back from the particulars of the various incidents being discussed in this thread and adopts a broader view ... there is a very consistent and chilling pattern over time that simply cannot be credibly denied.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 12:38 PM
 
This stood out to me:
"Why would he run up to the car like that?" asked Alpert. "Why would he put himself in a situation to use deadly force? Why would he put his gun close enough for him to grab it?"
He has a point. Unless it was a tiny alley-like driveway, he could certainly circle the car and aim at the guy without being in arms-reach of the driver.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Really hoping someone doesn't come in here and say not pulling over and leading them on a chase makes it ok that he gets shot in the end.
I'll come in here to point out that article was plagiarized from here:

North Augusta cop indicted in shooting shrouded in mystery - Aiken Standard

Good Lord, HuffPo is such a scumbag outfit.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
A prime example of how a officer cop/trooper will lie in a heartbeat to cover his ass after a bad shooting. This is what Trooper Groubert had to say (presumably to a supervisor) moments after the incident went down with Mr. Jones:

New audio released Tuesday by MSNBC has Groubert, 31, telling a very different version of what happened:

"I pulled him over for a seat belt violation. Before I could even get out of my car he jumped out, stared at me, and as I jumped out of my car and identified myself, as I approached him, he jumped head-first into his car," Groubert can be heard saying to his supervisor.

"I started retracting back towards the rear of his vehicle telling him 'Look, get out of the car, let me see your hands.' He jumped out of the car. I saw something black in his hands. I ran to the other side of the car, yelling at him, and he kept coming towards me. Apparently it was his wallet."


Groubert has been fired and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. Groubert has pleaded not guilty, with his lawyer claiming that the shooting was justified as Groubert felt he was in danger.
Listen: SC Cop Who Shot Man Reaching for His Wallet Tells His Side - The Root

This right here is just so ... typical. And the thing is a whole lot of people would simply take this dude at his word if it weren't for the video. And for decades cops have been getting away with this type of sh*t because of that. Hell most times when black men come up shot and/or killed in these situations the cop still walks even with video! Which is what I fully expect to happen in this case as well. In any event, let me go over all the baldfaced lies this trooper told ... again just moments after this all went down. Look at the video for yourself and you will see ...

- Groubert did not pull Jones over. Groubert rolled up on Jones after he had already parked, the driver's door was wide open, and he was already standing outside of the vehicle. The dash cam shows that Jones was already out of his car while Groubert's car was still in motion. He hadn't even parked yet!

- Groubert never identified himself. He said "Can I see your license please?". Groubert never said "let me see your hands". The only things he said between the moment he asked for the license to the moment Jones was in handcuffs were "Get out of the car!" and "Get on the ground!" and "Put your hands behind your back!".

- Jones never "jumped head-first into his car". He simply turned around, leaned over, and reached inside to retrieve his license as requested.

- Jones never approached Groubert. Not once. Not even a little bit! But let Groubert tell it ... "he kept coming towards me".

Now notice how Groubert's description of Jone's actions consistently give the impression that they were a lot more "aggressive" and "threatening" than they actually were. Jones "jumped out" instead of he was already outside his vehicle when he approached him. He "stared at me" instead of he was just looking at the trooper who was coming toward him. How "Zimmermanesque". He "jumped head-first into his car" instead of he reached inside his vehicle. He "jumped out of the car" instead of he just came out of the vehicle after you had just yelled "Get out of the car!" at him several times. "He kept coming towards me" instead of he was just standing there holding his license in his hand like you had asked ... and being shot.

Couple all of that with what Groubert chose not to mention. Again, he never mentioned that he had asked Jones for his license. He claimed he "identified himself" instead. So that makes Jones supposed "head-first dive" into the car sound more ominous. Hell, he never even mentions that he shot at Jones. Though in all fairness that could very well have been expressed via the code he used when he radioed into the station. But he damned sure didn't mention that he fired two more shots at Jones while his hands were in the air and he was backing away.



OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Oct 1, 2014 at 01:49 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This stood out to me:

He has a point. Unless it was a tiny alley-like driveway, he could certainly circle the car and aim at the guy without being in arms-reach of the driver.
Exactly. Unless of course your aim is to just run up and dump on the guy sitting in the front seat.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll come in here to point out that article was plagiarized from here:

North Augusta cop indicted in shooting shrouded in mystery - Aiken Standard

Good Lord, HuffPo is such a scumbag outfit.
In all fairness it's an Associated Press (AP) story. Any media outlet that's a contributing member or a subscriber to the AP can publish or re-publish AP material.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 01:49 PM
 
Good eye, and totally my bad.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:13 PM
 
More police shenanigans. This time in Tallahassee. A bit more relevant to the Ferguson situation because apparently Walking While Black (WWB) in the street is becoming an issue in certain quarters. What happened here is that some white officers cops decided to hassle two young black women and one young black man for walking in the street. Oh did I mention that it's a residential neighborhood with no sidewalks? Ummm ... yeah.

Some key excerpts from the video filmed by an unknown man standing on his front porch:

Man: These crooked ass police! Now they did all this right here …

Woman: Charles go in the house …

Man: What they gon’ do? They can’t do sh*t. They can’t do sh*t to me! ..... They walking down the street. This man did all this. Slamming people. Slamming this girl. All this f*ckery. Cause he walking in the street. Now look at this street now! It’s a motherf*cking pedestrian ass street!
A little time goes by ....

Man: This shit’s crazy.

Woman 2: Oh my God what happened?

Man: Walking in the street. Where there’s no sidewalks.
You then see and hear the officer cop arguing with the guy arrested in the back seat of the vehicle for walking in the street. Talking about how he gave him a verbal warning. Demanding to see his ID. Yada, yada, yada. Oh did I mention that the "official" police story is that they "were responding to recent complaints from citizens about drug deals in the neighborhood."? Funny how nothing of the sort was being discussed with the guy being arrested. At this point a 62 year old black woman begins to approach to inquire about one of the people who had been arrested. You can't see her because the camera is focused on the officer cop. Who then begins to yell …

Cop: Hey let me tell you something. If you walk up here and get involved you are going in the back of the car!

Elderly Lady: ::: says something that's mostly unintelligible but I can make out a bit that sounds like “my boy”. ::::

Cop: I don’t care! If you walk up here and get involved you are going in the back of the car!
In the meantime, another officer cop calmly approaches the elderly lady who is still off camera and nowhere near the first officer cop or his vehicle. Back on the porch we hear ...

Woman 2: Don’t come up, don’t come up, don’t come up. Back up! You gon’ go to jail. Don’t come up. Don’t … back up!
The man with the camera is keeping this second officer cop within the shot as he approaches the elderly lady. When she’s finally visible she’s just standing there. Motioning toward the police vehicle that is a good 20 - 30 feet away. The second officer cop does not say she’s under arrest … just calmly reaches for her am. She pulls away, turns around, and starts to walk away. At which point the officer cop casually proceeds to take out his taser, continue walking after her, and shoots her in the back!. The elderly lady then face plants onto the pavement! Immediately thereafter back on the porch ....

Man: Ohhhh!!!!!

Woman 2: Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my GOD! I don’t believe it!

Man: Y’ll tripping!

Woman 2: Oh my GOD!!!!

Man: Look at this sh*t! Done tased the lady for nothing.

Woman 2: That was ****ed up yo. Oh that was so f*cked up!
And a little while later ...

Woman 2: They tazing an old lady. It don’t get no realer.

Man: And they wonder why they’re hated.
Stun gun | theGrio

I'm struck by how calmly and casually this officer copy treated this old lady. We've come to expect this with black men. But an old lady? Woooooowwwwwwwww!!!!! That deserves all of these simultaneously.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:25 PM
 
Even more Ferguson related news ....

A suburban Chicago police officer was fired Monday because of Facebook posts he allegedly made.

Jason A. Lentz was a 17-year veteran of the Elgin Police Department. In a statement, Police Chief Jeffrey Swoboda said Lentz was fired after it was determined the officer engaged in conduct that "would undermine the credibility of the city or employees."

In one Facebook post, Lentz allegedly said Missouri police officer Darren Wilson "did society a favor'' when he shot and killed Michael Brown.

The shooting prompted several days of unrest. Another post praised a parent's decision to keep a child out of school on Veterans Day, noting schools are closed on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Lentz and his attorney, Timothy D. O'Neil, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The former officer was the first Elgin officer to be placed on administrative leave when the action was taken against him last month. The leave marked the fourth time that Lentz had his police powers stripped as a in an official action, according to information received through the FOIA request.
Elgin Officer Fired After Investigation Into Facebook Post | NBC Chicago

Stripped of his police powers four times so far. Which is indicative of the issue of bad cops getting fired in one PD only to get picked up a while later in another. Yet another drawback of having all these BS little municipalities in a county.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:30 PM
 
I wonder how cops would feel about a three strikes and you're out law.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:31 PM
 
Seems to me that what goes for the goose should go for the gander.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:40 PM
 
As an aside, Elgin isn't podunk, relatively speaking. Population of 100,000+.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2014, 03:59 PM
 
I'm pleased to report that justice has finally been done in the Jordan Davis re-trial ...

Michael Dunn was found guilty Wednesday of first-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Jordan Davis on Nov. 23, 2012, in a dispute over loud music.

The jury that heard Dunn's first trial in February found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and firing into an occupied vehicle, but a mistrial was declared on the first-degree murder charge when the jury remained deadlocked after 30 hours of deliberations.

Ten minutes into deliberations Wednesday, the jury submitted a question to the court, asking for a white board and extra writing pads.

During closing arguments on Tuesday, prosecutors said Dunn was shooting to kill, not defending himself, when he fired at Davis after the two had an argument over loud music outside a Jacksonville convenience store.

Closings began after the 47-year-old Dunn took the witness stand in his own defense, saying he feared for his life when he opened fire in November 2012.

"He wasn't shooting at the tires. He wasn't shooting at the windows. He was shooting to kill, aiming at Jordan Davis," prosecutor Erin Wolfson told jurors.

Wolfson delivered the prosecution's closing statement, saying the danger to Dunn was not real but perceived, and the law of self-defense doesn't allow for that. Wolfson said the threat was not real because there was no gun in the SUV.

"Let me be very clear: There was no shotgun in that red Durango that night," Wolfson said. "There was no stick, there was no branch, there was no hollow pipe. There was no weapon. Inside that Dodge Durango were four teenagers ... four kids who had just left their moms, four kids who were spending their Black Friday doing what lots of people do -- out at the mall, they were just hanging out, being kids, listening to music that they liked."

Wolfson said the shooting was premeditated, even though what happened lasted less than two minutes. Wolfson said Dunn had plenty of time to think about what he was going to do when he reached over, grabbed his gun, cocked it, aimed it and fired it.

"Taking aim at Jordan Davis, 10 shots -- that's what he fired that Friday night, nine of them hitting his intended target, each time intending to kill, and kill he did," Wolfson said.
Michael Dunn guilty of first-degree murder for killing Jordan Davis | News - Home

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2