Quote:Everybody knows just because a police says something doesnt mean its a fact! His girlfriend also say he reached for his wallet after being ask for license and registration and was shot. And police discharge they weapons all the time. Even for simple traffic stops.. Are you gonna read a article that the police and media twist and believe that or watch a video of man get murdered in front of his family and believe his girlfriend?
So if an officer says something caught on video it doesn't mean that it's a fact, but someone says something in an interview it does? Which is more likely, the FACT that the officer can be heard in the video saying "I told him not to reach for it, I told him to get his hand off of it!" or a statement made by the girlfriend?
Quote:I'm honestly dumbfounded by the irrationality of people that are trying to defend this murderer.
The sad thing is that this murderer is more than likely gonna go free after a paid vacation.
I'm honestly dumbfounded by the irrationality of people that are so quick to call somebody a murderer without knowing all of the facts regarding the incident.
The sad fact is the police officer is going to have to live with his taking another life when he didn't really want to.
Quote:Yeah, I saw the video both in the inverted and original angle. I don't know why some of the videos were inverted, it's weird.
Either case, he was driving...
It was inverted because she was using the camera on the front side of the phone so she could see herself on the video. Happens all the time.
If this turns out to be true:
Quote:Officer: I’m going to stop a car...I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.
The two occupants just look like people who have been involved in a robbery. The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741'>http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741</a>
Quote:If this turns out to be true:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741'>http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741</a>
What, that's probable cause.
"he'd been stopped 31 times for traffic violations since 2002"
What the actual [BLEEP] does that have to do with anything? If anything, it further proves misconduct on the pig's part. Surely a man who's been pulled over 31 times has some experience in properly handling CCW situations, and presumably he acted as he had every previous time. You know, when he wasn't shot repeatedly at point blank range and murdered for complying.
Quote:If this turns out to be true:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741'>http://gawker.com/cop-on-apparent-police-scanner-audio-said-philando-cast-1783339741</a>
Then perhaps there is more to the story other than "pigs" killing black people.
I'm not saying that this is how it played out, but what if this is the actual scenario that went down?
Police officer pulls a car over because one or more suspect(s) matches the description of someone that they are looking for that committed an armed robbery. The officer approaches the car, and the one that "looked more" like a primary suspect says that he has a gun. He reaches down and the officer sees the gun and tells him to take his hands off of it and the man refuses. The police officer fires to stop the action.
Would the shooting be justified?
What if the people in the car were in fact the people that were being sought that just committed an armed robbery?
People are so quick to judge the actions of the very people that protect us ("pigs" in this case) before knowing what actually happened.
Quote:"he'd been stopped 31 times for traffic violations since 2002"
What the actual [BAD WORD REMOVED] does that have to do with anything? If anything, it further proves misconduct on the pig's part. Surely a man who's been pulled over 31 times has some experience in properly handling CCW situations, and presumably he acted as he had every previous time. You know, when he wasn't shot repeatedly at point blank range and murdered for complying.
No, it proves a history of someone unable to follow the rules (law). Nothing has been established that proves that the guy had any kind of permit to have a firearm other than the girlfriend saying that he had a permit.
Quote:Then perhaps there is more to the story other than "pigs" killing black people.
I'm not saying that this is how it played out, but what if this is the actual scenario that went down?
Police officer pulls a car over because one or more suspect(s) matches the description of someone that they are looking for that committed an armed robbery. The officer approaches the car, and the one that "looked more" like a primary suspect says that he has a gun. He reaches down and the officer sees the gun and tells him to take his hands off of it and the man refuses. The police officer fires to stop the action.
Would the shooting be justified?
What if the people in the car were in fact the people that were being sought that just committed an armed robbery?
People are so quick to judge the actions of the very people that protect us ("pigs" in this case) before knowing what actually happened.
Did you read the description? He just described 20 million different people of color. Is that probable cause for a traffic stop?
Quote:No, it proves a history of someone unable to follow the rules (law). Nothing has been established that proves that the guy had any kind of permit to have a firearm other than the girlfriend saying that he had a permit.
Yes, because when I think of someone who drives too fast and makes illegal lane changes, I think of someone incapable of following the law. Have you ever broken the speed limit?
Quote:Yes, because when I think of someone who drives too fast and makes illegal lane changes, I think of someone incapable of following the law. Have you ever broken the speed limit?
It's irrelevant as far as me breaking the speed limit. If someone has a history of breaking the law, no matter the severity does it not establish a pattern? How exactly does it prove misconduct on the police officer's part (or the "pig's" part in your words)?
Quote:It's irrelevant as far as me breaking the speed limit. If someone has a history of breaking the law, no matter the severity does it not establish a pattern? How exactly does it prove misconduct on the police officer's part (or the "pig's" part in your words)?
By your definition, someone with a few parking tickets is a menace to society and should be shot.
Was he ticketed 31 times, or pulled over 31 times?
Reportedly, the officer pulled the car over because the victim's broad nose was similar to a robbery suspect's. Pretty sharp eyes.
Quote:Did you read the description? He just described 20 million different people of color. Is that probable cause for a traffic stop?
Yes I did read the description. Rather than focus on one part, look at the bigger picture here. The people in the car (more than one person) matched the description of suspects involved in a armed robbery. One of the suspects in particular was a closer match.
Are you willing to say that all black males have a wide-set nose? Is that a racist description or an accurate description?
Me personally, I have met people of many different races that have a wide-set nose as well as a thin nose. Facial characteristics are very descriptive and can certainly be taken by some thin-skinned people as being "racist".
Quote:By your definition, someone with a few parking tickets is a menace to society and should be shot.
How is that so?
I was simply pointing out the fact that you couldn't seem to grasp that if someone has been pulled over for traffic violations that many times, it's probably a good indicator that the person doesn't follow directions or the law.
How exactly do you think that it "proves misconduct on the "pig's" (your words not mine) part?
Quote:Yes I did read the description. Rather than focus on one part, look at the bigger picture here. The people in the car (more than one person) matched the description of suspects involved in a armed robbery. One of the suspects in particular was a closer match.
Are you willing to say that all black males have a wide-set nose? Is that a racist description or an accurate description?
Me personally, I have met people of many different races that have a wide-set nose as well as a thin nose. Facial characteristics are very descriptive and can certainly be taken by some thin-skinned people as being "racist".
It's not racist. That's not the point. The point is that he pulled over a car because someone in it had a broad nose, and then he shot him repeatedly and threatened to shoot the other occupants of the car if they tried to render aid.
Attitudes like yours, tbqh, are why I developed a resentment for cops in the first place. No matter how blatant the crime or brutal the murder, there will always be people of your ilk lined up to defend the pig (behavior, not a badge, makes the pig a pig) as having done no wrong. They often do things that fly in the face of logic like assert that because someone has traffic tickets, they clearly have no regard for any laws and are out looking for cops to kill.
Quote:How is that so?
I was simply pointing out the fact that you couldn't seem to grasp that if someone has been pulled over for traffic violations that many times, it's probably a good indicator that the person doesn't follow directions or the law.
How exactly do you think that it "proves misconduct on the "pig's" (your words not mine) part?
Do I have to spell this out for you?
The murder victim held a concealed carry permit. He was not a violent individual or a hardened career criminal, despite what his previous traffic tickets would indicate to a mind like yours that's desperate to defend the pig as anything but. His being pulled over 32 times in his life and only blown to pieces in one of them strongly suggests that he has, on more than one occasion, told the officer that he was armed and followed instructions so as not to be killed. One can
logically assume that he didn't just decide to throw caution to the wind on the 32nd time and try to reach into his pocket, pull out a gun and blow Squealer away. Wouldn't that be a
logical conclusion? So assuming he did not decide that he had had it with these [BLEEP] cops on this [BLEEP] road, snap like a camel's back and try to go for a concealed weapon so he could get the first shot in, which is a pretty damn logical assumption, one would then have to ask: "Why did this 32nd pig decide to murder him in front of a child when the 31 previous cops were ok with him?"
So, why was the 32nd time the charm, Mr. "I was a cop once so I'm always right about such things"?
Quote:Yes I did read the description. Rather than focus on one part, look at the bigger picture here. The people in the car (more than one person) matched the description of suspects involved in a armed robbery. One of the suspects in particular was a closer match.
Are you willing to say that all black males have a wide-set nose? Is that a racist description or an accurate description?
Me personally, I have met people of many different races that have a wide-set nose as well as a thin nose. Facial characteristics are very descriptive and can certainly be taken by some thin-skinned people as being "racist".
What caused him to be a closer match? Let's ask the officer:
Quote:The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose.
Now I too have met many many people of different races with different size noses, but let's not pretend the term " wide set nose" isn't implying race. That term goes back a long and hateful way when describing black people and you know it.
I'm not the one missing the bigger picture. The fact that Mr. Officer used this one particular characteristic to describe a robbery suspect and not other commonly used descriptions such as: height, weight, hair color, facial hair, tattoos, scars, clothing etc speaks volumes on exactly where Mr. Officer's head was at. He gave one extremely broad description that could describe literally millions of people.
Quote:It's not racist. That's not the point. The point is that he pulled over a car because someone in it had a broad nose, and then he shot him repeatedly and threatened to shoot the other occupants of the car if they tried to render aid.
Attitudes like yours, tbqh, are why I developed a resentment for cops in the first place. No matter how blatant the crime or brutal the murder, there will always be people of your ilk lined up to defend the pig (behavior, not a badge, makes the pig a pig) as having done no wrong. They often do things that fly in the face of logic like assert that because someone has traffic tickets, they clearly have no regard for any laws and are out looking for cops to kill.
This is where you lose any credibility unless you can prove otherwise, especially when the police officer is a "pig".
You have no idea what it's like and have no idea what goes through a police officer's mind. You seem to think that they actually "want" to shoot and kill somebody. That is so much not right. Most police officers do not want to have to use deadly force and for some if they have to do so, it's a very traumatic experience.
People like you seem to think that police officers specifically target certain individuals for whatever reason, and kill them for no reason. That's not the case at all.
You can sit there behind your computer and call police officers "pigs" all you want, that's certainly your right, but it does make you look pretty [BLEEP] stupid when trying to have a rational discussion regarding the topic.
Quote:Do I have to spell this out for you?
The murder victim held a concealed carry permit. He was not a violent individual or a hardened career criminal, despite what his previous traffic tickets would indicate to a mind like yours that's desperate to defend the pig as anything but. His being pulled over 32 times in his life and only blown to pieces in one of them strongly suggests that he has, on more than one occasion, told the officer that he was armed and followed instructions so as not to be killed. One can logically assume that he didn't just decide to throw caution to the wind on the 32nd time and try to reach into his pocket, pull out a gun and blow Squealer away. Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion? So assuming he did not decide that he had had it with these [BAD WORD REMOVED] cops on this [BAD WORD REMOVED] road, snap like a camel's back and try to go for a concealed weapon so he could get the first shot in, which is a pretty damn logical assumption, one would then have to ask: "Why did this 32nd pig decide to murder him in front of a child when the 31 previous cops were ok with him?"
So, why was the 32nd time the charm, Mr. "I was a cop once so I'm always right about such things"?
First part in bold, has that been established yet, or do we just simply go by what the girlfriend said?
Second part in bold, where is the evidence of that?
It was presented earlier in this thread that person(s) matching the description of the occupants of the car had committed an armed robbery. Someone that fits the description is pulled over, tells the officer that he has a gun, then reaches for said gun despite the officer telling him not to and he gets shot.
I know that the story doesn't fit your anti-cop narrative, but it is a possibility based on what we know. You (as well as many others) are so quick to pass judgement against the law enforcement officer before the actual facts of the matter come out. It's just "police brutality" or "racial profiling" or as some politicians say and the media runs with "a racial hate crime by police".
For someone as little as you, the police are bad... until you need them.