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.
There are many things that people do which are illegal. That doesn't justify cops killing them.
He was just pointing more of OAW's BS, where he alleges that people are completely innocent, ie. "committed no crime", when they certainly aren't. As if the cops are killing them for sport, when they obviously aren't. The amount of spin he puts on these stories would be laughable, if it all wasn't so mind-numbingly absurd.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The problem appears to be it's unclear who to pin it on.
Not sure whether that's also legally the case, but morally speaking, should you go scot-free just if it cannot be determined which of several police officers shot the deadly bullet. Aren't there provisions which in other circumstance render this question null and void (I've heard that this is the case when you are committing a bank robbery, for instance, if your partner-in-crime shoots somebody in the process, you're also up for murder). Shouldn't he at least be convicted of the least crime (accessory to murder)?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I agree with you in a general sense, but there's something not adding up here.
Of course, there is a lot that doesn't add up. The fact that the verdict defies the sense of justice of a significant part of the population is just a result of that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Unless I read it wrong, it does seem like the judge thinks a voluntary manslaughter occurred.
The problem appears to be it's unclear who to pin it on.
The problem, to me, looks like they just picked one officer out of all involved nearly at random and decided to charge them. Certainly, they were the most aggressive during the incident. The outcome is still troubling, because I'm not sure the verdict would change if all of them were charged, but it does highlight another absurd flaw in the system where if you bury the people in barrage of bullets, obfuscating where the killing shot came from, you somehow get off scott free. In all honesty, this type of literal overkill should be a chargeable offense. People have pointed out Bonnie and Clyde had less bullets fired at them.
Technically speaking you are correct that it is "illegal". But given the circumstances very "understandable". Again, this couple was unarmed and committing no crime when from their perspective the police just started shooting at them out of the blue! We can all play the "should, coulda, woulda" game and try to hang our hats on the "illegality" of them fleeing for their lives ... but how many of us would have reacted the same way under the circumstances?
The city of Cleveland on Tuesday agreed to a broad set of police reforms, including an overhaul of its rules on the use of force, new oversight provisions and training to minimize racial bias.
The reforms were announced as part of a settlement with the Justice Department, which concluded in December that Cleveland police had engaged in a pattern of excessive force and civil rights violations.
Mayor Frank Jackson said the reforms were the beginning of "a new way of policing in the city of Cleveland, one built on the strong foundation of progressive change, sustained trust and accountability."
"This is really a defining moment for the city of Cleveland," he said.
The announcement came three days after a white police officer, Michael Brelo, was acquitted of manslaughter in the 2012 shooting deaths of two black motorists. They were killed in a 137-shot police fusillade.
Under the settlement, the city will direct police to "use de-escalation techniques rather than force" whenever possible, said Vinita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
The city also agreed to train its officers on minimizing racial bias, and to analyze data on stops, searches and seizures to guard against unconstitutional policing.
The city will reform oversight agencies and establish additional ones to investigate allegations of officer misconduct. A newly appointed police inspector general will report to the mayor.
An independent monitor will oversee the reforms and report to a federal judge.
In its investigation, the Justice Department found a pattern of improper police tactics that included shootings, blows to the head and excessive force against the mentally ill. Investigators concluded that Cleveland officers were not given adequate training and supervision.
Oh and BTW .... 12 year old Tamir Rice who was gunned down by a Cleveland police officer still hasn't been buried after 6+ months because the authorities conducting the "investigation" continue to drag their feet.
The problem, to me, looks like they just picked one officer out of all involved nearly at random and decided to charge them. Certainly, they were the most aggressive during the incident. The outcome is still troubling, because I'm not sure the verdict would change if all of them were charged, but it does highlight another absurd flaw in the system where if you bury the people in barrage of bullets, obfuscating where the killing shot came from, you somehow get off scott free. In all honesty, this type of literal overkill should be a chargeable offense. People have pointed out Bonnie and Clyde had less bullets fired at them.
Let's try and unwind this.
First, and this is an honest question, does the "barrage" part really matter? I'm sure department policy is you can't fire unless you intend to kill the person.
If I intend for you to die, what does it matter how many bullets I unload?
Yes. Firstly, it's reckless. Second, it's indicative of some problems in either decision making or emotional control. If an officer kills a man with his night stick in self-defense that's ok, right? What if he kills the man and proceeds to make his head pulp?
Yes. Firstly, it's reckless. Second, it's indicative of some problems in either decision making or emotional control. If an officer kills a man with his night stick in self-defense that's ok, right?
Bingo.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It’s a racially charged photo the Chicago Police Department didn’t want the public to see: two white cops posing with rifles as they stand over a black man lying on his belly with deer antlers on his head.
But a Cook County judge has refused to keep secret the shocking image of former Officers Timothy McDermott and Jerome Finnigan kneeling with what the police department says is an unidentified African-American drug suspect.
Believed to have been taken in a West Side police station between 1999 and 2003, the Polaroid photo was given to the city by the feds in 2013 and resulted in McDermott, a clout-heavy cop, being fired last year by the police board in a 5-to-4 vote. The four dissenters said McDermott should only have been suspended. But a majority of the board wrote that “appearing to treat an African-American man not as a human being but as a hunted animal is disgraceful and shocks the conscience.”
Federal prosecutors gave the photo to police investigators in 2013 about two years after Finnigan — the notorious other cop in the picture — was sentenced to 12 years in prison for leading a crew of rogue cops in robberies, home invasions and other crimes.
Double emphasis because stunning info buried within other stunning info.
In his closing arguments at the police board hearing, Herbert emphasized the lack of information about where and when the photo was taken — and the mystery surrounding the African-American man’s identity.
“What’s to say this individual wasn’t performing at a Christmas pageant in the district and was dressed as a reindeer and had taken the reindeer suit off? Again, I don’t mean to make preposterous arguments, but the charges in this case, they warrant that,” he said.
Herbert also compared the photo to an episode of “Seinfeld” in which Jerry is wrongly accused of picking his nose.
Herbert said there was strong evidence in the photo that the African-American man was a “willing participant” and was not coerced to pose with antlers. He even questioned whether the guns were really broomsticks carved to look like weapons.
Shameless.
Court records show McDermott was a defendant in four federal lawsuits accusing him and other officers of misconduct while he was assigned to the Special Operations Section and later, when he was a detective.
The city paid settlements in three of the cases and a jury awarded damages in a fourth case — with a total payout of $162,000. The city also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, records show.
But the lawsuits did not come up at McDermott’s police board hearing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Some people have absolutely no business being police officers.
A Virginia police officer resigned amid claims of excessive force when he used a Taser and pepper-sprayed a man who was suffering from a medical emergency, according to police accounts and newly released body cam video.
Fredericksburg Police Officer Shaun Jergens stepped down May 14, 10 days after he confronted wrong-way driver David Washington, 34, in a suspected hit-and-run crash.
But Washington had actually suffered a stroke, an unnamed source told WTOP.
While Jergens has denied any wrongdoing, Capt. Rick Pennock admitted Friday the officer used excessive force.
"The use of force demonstrated in the incident involving Mr. Washington was not in compliance with department policy or training," Pennock said in a statement. "We take matters such as these very seriously and require that officers at all times exercise appropriate restraint and good judgment in their dealings with citizens."
The showdown took place earlier this month when Washington plowed through a city road sign, drove over a median and eventually struck another car before his Hyundai came to a stop in the middle of an intersection near the campus of the University of Mary Washington.
Police responded to reports of a hit-and-run and found Washington still in his car. He refused to comply with officers' demands to show his hands, police said.
That's when Jergens, the last of three cops to arrive at the scene, promptly took control.
"It was dispatched via the radio that citizens reported that the suspect was moving around a lot inside of his vehicle," Jergens said in a statement to the Free Lance-Star. "I believed that the suspect may be looking for a weapon or looking to conceal a weapon based on this information and the fact that he was believed to be fleeing a felony (hit and run of an occupied vehicle)."
He approached the driver's side and shot Washington with a Taser through the open window, according to dramatic police footage.
Department policy doesn't permit officers to use stun guns on people passively resisting or still in control of a vehicle in motion, WTVR reported.
When his Taser didn't properly connect, video shows Jergens moved in close and doused Washington in the face with a stream of pepper spray as Cpl. Matt Deschenes opened the door and yanked an unresponsive Washington to the pavement.
Police, who found beer in the back seat of the Hyundai, believed Washington was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, according to WTOP.
Washington received medical attention at the scene and was hospitalized.
He still faces charges for driving with a suspended license, reckless driving and hit-and-run.
Look at the video for yourself. There's been a freaking car accident because the man had a stroke! You have a completely unresponsive driver. And this idiot's FIRST reaction is to taser him through and open window instead of providing medical attention? And when he remains unresponsive and this idiot's SECOND reaction is to open the door and pepper spray him for 10 continuous seconds? And when he continues to be unresponsive this idiot's THIRD reaction is to threaten to kill him?
The prosecutors seeking to send Timothy Tyrone Foster to death row went about their job in a curious manner. During jury selection, they highlighted each black prospective juror’s name in green—on four different copies of the jury list—and wrote that the green highlighting “represents blacks.” On each black juror’s questionnaire, prosecutors circled the response “black” next to a question about race. They also referred to three black jurors as “B#1,” “B#2,” and “B#3” in their notes. Finally, the prosecution’s investigator ranked each black juror against the others—in case “it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.”
The Supreme Court articulated the current standard governing jury selection in the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky. The court held that attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense may make a certain number of “peremptory challenges”—that is, they can strike prospective jurors during voir dire without giving a cause. However, prosecutors may not strike jurors on account of their race. Such race-based strikes, the court held, violate the defendant’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection, and undermine “public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.” (Since then, the court has also barred sex discrimination during jury selection, and the 9th Circuit has barred sexual orientation discrimination as well.)
How prosecutors manipulate the system:
Even worse, the prosecution attempted to dupe black jurors into disqualifying themselves. When querying prospective jurors about their opinion on capital punishment, the prosecution phrased the question graphically to 53 percent of blacks. (The so-called graphic script involved an explanation that, if sentenced to death, the defendant would be “taken to the death house and placed on a gurney and injected with a lethal substance until he is dead.”) To 94 percent of whites, the prosecution said only that it was “actively seeking the death penalty.” Clearly, the prosecution hoped that blacks would reflect some ambivalence about capital punishment after hearing about the “death house”—at which point the prosecution could strike them for opposing the death penalty, not for being black.
Peremptory challenges are "theoretically" neutral but race often enters the equation for the prosecution and the defense. It's a fact of life in America.
Now that the police are afraid to do their jobs for fear of arrest, the thugs are more bold and dangerous. When will the political haks realize their PC actions have backfired? I guess just ask someone living in west Baltimore. At some point the police will have to take back the city, and gunfire will most likely be used. Perhaps the cops DID have it right, and the (liberal)political hacks were wrong yet again.
Now that the police are afraid to do their jobs for fear of arrest, the thugs are more bold and dangerous. When will the political haks realize their PC actions have backfired?
It would appear this police officer had no "fear of arrest" when dealing this with 8 months pregnant "thug" ...
The woman who was slammed to the ground by California police while eight months pregnant says she was scared for the life of her child.
The ACLU of Southern California released footage of Barstow officers taking Michelle Cooks to the ground while pleading with the officers to take care, because she was pregnant. The officers had responded to a traffic incident in which she and an unidentified white woman accused each other of hurling threats over a near collision.
“I felt like he took her word over mine automatically,” Cooks said. “He automatically assumed I was guilty.”
After Cooks refused to show ID, which she had a legal right to do, the argument between Cooks and the officer escalated.
“Cooks should not have been arrested for failure to identify herself,” an ACLU statement said. “A person who is not suspected of a crime has no obligation to identify herself. Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California (unlike some other states), he can’t just require a person to provide ID for no reason. The officer can ask for ID, but the person can say no.
“In California, as long as the request for ID is not reasonably related to the scope of the stop, you have the right to refuse to show your ID to law enforcement except in the following cases: If you’re driving and pulled over, you need to show ID (and) if you have been arrested or booked, show your ID,” the ACLU said.
She was then handcuffed with her hands behind her back. So, when she fell to the ground, she had no way to protect her stomach as she fell.
“She ended up on the ground and on her belly. She couldn’t use her hands to break her fall, and she was unable to pick herself up afterwards,” the ACLU said. “The ACLU has long advocated restricting the use of restraints on pregnant women. It’s a terrible idea to handcuff a pregnant woman behind her back. This video shows why.”
During the arrest, Cooks said, she was terrified that her baby had been damaged.
“I was in unbelievable pain,” she said. “I felt they killed my baby already.”
A crying Cooks also admitted, “I’m really scared. I’m trying to move out of Barstow now, like tomorrow.”
1. The "officer" had this to say to the little blond white woman before the confrontation with the 8 months pregnant black woman ...
OFFICER: I don't see right now ... I don't see a crime that has been committed. If there was damages I would give you the opportunity to place her under a citizen's arrest if you wanted to. I don't see any crime. I'm going to document her name*. Probably a story I'm pretty sure she's going to give you a story of where it was your fault and this and that. But we'll just document that and see where her car is and we'll go from there. Ok? Is that fair enough?
2. The 8 months pregnant black woman has a legal right to refuse to identify herself since she was not driving nor being detained/arrested.
3. The "officer" told the 8 months pregnant black woman that he had the right to ask her for her name under the circumstances. Which was wrong because she had not been pulled over nor was being detained/arrested for what he had already said was a non-existent crime.
4. The 8 months pregnant black woman told the "officer" her name was Michelle anyway twice before he decided to get physical with her.
5. The "officer" decided he was going to give the 8 months pregnant black woman 2 minutes to give up her name. When she said "I just told you my name was Michelle." he responded with "No, no .... it's not good enough" and proceeded to try to handcuff her after 20 seconds. Never even said she was under arrest.
6. The 8 months pregnant black woman was then manhandled to the ground by this "officer" onto her stomach as she screamed in pain and fear. He handcuffed her and then said she was being arrested. The charge? "Obstruction" ... which those of us who aren't knee-deep in denial all know is what cops charge you with when they want to take you to jail but have no legitimate basis to arrest you.
7. It would have been smarter for the 8 months pregnant black woman to just give her full name to the "officer" even though she had a legal right not to. It just wasn't that serious.
8. It would have been smarter for the "officer" not to manhandle an 8 months pregnant black woman to the ground onto her stomach and then handcuff and arrest her for no other reason than because she defied him by refusing to give her full name. It just wasn't that serious.
9. This is a prime example of how an officer "being polite" with his words is not necessarily the same thing as "showing respect" with his actions.
10. The "officer" in question never once asked the little blond white woman for her name. Imagine that.*
It would appear this police officer had no "fear of arrest" when dealing this with 8 months pregnant "thug" ...
Single incident. What about the big increase in violent crime in Baltimore due to the political cowards making poor decisions, like in Ferguson. Perhaps the police need to get back to the ways they were working so as to reduce the violence. You have never addressed this.
We are on page 45 of a thread with over 2222 posts. You would have to be blind, crippled, and crazy to think this is a single incident. We have a thread full of "single incidents". The million dollar question is what will it take for YOU to finally acknowledge the "pattern".
Originally Posted by BadKosh
What about the big increase in violent crime in Baltimore due to the political cowards making poor decisions, like in Ferguson. Perhaps the police need to get back to the ways they were working so as to reduce the violence. You have never addressed this.
Baltimore has a long history of "violent crime". Like other major metropolitan cities it ebbs and it flows. But the overall trend over time is downward. In any event, the police getting "back too the ways that were working" is a fanciful notion at best. For one .. it's such "ways" that are the topic of this very thread! And on top of that ... such "ways" have NEVER stopped violent crime. Baltimore is at 100 homicides thus far this year when they were at 71 this time last year. Ok fine. Is that your definition of "working"? Do you really think the actions of the Baltimore PD have any meaningful impact on the level at which criminal gangs get violent with each other trying to control the drug trade? The #1 employment industry in many Baltimore neighborhoods? Come on man ... the Baltimore PD's job is to clean up the mess when it comes to "violent crime" ... not to prevent it! Just look at the numbers ...
As you can see the rates of murder and rape have been fairly steady in Baltimore since 2000. Whereas the rates of robberies and assaults peaked in 2000. Do you really think those numbers are solely controlled by politicians in Baltimore City Hall? Does it not occur to you that the individuals involved actually have a say in the matter?
No. I'm saying the "let them destroy stuff and crowd around cops trying to arrest" attitude by politicals has backfired. I'm saying the aggressive tactics being used before may be needed. Those tactics were adapted to combat the type of violence they saw in the streets. Where are the "Black Leaders" and racist mouthpieces like Sharpton? They just get to stir it up, grab the cash and vanish?
No. I'm saying the "let them destroy stuff and crowd around cops trying to arrest" attitude by politicals has backfired. I'm saying the aggressive tactics being used before may be needed.
What you think of aggressive tactics is the opposite of good crowd control.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
No. I'm saying the "let them destroy stuff and crowd around cops trying to arrest" attitude by politicals has backfired. I'm saying the aggressive tactics being used before may be needed. Those tactics were adapted to combat the type of violence they saw in the streets. Where are the "Black Leaders" and racist mouthpieces like Sharpton? They just get to stir it up, grab the cash and vanish?
I know this is likely a waste of breath on my part but I'll say it anyway just to expose this illogical thinking for what it is. The Fox News crowd is all besides themselves because Baltimore has 100 murders this year so far when last year they had 71 at this time. Now let's put aside the fact that their "concern" is decidedly lacking about murders in poor black neighborhoods until white police officers are on the hot seat over their actions or white property owners start losing money. That much is obvious. My point here is that the Fox News crowd is blaming this "spike" in the Baltimore murder rate on the aftermath of the riots. BadKosh himself has gone there THREE times thus far. But for this to be true said "spike" would have had to occur AFTER the riots. Police cars were attacked with rocks on 4/25. The CVS was burned on 4/27. But the 100 murders in Baltimore so far this year include all since JANUARY!!!
Produce stats showing that the murder rate from 1/1/14 - 4/25/14 was virtually IDENTICAL to the murder rate between 1/1/15 - 4/25/15. And then the statistics showing the murder rate between 4/25/15 - 5/30/15 was SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the same period in the previous year. If you can THEN you might have some semblance of a point. But until then ....
I blame dumbass Leftist lawmakers in California, for making it a misdemeanor to not show your ID when a LEO asks for it. Maybe you should direct your ire at the shitheads who make the laws? Or does that make too much sense?
(Also, "slammed to the ground"? Not so much.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No. I'm saying the "let them destroy stuff and crowd around cops trying to arrest" attitude by politicals has backfired. I'm saying the aggressive tactics being used before may be needed. Those tactics were adapted to combat the type of violence they saw in the streets. Where are the "Black Leaders" and racist mouthpieces like Sharpton? They just get to stir it up, grab the cash and vanish?
I imagine the more self-deluded among us will STILL claim that race has nothing to do with it though ...
Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.
An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.
The findings emerged from a database filled by a five-month study of police fatalities in the US, which calculated that local and state police and federal law enforcement agencies are killing people at twice the rate calculated by the US government’s official public record of police homicides. The database names five people whose names have not been publicly released.
The Guardian’s statistics include deaths after the police use of a Taser, deaths caused by police vehicles and deaths following altercations in police custody, as well as those killed when officers open fire. They reveal that 29% of those killed by police, or 135 people, were black. Sixty-seven, or 14%, were Hispanic/Latino, and 234, or 50%, were white. In total, 102 people who died during encounters with law enforcement in 2015 have been unarmed.
The figures illustrate how disproportionately black Americans, who make up just 13% of the country’s total population according to census data, are killed by police. Of the 464 people counted by the Guardian, an overwhelming majority – 95% – were male, with just 5% female.
Steven Hawkins, the executive director Amnesty International USA, described the racial imbalance as “startling”. Hawkins said: “The disparity speaks to something that needs to be examined, to get to the bottom of why you’re twice as likely to be shot if you’re an unarmed black male.”
Relatives of unarmed people killed by police in high-profile incidents during the past year – including Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tony Robinson and Walter Scott – described the Guardian project as a breakthrough in the national debate over the use of deadly force by law enforcement.
“Giving this kind of data to the public is a big thing,” said Erica Garner, whose father’s killing by police in New York City last year led to international protests. “Other incidents like murders and robberies are counted, so why not police-involved killings? With better records, we can look at what is happening and what might need to change.”
The initiative was also praised by a range of policing experts and by campaigners who are urging government authorities to make the official recording of fatalities mandatory for all 18,000 police departments and law enforcement agencies operating in the US.
“It’s troubling that we have no official data from the federal government,” said Laurie Robinson, the co-chair of Barack Obama’s task force on 21st century policing. “I think it’s very helpful, in light of that fact, to have this kind of research undertaken.”
Beginning on Monday, the Guardian is publishing The Counted, a comprehensive interactive database monitoring all police killings in the US through 16 data points including age, location, gender, ethnicity, whether the person killed was armed and which policing agency was responsible.
The Counted logs the precise location of each fatal incident, providing what is the most detailed map of police killings ever published. California, America’s most populous state, has the highest total with 74 fatalities so far this year.
However, an analysis of location data shows that Oklahoma, where 22 people have died through encounters with law enforcement, is the state with the highest rate of fatal incidents per person in 2015, at one fatality per 175,000 people over five months.
An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The witnesses who saw a Broward County deputy sheriff kill a man who had strolled through his apartment complex with an unloaded air rifle propped on his shoulders agreed: Just before he was gunned down, Jermaine McBean had ignored the officers who stood behind him shouting for him to drop his weapon.
Nothing, the officer swore under oath, prevented Mr. McBean from hearing the screaming officers.
Newly obtained photographic evidence in the July 2013 shooting of Mr. McBean, a 33-year-old computer-networking engineer, shows that contrary to repeated assertions by the Broward Sheriff’s Office, he was wearing earbuds when he was shot, suggesting that he was listening to music and did not hear the officers. The earphones somehow wound up in the dead man’s pocket, records show.
Damn earbud fairies.
In civil wrongful death cases throughout South Florida, lawyers discovered that files were missing, that dashboard camera videos had been erased and that police department accounts sometimes did not match the evidence. Cases like Mr. McBean’s underscore how law enforcement agencies that handle their own shooting investigations can be exposed to criticism years after the crime-scene tape has been taken down and the television cameras are gone.
In a move that baffled his family, he walked to a pawnshop where he paid $106 for a green camouflage-colored Winchester 1000 air rifle, a device that uses compressed air to fire pellets but can be easily mistaken for a hunting rifle. Three people called 911 to report him, saying he was “screaming to himself” but perhaps holding a toy.
A deputy, a sergeant and a lieutenant went up behind Mr. McBean after he turned into the complex where he lived, and they shouted for him to drop the weapon. After ignoring them, Mr. McBean at one point stopped and started to turn to his right, when the deputy, behind him on his left, began to fire, records and interviews show. Mr. McBean fell on his back, howled in pain and said, “It was just a BB gun.”
In a sworn statement, the lieutenant said Mr. McBean had pointed the weapon “in a menacing manner,” something Mr. McCarthy and another witness interviewed disputed. Mr. McCarthy has not been called to testify before the grand jury, the family’s lawyer said.
Sheriff’s office homicide detectives investigating the shooting interviewed several people who were gathered at the nearby pool, but did not ask them whether Mr. McBean had pointed the gun at the officers, transcripts show.
The deputy who shot him, Peter Peraza, said he had feared for his life, convinced that Mr. McBean was about to start firing. Deputy Peraza was asked at least five times whether there was any reason that Mr. McBean would not have heard the officers’ commands, such as whether there was anything in his ears. Each time, Deputy Peraza said no. Investigators learned last week that a neighbor had taken a picture that clearly shows white earphone cables coming out of Mr. McBean’s ears and two officers very close to the body.
Sheriff Scott Israel declined to comment on the pending case, but insisted that the sheriff’s office conducted thorough investigations of its shootings. Sheriff Israel recently lost a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a former homicide detective who said he had been demoted to patrolman after reporting that excessive force was used on a homicide suspect. A judge threw out the verdict because of a problem with one of the jurors.
A lot of people wear them without listening to anything. My nephew was pretending to not be listening to me, so one of the shop guys walked up behind him and cut the earphone cable. He didn't react at all, he just sat that there pretending to be listening while continuing to ignore everyone. Lesson learned.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The phrase “Hands up, don’t shoot,” has come to define a movement protesting alleged mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of police. It came from a witness account of how African-American 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer.
Only the account proved to be entirely false. Even the Justice Department has said so.
The news media helped spread the theme with massive coverage of the Ferguson, Mo., shooting. Journalists are still perpetuating it, though the claim has been disproven.
ABC, NBC and CBS used the phrase -- mostly B-roll of protesters chanting -- an incredible 140 times from the day Brown was shot to the date the Department of Justice report was released. Even after the government determined the phrase had no credibility, network journalists continued to use it an additional 16 times, most recently in coverage of the Baltimore riots and during protester attacks on citizens in Cleveland following the Brelo verdict.
That is equally troubling since they had every opportunity to invalidate the phrase or explain why it was false. For instance, on Good Morning America March 19, reporter Linsey Davis even explained the chant’s Ferguson roots, without telling viewers the phrase was inaccurate.
ABC continued avoiding the truth more than a month later in the middle of covering the Baltimore riots, on World News Tonight, April 28. Senior National Correspondent Jim Avila explained that protesters were shouting, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” but made no further comment or clarification. The following night’s broadcast also showed protesters chanting the phrase without comment by Avila.
Cleveland protests grew violent after Officer Michael Brelo was acquitted in the deaths of two men following a high-speed chase. ABC World News Tonight led into its May 24, 2015, report with protesters marching and chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot,” and even holding a sign to that effect. Correspondent Alex Perez explained, “Police making 71 arrests, mostly for violence against bystanders.” ABC made no attempt to point out just how wrong the protesters were.
In fact, CBS was the only broadcast network to report that the phrase was debunked -- in one segment.
The phrase “Hands up, don’t shoot,” has come to define a movement protesting alleged mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of police. It came from a witness account of how African-American 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer.
Only the account proved to be entirely false. Even the Justice Department has said so.
That's not what the DOJ said. "Proved to be entirely false" is NOT the same thing as .....
It found no evidence to disprove Wilson’s contention he acted in self-defense and no credible evidence Brown had his hands up attempting to surrender.
First of all this has already been addressed several times in this thread. Dorian Johnson was deemed to be "not credible" as a potential witness because he claimed Brown was "shot in the back" ... but there were no entrance wounds in Brown's back. But as I've already explained people often speak colloquially and not necessarily medically or legally. Multiple witnesses ... not just Johnson ... said that as Brown was fleeing Wilson fired at him and Brown appeared to flinch as if he was struck. These were witnesses who did not know Johnson nor had they had an opportunity to hear Johnson's account before they made theirs. So this article is completely full of it when it tries to claim that this became the theme because Johnson said it and the media ran with it. Ummm .... no. Accounts of Brown having his hands in the air were all over social media seconds after the shooting. Like this one ...
"He had his f*cking hands in the air!"
Does that look like Dorian Johnson to you? That was captured before Johnson even gave his first interview.
I've mentioned this to you several times before. Most recently here. Funny how you never seem to address such counter-points.
In any event, it was at that point that witnesses said Brown turned around, put his hands in the air, and tried to surrender. People will sometimes say "shot in the back" in general when what they really mean specifically is "shot from behind". The autopsy results showed a gunshot wound to the side of Brown's arm that the medical examiner could not determine conclusively if Brown was facing of fleeing Wilson at the time of the injury. You had some witnesses who claimed Brown had his hands in the air completely. Others said one hand was up and the other was about shoulder level. Perhaps he was struggling to raise the one arm because he had been shot in it? You see that's something that should have been explored at an actual trial but that won't happen now because the system is designed to protect police officers. Period! The key takeaway from all of this is that the witnesses accounts were highly scrutinized and if anything was amiss with ONE of their statements they were deemed "not credible" in ALL of their statements. No matter how tangential the statement was to the key issue. Like how the white guy in the video above who was clear as day that Brown had his hands in the air SECONDS after the shooting was deemed "not credible" because he made a statement DAYS after the shooting that there were other officers on the scene when in reality Wilson was alone. Of course, Wilson wasn't cross examined at all. He wasn't deemed to be "not credible" because of discrepancies between earlier accounts and what he told the grand jury ... because he was never asked about them. Of course, the article you cited failed to mention that part. Imagine that.
Driving While Black (DWB) continues to be a really big thing in Missouri ....
Black drivers were significantly more likely to be stopped by police in Missouri in 2014 than white drivers, a new report from Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has found.
In fact, the state's disparity index between black and white drivers -- which describes the difference between the rate at which members of each racial group are stopped, as measured against its share of the driving-age population -- is the highest it's been since Missouri began tracking that number in 2000, the AG says.
In 2014, black drivers were 75 percent more likely than white drivers to be pulled over, according to the Attorney General's analysis of data provided by police departments across the state.
Blacks make up just 10.9 percent of Missouri's population, yet comprised 18 percent of all traffic stops, the report found. White drivers, who make up 82.76 percent of the state's population, comprised only 78.3 percent of stops. That gave black drivers a disparity index value of 1.66, while white drivers' index value was 0.95.
"A disparity index of 1 suggests that members of that group are stopped in perfect proportion with their population," the report notes. "If the disparity index is higher than 1, it indicates the group is over-represented in traffic stops compared to what one would expect given their population size."
Interestingly, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and people of unknown race were also stopped at rates below their proportion of the driving population, the report found.
However, once they were pulled over, Hispanic drivers joined their black counterparts in being more likely to be searched than whites. Compared to white drivers, black drivers were 1.73 percent more likely to be searched; Hispanic drivers were 1.9 percent more likely to be searched.
That's true even though, on average, black and Hispanic drivers were less likely to be found with contraband, according to the study. For white drivers, contraband was found in 26.9 percent of searches; for black drivers, that was true of just 21.4 percent of searches, and for Hispanics, just 19.5 percent of searches.
"The findings continue a disturbing trend for African-American drivers in Missouri," Koster concludes in his analysis. "The disparity index for African-American drivers has increased steadily over the last fifteen years, with only slight, temporary drops three times" -- in 2004, 2010 and 2012.
(and pointing out behavior in me that you don't like generally makes it worse, FYI. You'd think after so many years people around here would know that by now.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's not a 'fact', nor information of any worth (Shaddim with anecdotes?! Who woulda thunk it?)
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
(and pointing out behavior in me that you don't like generally makes it worse, FYI. You'd think after so many years people around here would know that by now.)
Yeah, I'm sure this little habit of your will just dry up if no one draws attention to it. My point isn't to annoy you, my point is to warn others so they don't take the bait.
That's not a 'fact', nor information of any worth (Shaddim with anecdotes?! Who woulda thunk it?)
Right, people don't wear earphones without listening to music, they always have music playing when they're on.
Yeah, I'm sure this little habit of your will just dry up if no one draws attention to it. My point isn't to annoy you, my point is to warn others so they don't take the bait.
In that instance I was actually pointing out a fairly common behavior (wearing earphones for their sound isolation properties, not just for listening to music). You were the one who started that, so maybe you should look at your own behavior, because if you're going to jump my shit, maybe you should stop to think about whether it is.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In that instance I was actually pointing out a fairly common behavior (wearing earphones for their sound isolation properties, not just for listening to music).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
My nephew was pretending to not be listening to me
Yes it was, in part. Technically my statement was addressing 2 reasons why people might wear them and not be listening to anything. The statement you had an issue with, that you actually quoted, could go either way.
A lot of people wear them without listening to anything.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yes it was, in part. Technically my statement was addressing 2 reasons why people might wear them and not be listening to anything. The statement you had an issue with, that you actually quoted, could go either way.
Now who's being contrarian? Just throwing this out there, but why does it f*cking matter when an observation is made if it's a potentially valid one? That would imply you're more concerned about some kind of point scoring in an argument rather than trying to look at all perspectives in a situation to see the facts. If that's the case, then you aren't the type of person I thought you were. For you is this all about keeping some type of score. Because if it is, discussing anything with you in the PL is a waste of time (like talking with OAW, or bess when he's off his meds).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
1) Man is gunned down when not responding to officers
2) Under investigation officers swear the man was not wearing headphones and nothing impeded his ability to hear their commands
3) Witness photos clearly show headphones in man's ears
4) Oddly, the headphones end up in dead man's pocket
5) You come in and say "Some people don't listen to anything while wearing headphones"
This whole thread is about police misconduct and your minutely, technically valid point about some people not listening to music when wearing headphones, just is not rooted in any logic in this discussion. It is just a galazy-sized "So what?". It just boggles probably more than a couple minds here that THAT is where you choose to take the absorption of those facts.
Even if we take into account this technically correct point, and the man, while aware of being black and aware of what he was carrying, purposefully ignored stern warnings from armed officers, the headphones were still removed from the body; the situation certainly, without a doubt looks fishy at the very best.
1) Man is gunned down when not responding to officers
2) Under investigation officers swear the man was not wearing headphones and nothing impeded his ability to hear their commands
3) Witness photos clearly show headphones in man's ears
4) Oddly, the headphones end up in dead man's pocket
5) You come in and say "Some people don't listen to anything while wearing headphones" and imply this man was simply ignoring cops
This whole thread is about police misconduct and your minutely, technically valid point about some people not listening to music when wearing headphones, just is not rooted in any logic in this discussion. It is just a massive "So what?".
Because it IS technically valid, some people do wear earphones without listening to anything, I've done it before myself, it's a (albeit minor) point to consider, and if we paint all shootings performed by cops with the same broad brush (saying all of these are instances of malfeasance) then we're no better than a mob carrying pitchforks.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
1) Man is gunned down when not responding to officers
2) Under investigation officers swear the man was not wearing headphones and nothing impeded his ability to hear their commands
3) Witness photos clearly show headphones in man's ears
4) Oddly, the headphones end up in dead man's pocket
5) You come in and say "Some people don't listen to anything while wearing headphones"
This whole thread is about police misconduct and your minutely, technically valid point about some people not listening to music when wearing headphones, just is not rooted in any logic in this discussion. It is just a galazy-sized "So what?". It just boggles probably more than a couple minds here that THAT is where you choose to take the absorption of those facts.
Even if we take into account this technically correct point, and the man, while aware of being black and aware of what he was carrying, purposefully ignored stern warnings from armed officers, the headphones were still removed from the body; the situation certainly, without a doubt looks fishy at the very best.
The very fact that you even had to explain something so basic exemplifies my longstanding point that some otherwise intelligent people are so deep in denial about these issues that they quite literally take leave of their common sense when discussing them.
Just throwing this out there, but why does it f*cking matter when an observation is made if it's a potentially valid one? That would imply you're more concerned about some kind of point scoring in an argument rather than trying to look at all perspectives in a situation to see the facts. If that's the case, then you aren't the type of person I thought you were. For you is this all about keeping some type of score. Because if it is, discussing anything with you in the PL is a waste of time (like talking with OAW, or bess when he's off his meds).
Top