Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → The Largest Street Gang in America
1234567
The Largest Street Gang in America
2010-02-09, 9:17 AM #121
How were they supposed to know he was mentally ill? How did they know he wasn't just a dick? How did they know he wasn't on drugs? Better yet, what does it matter? The mentally ill man IS to blame for his actions. He's the one who was doing them. Even if he is mentally ill, that doesn't make his actions less dangerous. It's an unfortunate situation. Yet again I point out that a swat team and other officers in some combination shot the guy. They didn't even say if the guy who slipped shot him...just that he slipped and his gun fired. They TRIED using nonlethal means, and it didn't work. I'd just like to know what exactly you expected them to do. Perhaps do some neat movie-flips and disarm him with a tiger-claw judo flip? They're human beings, they're not action heroes.

Edit: I should be specific here. I'm not saying that this situation couldn't have or shouldn't have turned out better for all involved. All I'm saying is that you can't expect police officers to work miracles every time they go out on a call. They do their best, and sometimes things go wrong and people get hurt. In this case, at least it was the guy swinging the hammer and not some bystander. That's why the police show up, so that they are the ones in harm's way, not you. But like I said, they can't be perfect all the time, and you can't blame them for not being perfect.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 9:21 AM #122
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
How were they supposed to know he was mentally ill? How did they know he wasn't just a dick? How did they know he wasn't on drugs? Better yet, what does it matter? The mentally ill man IS to blame for his actions. He's the one who was doing them. Even if he is mentally ill, that doesn't make his actions less dangerous. It's an unfortunate situation. Yet again I point out that a swat team and other officers in some combination shot the guy. They didn't even say if the guy who slipped shot him...just that he slipped and his gun fired. They TRIED using nonlethal means, and it didn't work. I'd just like to know what exactly you expected them to do. Perhaps do some neat movie-flips and disarm him with a tiger-claw judo flip? They're human beings, they're not action heroes.


Exactly. Being retarded doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for his actions.

In any event, it sounds like things worked out for the best. The police were able to successfully defend themselves and a useless drain on society is removed. Win/win.
2010-02-09, 9:31 AM #123
Um... I wouldn't go that far.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 9:32 AM #124
Quote:
How were they supposed to know he was mentally ill?

When I first heard about this story on the news, there were several witnesses that claimed they were shouting at the police, telling them that the man had a history of mental illness. They could be lying but it's worth exploring further. I would argue that anyone that comes at the police with a hammer is at least temporarily mentally unstable.

Quote:
The mentally ill man IS to blame for his actions. He's the one who was doing them.

Is a child to blame for their actions? We only prosecute children as adults in the most heinous of crimes because it's a universally accepted that their brains haven't developed beyond a certain point. Even our court system acknowledges insanity as a viable plea & they often take in to consideration someone's mental state. I guess we'll never know whether or not he was insane, because the cops decided that he was guilty & gave him the death penalty. This doesn't appear to me to be a case of self-defense, but that's up to the court to decide.

If they weren't able to take down the guy with the tools that they had available, why didn't they have better tools? It would be easy for me to write this off as simply saying that they did the best they could with what they had, but if these situations are to be prevented in the future, there should be a lot more emphasis placed on what the police are doing wrong & what they could do to make it better. This is 2010. This isn't the first time that a crazy man has come at the police with a carpenter's tool in his hand. I don't think it's that we're incapable of developing the tactics & technology needed to take down someone like this without killing them, I think it's just that we don't care enough about doing so.
? :)
2010-02-09, 9:35 AM #125
So police should never harm anyone they deal with because they might be mentally unstable? That's pretty much everyone they deal with. It doesn't excuse their actions, it only explains them.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 9:59 AM #126
It's impossible to take someone in to custody without harming them whether it be mentally or physically. However, I think there are several cases where the police could take someone in to custody without killing them. How do those countries where the police don't carry guns deal with these situations? If we weren't hell-bent on violence we'd probably be asking that question.
? :)
2010-02-09, 10:09 AM #127
Originally posted by ButterBalls:
If the woman hadn't indicated that she may have had suicidal tendencies they wouldn't have had to strip her for her own protection.


They could have asked her to remove her clothes with only female officers in the room. Also, it doesn't excuse them leaving her there without any clothes. They could have given her a jumpsuit and then cuffed her hands so she couldn't get out of it.
2010-02-09, 10:22 AM #128
Originally posted by Avenger:
And with things like Brain mentioned, the directives are more than likely coming from someone at city hall or the county office or something like that to start ticketing.


This is the part that troubles me; I've sold every car I've owned this way (3 times) over the last 7 years. Never been cited once. All of my neighbors and others do it, too. They only recently started enforcing it because the city needs my $55 to pay our bull**** police department. A study in a local newspaper found that it takes 55 minutes for the PD to respond to an armed robbery in progress. They just started enforcing it to cover for the stupid mistakes of the city.

There's also a lot of local history that I won't get into, but it involves proven police corruption and other illegal activities that did not result in any firings or discipline for the guilty parties, which only makes things worse for the citizens.

I don't mind paying a fine when I know I deserve it (speeding, parking in a red zone, etc); the problem is that I only started "deserving it" when the city got desperate for cash.
2010-02-09, 10:41 AM #129
The court system can decide whether a mentally ill person should be sent to prison, but you can't just let violent mentally ill people back out on the street because "oh, he don't know no better!" That's exactly the kind of person you DON'T want back out on the streets, until you can find a way to get them to know better (treatment, medication, whatever it may be).

The taser is THE BEST tool that police have to prevent this kind of situation. That is our current top-level technology. This is 2010, not Star Trek. It's the closest thing we have to a phaser set to stun or whatever magical device you wish we had. If you would like to invest your money in developing a better technology, or into promoting the wider proliferation of tasers to police (and combat the people who yell "police brutality" every time an officer tasers someone, or pepper sprays them, or fights them, or restrains them) then I fully support you. I agree...the more well equipped we can make these officers, the better for everyone.

For whatever reason, the equipment they had failed. You can't necessarily blame the officers for that. The gun was a last resort, but in order to be effective, it has to be there. It looks to me like one of the officers had the guy at gunpoint (as a last resort backup) while he waited for backup. A second officer arrived, who was then free to attempt to take the man down with less lethal means. He failed. At some point during this, the first officer backed up (implying to me that the mentally ill person was advancing with the hammer) and tripped, accidentally firing his gun. We don't even know if the guy was hit, though if he was it probably wasn't fatal because the guy kept going long enough to run into an apartment. The police then waited for EVEN MORE backup, and in this confrontation, the man apparently attacked with the hammer again, and was shot.

Now, think about that for a minute. Let's say a man charges you with a hammer and you use a taser on him...and it fails (just like the first guy's did, for whatever reason). He then beats you to death with a hammer. That's very bad, right? That's why they have the guns...because the gun is currently the most effective way we have of stopping people. It's not the best way, maybe, but it's the most effective, and that's why it's a last resort.

How do other countries without guns deal with it? Well, usually they have swat teams with guns, it's just their patrol officers who have none. When the patrol officers get into a situation that calls for guns, they wait for the swat team. Otherwise, they get into a life-or-death scuffle with a guy with a hammer. Personally, i'd rather my police officers maybe kill a violent crazy person than get killed themselves.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 10:43 AM #130
Originally posted by Steven:
I don't mind paying a fine when I know I deserve it (speeding, parking in a red zone, etc); the problem is that I only started "deserving it" when the city got desperate for cash.


Again, your issue is with the law. The police don't make the law. There are plenty of reasons to hate a police officer. Plenty. Trash talking the police because you don't like a law is like trash talking black people because they break it. Worse, even, because the black people are responsible for following the law, but the police aren't responsible for making it.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 10:46 AM #131
You missed his point.

The law is being enforced selectively to raise money. That's not law, it's involuntary fundraising.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-02-09, 10:53 AM #132
No, I get the point. I'm saying selective enforcement doesn't mean it's wrong. It is a law, therefore they have the right to enforce it. The only thing the police should be blamed for is NOT enforcing a law. If you get a ticket after getting away with something that is illegal for years, you should go down to the station and say "thank you for letting me get away with this for so long." and then go to the city and say "this law is stupid, we should get rid of it."

Blaming the police for enforcing the law is like (how's this for a fun parallel) blaming a gun for being aimed at and shooting the wrong person. That's what the gun does, it shoots people. Blame the person aiming the gun and pulling the trigger. It sounds like your city is run by a bunch of dicks.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 11:09 AM #133
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
selective enforcement doesn't mean it's wrong.


This is where it gets hazy. I agree with you under only one circumstance, and that's due to a lack of resources. If a law can't be enforced because police and other personnel are commited elsewhere, no one can find fault with selective enforcement in this case. It's inevitable.

Where I take issue is where the motive is a bit more shady than simply being too busy.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-02-09, 11:17 AM #134
I would submit, then, that if the police haven't been enforcing something for years and suddenly begin doing so, it's because they don't want to enforce it and are suddenly made to by someone high up.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 11:20 AM #135
No one's out to misplace any blame. It would go to whomever made the directive.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2010-02-09, 11:24 AM #136
Exactly my point, then. :) Haha. I mean, I'm just saying that the police didn't make the law, and if they haven't been enforcing it for years then they don't LIKE the law either. In both cases it is someone much higher up's fault, not theirs. They're simply doing their jobs. As a whole, of course. My other argument is that talking bad about police because you got a parking ticket is like talking bad about black people because you got robbed by one.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 11:26 AM #137
Or the police just realized it was against the law and saw another way to make money. Or the stupid city council just decided to make it against the law. Anyway, officers, sworn to protect us, should look out for the citizens. If someone higher up says, "go enforce this little-known law right now" they should think to themselves and perhaps vocalize it to their bosses, "well crap, people have been doing that for decades, and we're only now going to start ticketing them? How about notifying them of the law (put up a fakking sign), tell the local paper so they can run a story, and start enforcing it in two weeks after the word has gotten out?"
2010-02-09, 11:36 AM #138
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
Again, your issue is with the law. The police don't make the law. There are plenty of reasons to hate a police officer. Plenty. Trash talking the police because you don't like a law is like trash talking black people because they break it. Worse, even, because the black people are responsible for following the law, but the police aren't responsible for making it.


Whoa buddy, we're talking about how you guys all hate police for doing their job, not about how you hate black people!
2010-02-09, 12:12 PM #139
Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
My other argument is that talking bad about police because you got a parking ticket is like talking bad about black people because you got robbed by one.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
>>untie shoes
2010-02-09, 1:50 PM #140
How so? Just because an officer gives you a ticket doesn't mean all police officers would do the same thing, just like being robbed by a guy who is black doesn't mean every black guy will rob you (that's racism, don'tchaknow).
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 2:02 PM #141
Oh. I misunderstood what you were saying.

I thought you were encouraging talking badly about police and black people. I guess I'm the idiot here.:suicide:
>>untie shoes
2010-02-09, 2:02 PM #142
Originally posted by Mentat:
The officer could've gotten back in to his vehicle & pulled away from the premises until backup arrived or until he thought that the man was a threat to someone else. However, the officer acted like a woman in one of the "Friday The 13th" films & fell while backing up, thus making a mistake that caused the unnecessary death of a mentally ill man. Even the military uses retreat as an option. Other states have already implemented similar tactics (backing off in car-chases, etc.). I don't understand why the only option many cops seem to know is taze/shoot first & ask questions later. Any entry-level mixed martial arts fighter could've taken this guy down in about 3 seconds, yet police officers that are supposedly there to "protect" us only seem to know how to kills us. I can certainly understand that there are situations where police may need to use deadly force but I think those are few & far between & too often they're simply getting away with murder.


And how much time do you spend looking for the non-national-newsworthy good shoots that happen all the time? Did you hear about this one?
woot!
2010-02-09, 2:22 PM #143
Originally posted by ButterBalls:
Whoa buddy, we're talking about how you guys all hate police for doing their job, not about how you hate black people!


You're misunderstanding me in the same way Antony did, I think. :) I assumed it was obvious that I was comparing them in a bad way since I've been arguing FOR the police (in general) so far.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-09, 3:00 PM #144
Originally posted by ButterBalls:
If the police shot the guy he probably deserved it. A smart person would just put the hammer down like he was told. Everyone knows police are here to protect us and don't want to hurt anyone.

As far as the video, it's obviously grossly biased and some of it is probably even staged. If the woman hadn't indicated that she may have had suicidal tendencies they wouldn't have had to strip her for her own protection.



Oh no, I think I might kill myself. I'd better get naked!

Pfft, that's BS and you know it. Nobody should ever be forcefully stripped by anyone unless the situation is extremely drastic. That's broderline rape. You could pat her down to check for weapons or the likes, but removing all of her clothes and leaving her in the cell never really is for "her own protection". Just because one has thoughts of suicide doesn't mean they'll actually do it - and to kill yourself with your own clothes is only for the hardcore :P. I have thoughts of beating the hell out of people sometimes, but do I do it? Never. ;)


On the subject of the hammer-guy - I've only got 2 things to say:

1. They don't specify if he's retarded or simply has a mental illness. The term "mental illness" could be anything, really. Just because you have, say depression (which as far as I know, is considered a mental illness), doesn't mean you're stupid.

2. It's a shame he didn't scream "HAMMER TIME!". :downswords:
2010-02-09, 3:17 PM #145
Originally posted by Xzero:
It's a shame he didn't scream "HAMMER TIME!". :downswords:


If he'd done that, and someone had gotten it on video, he would have lived on past his earthly death as an Internet legend.
Why do the heathens rage behind the firehouse?
2010-02-09, 4:25 PM #146
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Either way, I don't see any need for the strawman.


I'm a giant whiner who likes to throw extraneous jabs. But I just couldn't help but point it out, to sate my own need to point out perceived incongruities in behavior.

Originally posted by Freelancer:
You keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night


Are you in charge of anything Freelancer? I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Also, what is the point of all this? That there are some people ill suited for a job who happen to be in that occupation? The legal system is not perfect?

In an ideal world officers of the law would be uniformly unbiased and would strive to do one thing: uphold the law with the minimum use of acceptable force. Apart from the fact that minimum force is something fairly subjective, there are always bad seeds as everyone else had pointed out. Or, on the other end, they have to uphold laws regardless of whether or not the law itself is just. Part of you guys have an issue with the written law itself, which you fail to separate from those whose duty it is to uphold what they had no influence in creating.

Mentat and company live in a fantasy land where cops are the bad guys who are "holding the man down", and if authority were eliminated, everyone would hold hands and sing peppy tunes. Or that is they were to exist, they should be so restricted they become UN blue helmet level useless. I don't know where Mentat is, and I know Free is in Utah, but here in the city I'm grateful as all hell for the NYPD.

As far as Lawyers, they will always be in a sticky situation because it's their job to defend their clients. If throwing extraneous paperwork in the way of the trial will buy them time to either find a better angle of attack or to otherwise get a more favorable outcome for their client, they are morally bound to do so.

Their compensation though is another story, one that I won't pass judgment on because who am I to say what a professional gets paid after years of hard work. Anyone who would set an arbitrary cap on the income of individuals when they provide a highly complex and necessary service to the community is incredibly selfish and shortsighted.
2010-02-10, 7:02 AM #147
Quote:
And how much time do you spend looking for the non-national-newsworthy good shoots that happen all the time? Did you hear about this one?

I didn't spend any time looking for anything. The 2 stories that I posted about happened in my city & I saw them on the local news channels & in my local newspaper. If I can find 2 reasons not to trust the police in my local area, I don't need to look on a national level. I think it's a reasonable assumption (assuming that assumptions can be reasonable) that the police in my city aren't unique.

Quote:
I can certainly understand that there are situations where police may need to use deadly force but I think those are few & far between & too often they're simply getting away with murder.

As you can see, I've already admitted that it's possible that there's a time & a place for deadly force. I'm simply stating that it's far too often that the police are killing people, unnecessarily. I think it's fairly obvious that many police officers are poorly trained & can't distinguish between when they should have a combat mentality & when they shouldn't.

Quote:
Mentat and company live in a fantasy land where cops are the bad guys who are "holding the man down", and if authority were eliminated, everyone would hold hands and sing peppy tunes. Or that is they were to exist, they should be so restricted they become UN blue helmet level useless. I don't know where Mentat is, and I know Free is in Utah, but here in the city I'm grateful as all hell for the NYPD.

I never said anything like that. Are you poisoning the well? Geez, excuse me for believing that the police shouldn't go around shooting non-violent criminals & mentally ill people with hammers. I'm happy for you that it doesn't bother you when the police assume that you're a potential terrorist because of your genetic makeup. I realize that this is absurd but your earlier post made a funny image in my mind...I can hear it now...

Quote:
"After I stepped off the train from a long ride to the concentration camps, they shaved off all of my hair, took all of my clothes & utterly humiliated me because I look Jewish, but they were just doing their jobs & I found that cooperating went a long way. That's been my only negative experience so far. BRB...shower time..."


I'm a 30 year old white male in Kentucky. I rarely ever get bothered by the police anymore. Most of my personal experiences come from when I was a teenager &/or young adult. I hardly think that the man is holding me down (if you're referring to the police being the man). However, the man is holding some people down (& beating &/or shooting them) & quite frankly I don't like it.
? :)
2010-02-10, 7:37 AM #148
You keep adding "mentally ill" as though that matters. I also challenge you to find a significant number of cases where a nonviolent criminal was shot.
Warhead[97]
2010-02-10, 7:38 AM #149
Mentat - someone should put you in a simunition suit in a high-stress environment and see how well you handle split-second life or death decisions while having limited information.

Hindsight is 20/20, and lawyers spend months critiquing a decision that, often times, only had seconds to be made.

Originally posted by BobTheMasher:
You keep adding "mentally ill" as though that matters.


It's just a matter of time 'till someone says we need to be shot at before we can shoot someone.

To clarify, for those who are unaware, this is the law we are under in NH. If you take issue with it, change the law.
Quote:
627:5 Physical Force in Law Enforcement. –
I. A law enforcement officer is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or detention or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested or detained person, unless he knows that the arrest or detention is illegal, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of non-deadly force encountered while attempting to effect such an arrest or detention or while seeking to prevent such an escape.
II. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or
(b) To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes:
(1) Has committed or is committing a felony involving the use of force or violence, is using a deadly weapon in attempting to escape, or otherwise indicates that he is likely to seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and
(2) He had made reasonable efforts to advise the person that he is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest and has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of these facts.
(c) Nothing in this paragraph constitutes justification for conduct by a law enforcement officer amounting to an offense against innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(a) Non-deadly force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out the officer's direction, unless he believes the arrest is illegal; or
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.
IV. A private person acting on his own is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to arrest or prevent the escape from custody of such other whom he reasonably believes to have committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony: but he is justified in using deadly force for such purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force.
V. A guard or law enforcement officer in a facility where persons are confined pursuant to an order of the court or as a result of an arrest is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent the escape of any person who is charged with, or convicted of, a felony, or who is committing the felony of escape from official custody as defined in RSA 642:6. The use of non-deadly force by such guards and officers is justified when and to the extent the person effecting the arrest believes it reasonably necessary to prevent any other escape from the facility.
VI. A reasonable belief that another has committed an offense means such belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would in law constitute an offense by such person. If the facts and circumstances reasonably believed would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though reasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or prevent an escape.
VII. Use of force that is not justifiable under this section in effecting an arrest does not render illegal an arrest that is otherwise legal and the use of such unjustifiable force does not render inadmissible anything seized incident to a legal arrest.
VIII. Deadly force shall be deemed reasonably necessary under this section whenever the arresting law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the arrest is lawful and there is apparently no other possible means of effecting the arrest.


Notice the wording "the officer" and "reasonably believes"? Justification for use of force is to be determined from the officer's perspective at the time - NOT by what you know by reading the newspaper afterwards.
woot!
2010-02-10, 7:48 AM #150
Quote:
You keep adding "mentally ill" as though that matters. I also challenge you to find a significant number of cases where a nonviolent criminal was shot.

The video that started this thread shows you two. I think that's enough. If you're truly interested, I'm certain that it wouldn't take much effort on your part to research via Google. I don't see any reason that I should have to spend my day finding you links.

Quote:
Mentat - someone should put you in a simunition suit in a high-stress environment and see how well you handle split-second life or death decisions while having limited information.

That wouldn't really prove anything because I don't have any law enforcement training. You're also making the assumption that I've never been in such a situation. I had a gun pulled on me in middle school (it turned out to be a joke but it wasn't really funny because it was a real gun) & I was shot at once while I was in high school (I ran my *** off & so did the two guys that were with me, which makes us superior to the cop from my city against the guy with the hammer because no one was harmed & we didn't fall). I also have a little training (far more than most cops) in martial arts (boxing, judo, tae kwon do & thai boxing) & I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't shoot someone if they had a hammer. Then again, maybe I'm just crazy because I'm able to see people (even mentally ill people with hammers) as human beings that may have people that care about them & if tackling the guy may be slightly risky, then so be it, because at the end of the day, I would probably remember that my job is to protect & serve, not to beat, taze & kill.
? :)
2010-02-10, 7:57 AM #151
Originally posted by Mentat:
That wouldn't really prove anything because I don't have any law enforcement training.


Seems to me you're entirely confident in your ability to conclusively determine when deadly force is justified.
woot!
2010-02-10, 8:11 AM #152
Originally posted by JLee:
Seems to me you're entirely confident in your ability to conclusively determine when deadly force is justified.

I'm not arguing that I'm able to determine when deadly force is justified. I'm simply arguing that many police officer's aren't either.
? :)
2010-02-10, 8:13 AM #153
Originally posted by Mentat:
I'm not arguing that I'm able to determine when deadly force is justified. I'm simply arguing that many police officer's aren't either.


Were the officers involved in the two shootings you're talking about cleared by the DA, or were they prosecuted?
woot!
2010-02-10, 8:18 AM #154
I have no idea. I'm going to assume that they lived happily ever after because that's usually what happens to cops due to the laws that you cited earlier making it virtually impossible for anything less to happen. We're supposed to put our "faith" in law enforcement, yet time & time again there are police officers that beat, taze & kill people without justification but the law on the matter protects them. If it's not on camera, you're ****ed, because cops are angels & citizens are criminals.
? :)
2010-02-10, 8:23 AM #155
Funny, how you continue to claim that these incidents are all without justification yet you don't even know the outcome of the investigation.

Biased much?

Quote:
without justification but the law on the matter protects them.

That makes no sense whatsoever.
woot!
2010-02-10, 8:24 AM #156
I don't need to know the outcome of the investigation because like everyone else that isn't a cop, I can watch videos of people being beaten, tazed & murdered (e.g. Rodney King) & then see cops get off for it. As far as I know, the BART shooting case hasn't gone to trial yet. I'm obviously stating that the law makes it too difficult to prosecute cops because it uses words like "belief". I don't trust what a cop "believes".
? :)
2010-02-10, 8:26 AM #157
Originally posted by Mentat:
I don't need to know the outcome of the investigation because like everyone else that isn't a cop, I can watch videos of people being beaten, tazed & murdered (e.g. Rodney King) & then see cops get off for it. As far as I know, the BART shooting case hasn't gone to trial yet.


There are hundreds of thousands of police officers dealing with people every day and you're whining about something that happened almost 20 years ago?

People aren't perfect. If you think it's so easy, maybe you should see if you can make it as a cop. Make a difference.
woot!
2010-02-10, 8:28 AM #158
I'm not just whining about something that happened almost 20 years ago. I'm also whining about the video that I posted when I created the thread, the rogue detective in my city & the shooting of a hammer-wielding mentally ill man in my city. I even recognize that the things that I'm speaking about may be rare, but they do happen & we shouldn't just write it off as collateral damage.

I never said it was easy. Also, would someone like me that was arrested by a lying cop for assault be able to become a police officer? I honestly don't know. I suppose that I wouldn't want to be a cop because I would be forced in to situations that I don't agree with. I'm not capable of blindly upholding laws that I don't support. I didn't go in to the Marines for the same reason. I took a test & everything but I must admit that I would've went AWOL instead of going to the middle east.
? :)
2010-02-10, 8:35 AM #159
Just for the record, I've seen cops in my city (also the most racially segregated city in the US I believe) get fired just for something as little as making a dumbass comment, so Mentat your whole "I SEE IT EVERY DAY" is kind of null and void, because I'm sure people see cops fired every day as well. Personal or anecdotal evidence doesn't help much in this case. It also doesn't help that we have no data at all on the situations at hand.

Also, I just watched the video finally originally, and for god's sakes some of those kids are so ****ing retarded. I don't care if you are getting wrongly arrested, doesn't anybody know how to handle an arrest? Just shut your mouth, you know you have your witnesses around you (when you are in a flock of like 20 people), if it's on the side of the road the cop car will video tape it by law. How is screaming obscenities going "HEY MAN I WAS RIDING A SKATEBOARD WHAT THE ****" going to do? Like yeah, the cop shouldn't of been that much of a prick, but the kid should've also just shut his damn mouth.
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2010-02-10, 8:39 AM #160
If everyone thought like that we'd still have kings & queens. I don't see anything wrong with civil disobedience. It certainly doesn't justify murder. It's a shame that we're not all mindless robots doing what we're told, despite the fact that we may disagree with what we're being told, because we're less likely to be murdered by the police.
? :)
1234567

↑ Up to the top!