Cops killed man at Walmart, then interrogated girlfriend

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

To clarify so as not to confuse people. I do NOT hate police. They have a hard job and like any profession there are bad police.

I do NOT blame black people for being shot for no reason.


However, there needs to be a serious discussion about both issues.

Saying that what people feel or think about either issue affects it is moronic if you are unable to look at the issue logically and fairly. I mean that ignoring hood rat mentality as a reason or even as a result of this. Like the chicken or the egg question. Who gives a shit which one was first? Just fix it now.
 
To clarify so as not to confuse people. I do NOT hate police. They have a hard job and like any profession there are bad police.

I do NOT blame black people for being shot for no reason.


However, there needs to be a serious discussion about both issues.

Saying that what people feel or think about either issue affects it is moronic if you are unable to look at the issue logically and fairly. I mean that ignoring hood rat mentality as a reason or even as a result of this. Like the chicken or the egg question. Who gives a shit which one was first? Just fix it now.

Yeah brb I'm gonna take lessons on logic and fairness from someone who uses the word retardation as an insult. You've already finished your painting bodyman, put the brush down.
 
Last edited:
I seriously just give up, we are so fucked as a nation now and you can thank the über opinionated media outlets that we get our "news" from.

Cops aren't racists but a lot of them are under qualified to do the work (you can thank the cities for hiring these people) . It's simple as that.
 
Yeah brb I'm gonna take lessons on logic and fairness from someone who uses the word retardation as an insult. You've already finished your painting bodyman, put the brush down.
I said retreadation, old joke about an insult edited by sly. You make Kingspeed look like Chuck Norris.
 
Yeah brb I'm gonna take lessons on logic and fairness from someone who uses the word retardation as an insult. You've already finished your painting bodyman, put the brush down.
PS, I'd shove the brush straight up your ass and pull it out sideways.

That is how cops threaten black guys to get them to confess, not something I'd literally do.
 
The bad apples have it seems literally gotten someone to slaughter cops sitting in their cars. Good shit, makes me wanna do the speed limit exactly.

I feel terrible for the cops wives and husbands and children. Sleepless nights are coming.
 
I seriously just give up, we are so fucked as a nation now and you can thank the über opinionated media outlets that we get our "news" from.

Cops aren't racists but a lot of them are under qualified to do the work (you can thank the cities for hiring these people) . It's simple as that.

Well said, but I want to add to this, if I may.

First, real quick: I was an Explorer Scout with the VPD from 1997-2004. Also did 10 years of Private Security work, both Armed and Unarmed, in both Washington and Oregon. I'm NOT saying this in any form of bragging (after all: being a Security Officer is hardly anything to brag about). But rather, just a statement of perspective: I understand, probably better than anyone else here, the mindset of most police officers. Never been one, but I understand.

That being said, I think that the claim of them being under-qualified is not entirely correct. Oh sure, I am quite certain that there are departments out there who's training could be better. But for the most part, I believe the problem is this: that the media and Hollywood has portrayed Cops to the average citizens of them being these magical superheros, who can read minds, see who's lying and who's not, see if Jamal just murdered 3 people or if he just dropped his grandmother off at the nursing home, or be able to shoot a person in the leg or shoot the gun out of a person's hand.

That is FANTASY. And utter bullshit. They are NOT the superheros that they have been portrayed as all these years. There is NO "shoot the suspect in the leg", or "shoot the gun out of the person's hand." It simply doesn't exist. And I'm telling you strait up: whoever believes, seriously, that such procedures should be in place needs to get their fucking heads examined, because it is completely and utterly unrealistic.

Take, for example, this "boy" in Cleveland (who, by the way, nobody could tell he was a boy and not a full-grown adult), who was waving a gun around and pointing it at people. Now, whether or not the gun was "fake" (which it wasn't), is irrelevant. It was a GUN. It was capable of firing a projectile. What the fuck does it matter if it fires a .45 ACP or a BB-pellet? You wanna be shot by either one? You wanna wait around and find out? Or how about you ask him: "hey, is that a .45, or is that a BB gun?"

And what if he's lying? What if he's trying to be a smart ass (what 12 year old wasn't?) and bluff the "Pigs" whom he thinks are bothering him? What if it's a perfectly harmless plastic toy that he painted black to make it look real, but he's going to try and scare the police into believing that it's real. You think it doesn't/won't happen? How much stupid shit did you do when you were 12?

What if they get to talking to him, and go to place cuffs on his to secure him for his safety and the officer's safety until the incident is either dismissed or he is transferred to JV, and he suddenly panics and makes a run for it. In the process, he reaches for the gun to either dump it, secure it in his waistband so it doesn't fall out. Do you think, to a normal Cop, that this doesn't look like he's going for a gun? How are they suppose to know whether or not he's going to shoot at them with a gun (pellet or otherwise), or whether or not he's just being stupid/scared?

And all of this is just a FRACTION of what goes through a Cop's mind when such a situation occurs.

And how about this: if they have to draw and fire, is there any bystanders behind the suspect who are potentially in the line of fire? "oops, the bullets are flying from Joe Criminal's gun; guess I better wait for those bystanders to move....." Bullshit; they're not going to wait. They're going to fire back. And that's merely ONE scenario of thousands that an officer faces every day.

Jesus, talk about stressful!

These policies and procedures are in place for a reason! The training that police go through is there for a reason.

I've studied firearms and ammunition, as well as Use of Force/Use of Force Continuum issues for years. I've read dozens of books on the topic, hundreds of magazine articles, hundreds of pages of training manuals, countless hours in training classes, countless books on guns, dozens of books by experts such as Massad Ayoob (look him up), and I've been to countless gun shows and handled hundreds of firearms in my life. I carry daily in the State of Washington.

I'm telling you, right now, if someone whom I'm suspicious of points a gun at me, the last thing on my mind is whether or not that gun is fake. Even further from my mind is what color they are. There is a THREAT to my safety, and the Law Enforcement community knows this as well, and they've trained and molded their training and procedures over the years accordingly. This is the result. They are NOT gun experts. I probably know more about guns than the average police officer, and I'm a civilian. I don't give a shit if it's a bb-gun or a 9mm....it's a GUN.

So how are we, as a society, suppose to tell them "hey, sorry you guys have these procedures and training in place to have to react like this. The world's not so fucked up after all; why don't you guys tone it down a bit?"

Wanna know what happens if we tell them to relax? Look at the two dead cops in New York, who DID NOT have situational awareness of what was going on around them; who got LAX in their training.

Society is getting WORSE. The police are going to continue to modify their procedures and actions to accommodate these dangerous times. The #1 rule of working the street as a Cop: "YOUR (the cop's) safety comes FIRST." Period. Fuck, that's WHY they wear a GUN on their belts! They don't put it on hoping to shoot people, and you are FUCKED UP if you honestly believe that.

So all of this "I hate pigs" bullshit is just that: frustration and bullshit; ranting about shit you know NOTHING about. And knowing your Brother's ex girlfriend's nephew who's a cop 600 miles away in a county with 2 people in it doesn't make you an expert. Nor is visiting the police station on a field trip when you were in the 4th grade; that doesn't count either.

If you think you can do a better job, then go through a year's worth of training (academy and FTO supervision), put on the uniform, put on the duty belt, put on the badge, and go out there and prove it. Otherwise, you're just a bitch keyboard warrior full of hot air.

Ultimately, I see I'm the minority here when it comes to defending the police, so I'm not expecting many favorable or reasonable responses. But I hope that gives you guys some perspective; if even just a glimpse.
 
Last edited:
That being said, I think that the claim of them being under-qualified is not entirely correct. Oh sure, I am quite certain that there are departments out there who's training could be better. But for the most part, I believe the problem is this: that the media and Hollywood has portrayed Cops to the average citizens of them being these magical superheros, who can read minds, see who's lying and who's not, see if Jamal just murdered 3 people or if he just dropped his grandmother off at the nursing home, or be able to shoot a person in the leg or shoot the gun out of a person's hand.

That is FANTASY. And utter bullshit. They are NOT the superheros that they have been portrayed as all these years. There is NO "shoot the suspect in the leg", or "shoot the gun out of the person's hand." It simply doesn't exist. And I'm telling you strait up: whoever believes, seriously, that such procedures should be in place needs to get their fucking heads examined, because it is completely and utterly unrealistic.

This fantasy seems to have come from you, since no one has asked or wondered why police can't read minds or shoot pistols out of people hands.

People are mad because officers run into stores and blow away people before they even know what's going on. They choke people unconscious because they might be selling loose cigarettes. Because they enter a dark hallway and get spooked into instantly killing someone at the bottom of the stairs. Because they pull up and take all of 2 seconds to drop a kid that had a toy gun in his waistband.

Take, for example, this "boy" in Cleveland (who, by the way, nobody could tell he was a boy and not a full-grown adult), who was waving a gun around and pointing it at people. Now, whether or not the gun was "fake" (which it wasn't), is irrelevant. It was a GUN. It was capable of firing a projectile. What the fuck does it matter if it fires a .45 ACP or a BB-pellet? You wanna be shot by either one? You wanna wait around and find out? Or how about you ask him: "hey, is that a .45, or is that a BB gun?"

And what if he's lying? What if he's trying to be a smart ass (what 12 year old wasn't?) and bluff the "Pigs" whom he thinks are bothering him? What if it's a perfectly harmless plastic toy that he painted black to make it look real, but he's going to try and scare the police into believing that it's real. You think it doesn't/won't happen? How much stupid shit did you do when you were 12?

What if they get to talking to him, and go to place cuffs on his to secure him for his safety and the officer's safety until the incident is either dismissed or he is transferred to JV, and he suddenly panics and makes a run for it. In the process, he reaches for the gun to either dump it, secure it in his waistband so it doesn't fall out. Do you think, to a normal Cop, that this doesn't look like he's going for a gun? How are they suppose to know whether or not he's going to shoot at them with a gun (pellet or otherwise), or whether or not he's just being stupid/scared?

And all of this is just a FRACTION of what goes through a Cop's mind when such a situation occurs.

That's a lot of what ifs and what could haves. 2 seconds is the amount of time it took for a car to come to a stop, an officer to jump out of his car, and kill a 12 year old. What's a kid gonna do in 2 seconds? What order does he follow to save his own life? He looked up and was dead.

And how about this: if they have to draw and fire, is there any bystanders behind the suspect who are potentially in the line of fire? "oops, the bullets are flying from Joe Criminal's gun; guess I better wait for those bystanders to move....." Bullshit; they're not going to wait. They're going to fire back.

Yes, we know. Here's how we know. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting -

The problem is they don't wait. Even in a street full of people. They'll take out a shooter and anyone near him, no hesitation.


So how are we, as a society, suppose to tell them "hey, sorry you guys have these procedures and training in place to have to react like this. The world's not so fucked up after all; why don't you guys tone it down a bit?"

Wanna know what happens if we tell them to relax? Look at the two dead cops in New York, who DID NOT have situational awareness of what was going on around them; who got LAX in their training.

Society is getting WORSE. The police are going to continue to modify their procedures and actions to accommodate these dangerous times.

Violent crime has dropped steadily since the early 90s. That perceived constant and never ending danger is part of the problem. Yes they do need to relax, yes they do need to tone it down. Those two officers didn't die because they allowed themselves to go outside the bounds of constant paranoia. They're dead because some POS targeted them for what they were.

Using your favorite word, blaming those cops for being lazy in their training, is bullshit.

So all of this "I hate pigs" bullshit is just that: frustration and bullshit; ranting about shit you know NOTHING about. And knowing your Brother's ex girlfriend's nephew who's a cop 600 miles away in a county with 2 people in it doesn't make you an expert. Nor is visiting the police station on a field trip when you were in the 4th grade; that doesn't count either.

Working security, reading magazines and toting a pistol doesn't either.

Otherwise, you're just a bitch keyboard warrior full of hot air.

A nice summation of your post.

...Sorry for this being my first post. I've lurked since the migration from BBF but, ugh, couldn't help myself.

...Merry Christmas.
 
...Sorry for this being my first post. I've lurked since the migration from BBF but, ugh, couldn't help myself.

...Merry Christmas.

Welcome! Now that you've signed up you should post more!

and Merry Christmas.
 
This fantasy seems to have come from you, since no one has asked or wondered why police can't read minds or shoot pistols out of people hands.

People are mad because officers run into stores and blow away people before they even know what's going on. They choke people unconscious because they might be selling loose cigarettes. Because they enter a dark hallway and get spooked into instantly killing someone at the bottom of the stairs. Because they pull up and take all of 2 seconds to drop a kid that had a toy gun in his waistband.



That's a lot of what ifs and what could haves. 2 seconds is the amount of time it took for a car to come to a stop, an officer to jump out of his car, and kill a 12 year old. What's a kid gonna do in 2 seconds? What order does he follow to save his own life? He looked up and was dead.



Yes, we know. Here's how we know. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting -

The problem is they don't wait. Even in a street full of people. They'll take out a shooter and anyone near him, no hesitation.




Violent crime has dropped steadily since the early 90s. That perceived constant and never ending danger is part of the problem. Yes they do need to relax, yes they do need to tone it down. Those two officers didn't die because they allowed themselves to go outside the bounds of constant paranoia. They're dead because some POS targeted them for what they were.

Using your favorite word, blaming those cops for being lazy in their training, is bullshit.



Working security, reading magazines and toting a pistol doesn't either.



A nice summation of your post.

...Sorry for this being my first post. I've lurked since the migration from BBF but, ugh, couldn't help myself.

...Merry Christmas.

Welcome! Stick around, you seem smart and stuff.
 
[video=youtube;qwC-RHsC6gw]

That video explains things far better than I ever could. And even then, just a fraction. It's impossible to completely break down this subject in a 18 minute video.

Expert Massad Ayoob (blog: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/) explains about Grand Jury decisions in a short summary. I've studied this man's work for years; he's the real deal.

The grand jury concept has been much in the news of late. People with axes to grind (including multiple talking heads on CNN) decry the fact that grand juries in Missouri and New York exonerated the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson and the one who grabbed Eric Garner and pulled him to the sidewalk in NYC. Benjamin Crump, the plaintiffs’ attorney for the families in the Brown case, the Garner case, and the Trayvon Martin death before that, has called for a prosecutor to indict without sending the case to the grand jury in yet another racially –charged case.

I know many defense lawyers – and many citizens from the far left to the far right – who hate the grand jury system and believe it should be abolished. Having worked within the American criminal justice system in one way or another for more than four decades – as arresting officer, as police department prosecutor, as expert witness for both sides – I have to profoundly disagree.

When people hear the word “jury,” they think of the regular, “petit” jury: normally six to twelve people with some alternates as “spares” who determine guilt or innocence in a full-blown criminal trial, or apportion responsibility between plaintiff and defendant in the trial of a civil lawsuit. The grand jury is exclusive to the criminal side of the justice house, and is called by the prosecutor to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, or at least, enough question thereof that the matter should be sorted out in a full-blown trial. The grand jury will return either a “true bill,” which means that the person in question is now a defendant, stands indicted, and is fully inserted into the gullet of the criminal justice machine, or “no true bill,” which essentially exonerates the potential defendant, though that’s not exactly 100% because the prosecutor can usually re-file the case.

The grand jury is the province of the prosecutor. Often, a defense lawyer for the “person of interest” won’t even be allowed in the room, and if he is, he won’t be allowed to advocate for his client. This is what led to the famous saying that “a prosecutor can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich.” The members of the grand jury hear what the prosecutor allows them to hear. This is what ticks off absolutists on both far left and far right.

And of course, if you are the one who wants to lead the lynch mob that hangs the defendant, you’ll be ROYALLY pissed off if the prosecutor actually allows exculpatory evidence which convinces his or her fellow citizens to return “no true bill.” This is apparently why Benjamin Crump does not want people he hopes to pillory to go in front of grand juries, and it is why CNN’s Sunny Hostin, a former prosecutor herself, was outraged that exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri.

Having been on both sides of this two-way street, I support the grand jury concept, and I applaud prosecutors who perform their duty as ministers of justice to allow exculpatory evidence (indicative of innocence) to go before the grand jurors as well as inculpatory evidence (indicative of guilt). Their job is as much to exonerate the innocent as it is to prosecute the guilty.

Some say, “But if the prosecutor is the sole arbiter of the evidence, he can get anyone he wants indicted!” To which I say, “SO WHAT?”

Please understand: IN MOST JURISDICTIONS, THE PROSECUTOR CAN INDICT ON HIS OR HER OWN WITHOUT A GRAND JURY ANYWAY, under what is generally called an “offer of information.”

In the cases currently under media scrutiny, the grand juries heard both sides of the story, while the public and the talking heads only heard one side’s narrative. Before anyone joins in the howl of the lynch mob, they should ask themselves one question: “If I was the one accused, would I want my side of the story and the evidence supporting me to be heard, before I was sent to trial in a case that would likely cost me six figures worth of dollars and incalculable suffering for myself and my family, before the decision was made to put me through that ordeal?”

The grand juries in the Brown death in Ferguson and the Garner death in New York did hear both sides. Having heard that, they each issued no true bill.

I for one respect that, and the prosecutorial authorities who allowed those grand juries to hear both sides.

He also goes into detail regarding the entire Ferguson case in that blog, if anyone's interested. I'm awaiting his writing regarding Tamir Rice. But I think that's a good start.

But hey, what do I know? I'm not an expert. Just a self-taught hobbyist. A hobbyist who trusts FACTS and EXPERTS, not EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS and RACE BAITERS ("hysterical reporters" can also be added to that list).

Yes they do need to relax, yes they do need to tone it down. Those two officers didn't die because they allowed themselves to go outside the bounds of constant paranoia.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/24/justice/missouri-officer-involved-shooting/

You're bullshit is laughable. I'd love to hear your excuse for this one.

Even more: I'd love to hear someone's excuse for the rioting over what is CLEARLY a lawful case of self-defense.
 
Last edited:
You're bullshit is laughable. I'd love to hear your excuse for this one.

Even more: I'd love to hear someone's excuse for the rioting over what is CLEARLY a lawful case of self-defense.

You sure do love that word.

There doesn't need to be an excuse. He pointed a gun, and he's dead. It is what it is.

92 year old Kathryn Johnston
19 month old Bounkham Phonesavanh
7 year old Aiyana Jones
Jonathan Ferrell
Peyton Strickland
Oscar Grant
Yvette Smith
Dillon Taylor
Victor White
Akai Gurley
Rekia Boyd
Kenneth Chamberlain
James Brissette/Ronald Madison
Henry Glover (Particularly bad)
Roy Middleton (Not Dead)
John Crawford (Thread Topic)


What's the excuse for them?

People aren't rioting/protesting/mad because this is a shock to the system. Nothing that is happening is new. They're mad because it continues.
__________________

I appreciate the welcomes.

Of all the things I've read over the years, Draft days, Oden, mixum, BenDavis, sorry again for this being what I decided to post on...
 
Of all the things I've read over the years, Draft days, Oden, mixum, BenDavis, sorry again for this being what I decided to post on...

Wow! You have been stalking the forum for a long time. Props for finally joining!
 
One point that gets over-looked here.

The DA can stack the deck to get an indictment - but the defendant still gets their day in court. If the DA tanks the Grand Jury - the victim is SOL.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top