Kanluwen wrote:I think the funniest thing I've seen on Youtube are all the "Police v. Skateboarder" videos.

You know, the ones where they cut their cameras on AFTER they mouthed off to the officer, etc?
And then act like they're the victims?

as a former skateboarder I can tell you that police officers sometimes are that flying rodent gak crazy.

I never "mouth off" to anyone, even here on the internet i rarely poke fun at people without them knowing its in good jest.

but yet I have been harassed and assaulted by police officers for skateboarding. I was skating in the parking lot of a newly constructed strip mall that didnt have any stores in it yet, no traffic or anything. There were no "no skateboarding" signs, and no one ever asked us to leave, I had just fallen from failing miserably at a trick, and this cop on foot grabbed my arm (near the armpit) and lifted me up off the ground, brusing the inside of my arm. he proceeded to yell and scream at my friends and I and threatened to arrest all of us, we just kept quiet and left, but ill never forget that instance of abuse; being screamed at and bruised for no reason other than his assumption that skateboarding was not allowed.

Other than commit the crime of trespass of course, but yea thats harsh. Often cops will run scateboarders out of those areas to avoid potential vandalism. They will run anyone off hanging around in places under construction for that reason.

Look at it this way. At least you weren't holding a dandelion at the time.

Nearly 50% is an excellent hit rate FYI. Those boys had it together.

For them maybe
And to fire that many shots .... what a fething waste of lead

Demogerg wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I think the funniest thing I've seen on Youtube are all the "Police v. Skateboarder" videos.

You know, the ones where they cut their cameras on AFTER they mouthed off to the officer, etc?
And then act like they're the victims?

as a former skateboarder I can tell you that police officers sometimes are that flying rodent gak crazy.

I never "mouth off" to anyone, even here on the internet i rarely poke fun at people without them knowing its in good jest.

but yet I have been harassed and assaulted by police officers for skateboarding. I was skating in the parking lot of a newly constructed strip mall that didnt have any stores in it yet, no traffic or anything. There were no "no skateboarding" signs, and no one ever asked us to leave, I had just fallen from failing miserably at a trick, and this cop on foot grabbed my arm (near the armpit) and lifted me up off the ground, brusing the inside of my arm. he proceeded to yell and scream at my friends and I and threatened to arrest all of us, we just kept quiet and left, but ill never forget that instance of abuse; being screamed at and bruised for no reason other than his assumption that skateboarding was not allowed.

But here's the rub:
They don't HAVE to post "No Skateboarding" signs if it's private property. It's private property, no matter what. The same general attitude is applied to construction sites, storefronts, and "public" areas that aren't intended for recreation(so far as how it is in Raleigh, at least).

The problem is that it's rarely enforced(again--here in Raleigh), and when it IS enforced--you get endless complaints from the skaters at the officers, and well...officers are people too. Eventually they'll get fed up with your garbage, and hey. You brought it on yourself in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I forgot. One of the biggest reasons they don't want you on those types of property is liability to the property management/owners. I lost track of the amount of kids who used to sneak onto the area around my old FLGS to skate and would constantly break/dislocate something.

Admittedly--it was 100% hilarious to watch.

Half the point of being a Sk8rboy is being a rebel, it's like Rock 'n' Roll.

Albatross wrote:

Albatross obviously knows NOTHING about gun battles.

That being said....

I am in law enforcement.

If I give you an instruction to lower your weapon and get on the ground, whether it be a gun, squirt gun, or dandelion, if you do anything but move in an unthreatening and compliant manner, you have just taken your own life in your hands.

I'm going home to my family tonight....period. People tend to forget that the police are just as much real people as the people that get shot. The police that stop and try to determine whether "that is a real gun or not" are the ones that wind up dead.

If a cop tells you to do something, comply. If he's in the wrong, sue the city later.

Drop that gun, squirt gun, or dandelion or I will shoot you in the face. I have the badge, do as I tell you. I'm not being a bully, I'm trying to keep order or get to the bottom of whatever is going on. As far as I'm concerned, its my life or yours.

Like I said, I'm going home tonight.

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Wow. Way to not conform to white american stereotypes there, champ. How can people criticise the UK's so-called 'Big Brother' methods of law-enforcement, and prefer the above? That blows my mind. I would rather forfeit (some of) my privacy, than forfeit my life.
@Deadshane - I may not have been in a firefight, but as far as I'm concerned people who think the way you seem to don't deserve to hold the power of life and death over another human being.

Do you realize that I'm the one that keeps calling england a nanny censor state akin to what can be found in V for Vendetta, while at the same time I'm the American in this thread saying that this sounded like excessive use of force? It's not conflicting, england is some sort of 80's sci-fi dystopia and these guys shot too many bullets into the back of someone that was running away from them.

I for one think these guys should recieve medals and praise for doing their jobs.

A medal and praise for killing an 18 year old who had never fired a shot. What the feth is wrong with you? Solidarity and support for what was likely (at least it should have been) a difficult decision with likely remorse afterwards, but a fething gold star sticker by their names for killing a kid?

england is some sort of 80's sci-fi dystopia

Not from where I'm sitting. Have you been to the UK Shuma? Just interested to find out.
I never notice any CCTV cameras, but even if I did it wouldn't really bother me. If it helps catch/convict rapists, muggers and murderers, then I'm all for it - and it's not like the US is devoid of CCTV or anything.
If I had to choose between guns or cameras as a regular feature on our streets - I'm firmly in 'Team Camera'.

But I suppose this is a side-issue, really - I'd be more than happy to take this up via PM in order to discuss it further.

I'm against guns too, we can't have people killing themselves off before they're taken to the Ministry of Love.

ShumaGorath wrote:
A medal and praise for killing an 18 year old who had never fired a shot. What the feth is wrong with you? Solidarity and support for what was likely (at least it should have been) a difficult decision with likely remorse afterwards, but a fething gold star sticker by their names for killing a kid?

But if he would've fired a shot that would've made it ok?

Wait...

How about fired a shot and killed a uniformed officer, one with two kids and a wife? Yea, that would've been fair.

No, how about the punk kid shows an iota of intelligence (as an 18 year old able to be tried as an adult) and does EXACTLY what trained officers tell him what to do while pointing guns at him.

You do not make threatening moves at uniformed officers that are pointing weapons at you....obviously. These are men with families that dont plan on getting killed by some punk who thinks he's a 'gansta'.

I say to the boys in blue, "Good job"!

The kid pointed a 9mm at officers out doing their job in order to support their families. Any remorse these officers feel is sorrow for the kids stupidity in the first place, not guilt for killing him.

The kid committed suicide, if you feel sorry for him, do it because of that. Uniformed officers did their duty and did it well.

@Deadshane - I agree with you -
Pointing guns at armed officers = Death. No problem with that at all. But the wallet guy? That death could have been avoided - they went to trial, so it's not just me who thinks it. Plus his family won a civil case against NY state.

After a killing, there will ALWAYS be an investigation.

Yes I do think these guys diserve praise, and you know what he may have not gotten a shot off so to me that says the cops did a great job insuring the safety of th ecommunity. Because of this kid would pull a gun on cops what do you think he did to the locals hmmm. Ahhhh but to your hippie loving self the cops are evil, well you know what I have a ton of friends who are cops, and yes their is remorse after you kill somone that just makes you human, but they did their duty and the kid broke the law, and if he did get a shot off and kill a officer you would still say it was excessive mean time the officers family grows up without a father. Yes it is a part of the job, but it doesnt mean you wish it upon someone. IF you are getting harrassed for skateboarding THEN GO TO A SKATE PARK we have laws for a reason and nothing honestly pisses me off more when people blame the cops for them breaking the laws that we all know, but if you were in their shoes you would have done the same and dont say you wouldnt because I sure as know you would. Honestly im not sorry for this rant because I hate people like you and you know who you are who condemn others when you know damn well you would have done the same hipocrats!!!!!!!!!

Deadshane1 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
A medal and praise for killing an 18 year old who had never fired a shot. What the feth is wrong with you? Solidarity and support for what was likely (at least it should have been) a difficult decision with likely remorse afterwards, but a fething gold star sticker by their names for killing a kid?

But if he would've fired a shot that would've made it ok?

Wait...

How about fired a shot and killed a uniformed officer, one with two kids and a wife? Yea, that would've been fair.

No, how about the punk kid shows an iota of intelligence (as an 18 year old able to be tried as an adult) and does EXACTLY what trained officers tell him what to do while pointing guns at him.

You do not make threatening moves at uniformed officers that are pointing weapons at you....obviously. These are men with families that dont plan on getting killed by some punk who thinks he's a 'gansta'.

I say to the boys in blue, "Good job"!

The kid pointed a 9mm at officers out doing their job in order to support their families. Any remorse these officers feel is sorrow for the kids stupidity in the first place, not guilt for killing him.

The kid committed suicide, if you feel sorry for him, do it because of that. Uniformed officers did their duty and did it well.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I disagreed that commending an officer for killing a perp that wasn't even old enough to drink with a medal was the right thing to do. Because it's not. You don't give the police medals for killing people, you give them medals for going beyond the call of duty, for protecting and serving, not for putting an excessive number of bullets into the back of an 18 year old. I didn't say they did wrong, I said that they did something unworthy of loads of praise. They did their job, they didn't charge into a burning building to save a family, they didn't go under deep cover to bust up a drug ring. They shot a kid in the back until he died. You want to award medals for that gak? What they need is a paycheck and probably some counseling to deal with the fact that some kids not going to see his mother again because of what they did. If they're good cops they'll feel it but press on. If they're bad ones they'll crack or even worse they won't care at all.

Ahhhh but to your hippie loving self the cops are evil, well you know what I have a ton of friends who are cops, and yes their is remorse after you kill somone that just makes you human, but they did their duty and the kid broke the law, and if he did get a shot off and kill a officer you would still say it was excessive mean time the officers family grows up without a father. Yes it is a part of the job, but it doesnt mean you wish it upon someone.

I think I'm seeing a trend of people twisting my words so that they can cry for the plight of cops, as if it's something new. But hey, yeah, go ahead. Give people medals for putting someones son in the ground. I'll just concede that you must live in a wonderful world, totally untouched by death or mistakes. It's about all I can do on this forum without Fraz banning me again.

Not from where I'm sitting. Have you been to the UK Shuma? Just interested to find out.

I read 1984.

I never notice any CCTV cameras, but even if I did it wouldn't really bother me. If it helps catch/convict rapists, muggers and murderers, then I'm all for it - and it's not like the US is devoid of CCTV or anything.

It's not closed circuit television. It also doesn't help particularly much, one of the biggest failings of the program is the framelag (Only one every few seconds) and the poor resolution. They don't help much with convictions in the rare event that they actually manage to see a crime being committed at all.

Shuma,

Just because the coroner found entry wounds in the kids back does not mean he was shot from behind while trying to run away. If he is hit in a shoulder or arm his body will spin and twist meaning at some point his back is turned to the cops by no fault of his own.

The cops aren't trained to check their shots. They are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized. Unless the cop has Down's syndrome (in which case he's not a cop) he will fire off an entire clip in around 5-6 seconds. They are not going to fire a shot, wait 5 seconds to see if perp is still moving or dead and than fire another one.

Neutralizing a threat means it's not going to be moving (or the very least you'll have shot his gun hand so bad he can't squeeze the trigger, which is getting really lucky).

To make the perp look the victim Shuma is baffling. When you act toward an armed cop in a hostile manner you give up your right to live. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

As to the wallet story, again, it doesn't matter that it wasn't a gun. Police told him to freeze and he started reaching into his pocket. Cops aren't going to wait to make 100% certain that what you are reaching for isn't a gun, they will shoot and they are authorized to do so.

If you are running from a crime and you don't have a weapon and the cop tells you to kiss the pavement you DO NOT reach for a pocket or inside your jacket if you want to see your next birthday. End of.

Yes I live in a wonderful world of gum drops, and lollipop faries. I am a soldier and have been one for 9 years now. Most of that was active duty infantry where it was my job to do stuff like that. I am just standing up for my brothers in uniform from one service to another, believing in what they did. I can see where you say no medals and to a strong extent your right, but the fact is they didnt kill him the kid killed himself with his actions forcing their hands.

To make the perp look the victim Shuma is baffling. When you act toward an armed cop in a hostile manner you give up your right to live. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

This is where I begin to wonder if you can actually read. I'm beginning to think that you just slap your hands on the keyboard while singing the birthday song and words just miraculously appear on the screen. Let's review what I've said, shall we?

They did their job,

If they're good cops they'll feel it but press on. If they're bad ones they'll crack or even worse they won't care at all.

Solidarity and support for what was likely (at least it should have been) a difficult decision with likely remorse afterwards,

And in my very first post!

I'm not advocating what he did, guy was looking to get shot,

---

As to the wallet story, again, it doesn't matter that it wasn't a gun. Police told him to freeze and he started reaching into his pocket. Cops aren't going to wait to make 100% certain that what you are reaching for isn't a gun, they will shoot and they are authorized to do so.

And so an innocent man had to die. Why is it so hard for you to say that "It was a mistake, but the cops are only human" rather than "THEY DID THEIR JOB GIVE THEM MEDALS."

If you are running from a crime and you don't have a weapon and the cop tells you to kiss the pavement you DO NOT reach for a pocket or inside your jacket if you want to see your next birthday. End of.

I'm glad you're willing to give up the right of people to live so that some joe in a suit doesn't have to see a guy reach for his pocket. I'm so glad we have you to champion the cops who kill for pockets and wallets. If you weren't around society would fall apart. And now for a more reasoned and thought out response.

Yes I live in a wonderful world of gum drops, and lollipop faries. I am a soldier and have been one for 9 years now. Most of that was active duty infantry where it was my job to do stuff like that. I am just standing up for my brothers in uniform from one service to another, believing in what they did. I can see where you say no medals and to a strong extent your right, but the fact is they didnt kill him the kid killed himself with his actions forcing their hands.

Which is exactly what I'm arguing. The unfortunate circumstances of the event. There was a time when this kind of death would be a cause for sadness, regret, and solidarity with both the police and the families of the dead. Half of what I've seen from this thread is "DUDE DESERVED TO DIE, GIVE THOSE COPS A MEDAL". Which is sickening to me. Thats not how you deal with a lawful killing. This isn't fething diehard, someone is dead. The level of immaturity here is startling.

ShumaGorath wrote:I read 1984.

The sad thing is, it isn't far off the truth now :(

I'm glad that you'd be so calm Shuma to wait until the guy withdrew his hand from his pocket, double checking to make sure it wasn't a gun and then if it was a gun hoping to get the shot off before he did.

You go right ahead and take your chances, most cops I know want to live to see their next Christmas and go home to family at the end of the day.

I'm sorry but if you pull a gun on a cop you deserve to die and I won't feel sorry for that person. I'm sure the cops feel remorse but we won't know unless they come out publicly to express how they feel and even if they didn't feel remorse they sure as hell aren't going to say to the press "I'm glad that kid died. I'm glad I got to shoot him".

Nice attack Shuma. One of your posts said you thought it was sick that he got shot 11 times, some in the back as he was running away (to which you have no proof he tried to run) and then you attack me personally by saying I can't read and then you quote a later post saying they did their job. Can you not make up your damned mind Shuma?

If you feel they were excessive than apparently they didn't do their job (as you quote this isn't Die Hard and you feel they acted in a Die Hard movie cop manner so obviously, using your logic they didn't do their job as it's not their job to empty 3 clips into the kid).

Nice attack Shuma. One of your posts said you thought it was sick that he got shot 11 times, some in the back as he was running away

Actually I said it was sick that you treat it like an action movie that you can draw entertainment from. I repeatedly said that they did their job, as they were supposed to do, and that while it seemed more than needed in terms of shots fired I didn't side with the kid.

Y'know what? I'm pretty sure you still don'tt understand my posts. Empchild got them pretty well, which means they are at least coherent. It's like you're debating one line that I posted three posts ago over and over again. So hey, you win. Gold star champ.

Deadshane1 wrote:Albatross obviously knows NOTHING about gun battles.

That being said....

I am in law enforcement.

If I give you an instruction to lower your weapon and get on the ground, whether it be a gun, squirt gun, or dandelion, if you do anything but move in an unthreatening and compliant manner, you have just taken your own life in your hands.

I'm going home to my family tonight....period. People tend to forget that the police are just as much real people as the people that get shot. The police that stop and try to determine whether "that is a real gun or not" are the ones that wind up dead.

If a cop tells you to do something, comply. If he's in the wrong, sue the city later.

Drop that gun, squirt gun, or dandelion or I will shoot you in the face. I have the badge, do as I tell you. I'm not being a bully, I'm trying to keep order or get to the bottom of whatever is going on. As far as I'm concerned, its my life or yours.

Like I said, I'm going home tonight.

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I agree. I don't care who you think you are, if a Law Enforcement officer asks you to do something, comply immediately.

No, you are supposed to not comply, get shot full of holes and then have bleeding hearts mourn your death because you are an idiot.

I get what you say Shuma. I don't see how any of us are treating this as a "Bad Boys 3" moment where we are sitting in our recliners cheering and shouting that some moron died.

Stop preaching to the choir.

I'm sorry that you think it's so awful a moron had to die. He was a moron. He deserved to die. 1 bullet or 19. End of.

I get what you say Shuma. I don't see how any of us are treating this as a "Bad Boys 3" moment where we are sitting in our recliners cheering and shouting that some moron died.

Stop preaching to the choir.

I'm sorry that you think it's so awful a moron had to die. He was a moron. He deserved to die. 1 bullet or 19. End of.

See, with that first line you seemed to understand what I was saying. Then with the second line you started to lose it, and by the third one you had gone totally back into your tangent about me being an apologist hippy that cherishes our gun brandishing youth.

Lets break this down.

I don't see how any of us are treating this as a "Bad Boys 3" moment where we are sitting in our recliners cheering and shouting that some moron died.

I'm sorry that you think it's so awful a moron had to die. He was a moron. He deserved to die. 1 bullet or 19. End of.

Cognitive dissonance.

I'm sorry. I apologize for breaking your heart that I'm not mourning that kid's death.

I'll even for him.

shuma I can on many levels see your point, and feel a certain validity to it. I personally got out of combat arms because I had enough of that life style of kick in doors what have you's. We cannot say that he was running away either since he was shot inthe backas one thing people forget due to movies is that a bullet is travelling at subsonic speeds that once they hit their targets will force you one way or another. Also a lighter grain bullets will enter the body and ricochet(misspelled I know) inside as it has hit a wall almost and thus starts to tumble around. Now for point of refrence I am the ammo manager for the national gaurd for my state. My job is ammo, and thus I have a lot of knowledge most of which I had to learn. So without being there at the scene or being a CSI I can only discern several endings that A: the person spun and as bullets flew hit him in that instant, or B: the bullets were of a light caliber since most police don't use a heavier .45cc round that would travel through a body but also packs a hell of a punch, and thus the bullets tumbled inside.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. I apologize for breaking your heart that I'm not mourning that kid's death.

I'll even for him.

Are you screwing with me? Have I been taken for a loop with your brilliant trolling, or are you really so deluded that you think that I care about some gang banging slow from a state that I can't even be bothered to remember? I hate your attitude towards it, I couldn't give a flying feth about what actually happened, except insofar as I know that you've reacted like a 12 year old with ADD thats been playing too much call of duty 4 while calling out sick from your burger joint job. The cops did their job, killing is a solemn act, you don't award medals for killing in a functioning police department. Act like you should, not like some sort of overlord of good decision making who has no reason to ever fear the bullet tipped arm of some dude in a blue shirt.

shuma I can on many levels see your point, and feel a certain validity to it. I personally got out of combat arms because I had enough of that life style of kick in doors what have you's. We cannot say that he was running away either since he was shot inthe backas one thing people forget due to movies is that a bullet is travelling at subsonic speeds that once they hit their targets will force you one way or another. Also a lighter grain bullets will enter the body and ricochet(misspelled I know) inside as it has hit a wall almost and thus starts to tumble around. Now for point of refrence I am the ammo manager for the national gaurd for my state. My job is ammo, and thus I have a lot of knowledge most of which I had to learn. So without being there at the scene or being a CSI I can only discern several endings that A: the person spun and as bullets flew hit him in that instant, or B: the bullets were of a light caliber since most police don't use a heavier .45cc round that would travel through a body but also packs a hell of a punch, and thus the bullets tumbled inside.

True enough. In the article it said that he had been running and turned with the gun in hand, that leads me to believe that he had been pointing the weapon backwards while running forewords, certainly not an innocent act.

Frazzled wrote:How are you gettig a cheering vibe?

Reading the first page a second time... I don't know how I was getting a cheering vibe. Forget I said anything.


Meanwhile, this thread has collapsed into the same old rubbish these threads always collapse into. Yes, policing is a hard job, and can involve split second decisions about life and death. That doesn't mean every action ever taken by a policeman is correct, nor does it mean the wrong decisions are always justifiable. The difficulty of policing should be accounted for, but the amount of leeway needed to justify shooting a kid holding a wallet pointing away from the officers is ridiculous.

And yes, you should comply with a policeman when he tells you to do something, but that doesn't justify any and all reactions by policeman to non-compliance. A lethal response is justifiable when the officer has a reasonable expectation that the non-compliance represents a deadly threat, it is not justifiable when its just a kid mouthing off. Force should be proportionate to the threat.

These are not complicated things. It is possible to accept a general principle, without defending that principle in all possible cases regardless of circumstances.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. I apologize for breaking your heart that I'm not mourning that kid's death.

I'll even for him.

Are you screwing with me? Have I been taken for a loop with your brilliant trolling, or are you really so deluded that you think that I care about some gang banging slow from a state that I can't even be bothered to remember? I hate your attitude towards it, I couldn't give a flying feth about what actually happened, except insofar as I know that you've reacted like a 12 year old with ADD thats been playing too much call of duty 4 while calling out sick from your burger joint job. The cops did their job, killing is a solemn act, you don't award medals for killing in a functioning police department. Act like you should, not like some sort of overlord of good decision making who has no reason to ever fear the bullet tipped arm of some dude in a blue shirt.

shuma I can on many levels see your point, and feel a certain validity to it. I personally got out of combat arms because I had enough of that life style of kick in doors what have you's. We cannot say that he was running away either since he was shot inthe backas one thing people forget due to movies is that a bullet is travelling at subsonic speeds that once they hit their targets will force you one way or another. Also a lighter grain bullets will enter the body and ricochet(misspelled I know) inside as it has hit a wall almost and thus starts to tumble around. Now for point of refrence I am the ammo manager for the national gaurd for my state. My job is ammo, and thus I have a lot of knowledge most of which I had to learn. So without being there at the scene or being a CSI I can only discern several endings that A: the person spun and as bullets flew hit him in that instant, or B: the bullets were of a light caliber since most police don't use a heavier .45cc round that would travel through a body but also packs a hell of a punch, and thus the bullets tumbled inside.

True enough. In the article it said that he had been running and turned with the gun in hand, that leads me to believe that he had been pointing the weapon backwards while running forewords, certainly not an innocent act.

Go ahead and point out to me where I or anyone said the cops should get a medal. You say I just type without reading first? Pot meet kettle.

I've reacted no differently than anyone else. Once again you just want to make attacks against my character and against my persona. Good for you. Want a cookie or something? Perhaps you want the gold star Shuma?

Fateweaver wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. I apologize for breaking your heart that I'm not mourning that kid's death.

I'll even for him.

Are you screwing with me? Have I been taken for a loop with your brilliant trolling, or are you really so deluded that you think that I care about some gang banging slow from a state that I can't even be bothered to remember? I hate your attitude towards it, I couldn't give a flying feth about what actually happened, except insofar as I know that you've reacted like a 12 year old with ADD thats been playing too much call of duty 4 while calling out sick from your burger joint job. The cops did their job, killing is a solemn act, you don't award medals for killing in a functioning police department. Act like you should, not like some sort of overlord of good decision making who has no reason to ever fear the bullet tipped arm of some dude in a blue shirt.

shuma I can on many levels see your point, and feel a certain validity to it. I personally got out of combat arms because I had enough of that life style of kick in doors what have you's. We cannot say that he was running away either since he was shot inthe backas one thing people forget due to movies is that a bullet is travelling at subsonic speeds that once they hit their targets will force you one way or another. Also a lighter grain bullets will enter the body and ricochet(misspelled I know) inside as it has hit a wall almost and thus starts to tumble around. Now for point of refrence I am the ammo manager for the national gaurd for my state. My job is ammo, and thus I have a lot of knowledge most of which I had to learn. So without being there at the scene or being a CSI I can only discern several endings that A: the person spun and as bullets flew hit him in that instant, or B: the bullets were of a light caliber since most police don't use a heavier .45cc round that would travel through a body but also packs a hell of a punch, and thus the bullets tumbled inside.

True enough. In the article it said that he had been running and turned with the gun in hand, that leads me to believe that he had been pointing the weapon backwards while running forewords, certainly not an innocent act.

Go ahead and point out to me where I or anyone said the cops should get a medal. You say I just type without reading first? Pot meet kettle.

I've reacted no differently than anyone else. Once again you just want to make attacks against my character and against my persona. Good for you. Want a cookie or something? Perhaps you want the gold star Shuma?

Yeah, I think I lumped you in with deadshane because the first thing you said was that I was trying to cast the deceased as some sort of terrible victim in all this tragedy, then you compared the death of a kid to a game of monopoly. You sort of made up for my misdirected arguments in the ensuing few posts though, so it's sort of a wash, I inadvertently tried to put you into a box, but you certainly managed to dive into it on your own.

Reading through this thread, the prominent fixtures sprung forth a strong image.

Wrexasaur wrote:Reading through this thread, the prominent fixtures sprung forth a strong image.

As someone that used to work on a hogfarm, that picture is more scary than funny. A pig can rip a person apart real quick.

ShumaGorath wrote:

To make the perp look the victim Shuma is baffling. When you act toward an armed cop in a hostile manner you give up your right to live. End of story. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

This is where I begin to wonder if you can actually read. I'm beginning to think that you just slap your hands on the keyboard while singing the birthday song and words just miraculously appear on the screen. Let's review what I've said, shall we?

Modquisition on: Everyone, including Shuma, will take a breath and restrain themselves, lest this thread be closed and persons disciplined. Consider this a public warning to ALL parties. I kid you not.

Relapse wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Reading through this thread, the prominent fixtures sprung forth a strong image.

As someone that used to work on a hogfarm, that picture is more scary than funny. A pig can rip a person apart real quick.

Not if the baby has a dandelion in its pocket. Babys always have dandelions. They are like the suicide bombers of the flower world.....

Very true.

Meanwhile, this thread has collapsed into the same old rubbish these threads always collapse into. Yes, policing is a hard job, and can involve split second decisions about life and death. That doesn't mean every action ever taken by a policeman is correct, nor does it mean the wrong decisions are always justifiable. The difficulty of policing should be accounted for, but the amount of leeway needed to justify shooting a kid holding a wallet pointing away from the officers is ridiculous.

And yes, you should comply with a policeman when he tells you to do something, but that doesn't justify any and all reactions by policeman to non-compliance. A lethal response is justifiable when the officer has a reasonable expectation that the non-compliance represents a deadly threat, it is not justifiable when its just a kid mouthing off. Force should be proportionate to the threat.

These are not complicated things. It is possible to accept a general principle, without defending that principle in all possible cases regardless of circumstances.

Well said, sebster.

Here's the only part of Sebster's monologue thats relevant:

A lethal response is justifiable when the officer has a reasonable expectation that the non-compliance represents a deadly threat,

There's always an investigation after. They had a reasonable expectation. They capped him because of it. Its irrelevant what the item is. Any statements otherwise are carping without facts.

@ Frazzled - Ah yes, but that assumes the plain-clothed police officers properly identified themselves. They claim they did, but Diallo was from Equitoreal Guinea and wouldn't have spoken english as his first language. It could be that he saw a group of armed men approaching him as he stood outside his house and panicked because he thought he was about to be robbed. He goes for his wallet/keys, and one of the cops shouts 'Gun!' at which point they fire upon him. During the incident, one of the police officers fell down the stairs at the front of the apartment building, which would suggest he was fairly close. Perhaps close enough to make a better judgment as to whether the man was a threat or not? Thinking one of their comrades has been shot, they fill him full of lead.

Police officers are there to protect members of the public - not act as judge, jury and executioner of anyone who might be deemed a 'threat'. Surely human life is not that cheap in the USA?

Albatross wrote:@ Frazzled - Ah yes, but that assumes the plain-clothed police officers properly identified themselves. They claim they did, but Diallo was from Equitoreal Guinea and wouldn't have spoken english as his first language. It could be that he saw a group of armed men approaching him as he stood outside his house and panicked because he thought he was about to be robbed. He goes for his wallet/keys, and one of the cops shouts 'Gun!' at which point they fire upon him. During the incident, one of the police officers fell down the stairs at the front of the apartment building, which would suggest he was fairly close. Perhaps close enough to make a better judgment as to whether the man was a threat or not? Thinking one of their comrades has been shot, they fill him full of lead.

Police officers are there to protect members of the public - not act as judge, jury and executioner of anyone who might be deemed a 'threat'. Surely human life is not that cheap in the USA?

They don't know what country he is from. its not relevant.
They don't know what he is reaching for. In this case he was waving a 9mm.
They are not going to stick around and find out, either would you.

Frankly the moment a gun appears they are free to shoot, there is no warning requirement. thats policy (at least in many jurisdictions) but thats also common law for all citizens.

I love people who try to take the time and analysze point by point.

They see who they think is a BG.
They say stop. The rest goes this fast
He's got a GUN! BANG BANG BANG.

Fateweaver wrote:One shot, one kill is for snipers. I believe in "shoot until it doesn't move".

or even better. "Shoot until it doesn't move, then reload and let them have it again because Internal Affairs will not find that we did anything wrong."

and yes, ~50% hit rate is pretty good. What's even better is when they manage to not get any bystanders.

Albatross wrote:

england is some sort of 80's sci-fi dystopia

Not from where I'm sitting. Have you been to the UK Shuma? Just interested to find out.
I never notice any CCTV cameras, but even if I did it wouldn't really bother me. If it helps catch/convict rapists, muggers and murderers, then I'm all for it - and it's not like the US is devoid of CCTV or anything.
If I had to choose between guns or cameras as a regular feature on our streets - I'm firmly in 'Team Camera'.

But I suppose this is a side-issue, really - I'd be more than happy to take this up via PM in order to discuss it further.

Don't they have to have hovering blimps to watch over the populace to be a dystopia? I think that's a legal requirement.

You know, once I get through the list of people unfairly harmed by others, the list of people harmed by circumstances completely beyond their control, and the list of people harmed by things they shouldn't have done but harmed to a degree that was really unforseeable, I can't muster up that much sympathy for the people who do something that had a pretty obvious negative outcome, and then suffer that outcome.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:@ Frazzled - Ah yes, but that assumes the plain-clothed police officers properly identified themselves. They claim they did, but Diallo was from Equitoreal Guinea and wouldn't have spoken english as his first language. It could be that he saw a group of armed men approaching him as he stood outside his house and panicked because he thought he was about to be robbed. He goes for his wallet/keys, and one of the cops shouts 'Gun!' at which point they fire upon him. During the incident, one of the police officers fell down the stairs at the front of the apartment building, which would suggest he was fairly close. Perhaps close enough to make a better judgment as to whether the man was a threat or not? Thinking one of their comrades has been shot, they fill him full of lead.

Police officers are there to protect members of the public - not act as judge, jury and executioner of anyone who might be deemed a 'threat'. Surely human life is not that cheap in the USA?

They don't know what country he is from. its not relevant.
They don't know what he is reaching for. In this case he was waving a 9mm.
They are not going to stick around and find out, either would you.

Frankly the moment a gun appears they are free to shoot, there is no warning requirement. thats policy (at least in many jurisdictions) but thats also common law for all citizens.

I love people who try to take the time and analysze point by point.

They see who they think is a BG.
They say stop. The rest goes this fast
He's got a GUN! BANG BANG BANG.

I think you guys are mixing up the wallet guy and the gun guy.

Of course they are, what's the point of arguing on the internet if you actually read what they other guy wrote?
Way more fun to argue against what you wished they wrote.

Da Boss wrote:Of course they are, what's the point of arguing on the internet if you actually read what they other guy wrote?
Way more fun to argue against what you wished they wrote.

You're iinferring bad intent which is about as appropriate as myself impugning your statement makes you and arse. Neither is correct.

I was joking. But whatever.

No orkticons equals no joke. You have to remember the orkitcons.

That's the problem when you're lazy like me, and always use the quick reply box. It's so tempting though. All white and blank, waiting to be filled with words...

Da Boss wrote:That's the problem when you're lazy like me, and always use the quick reply box. It's so tempting though. All white and blank, waiting to be filled with words...

I hear ya on that. Use the usual ", , , " icons sets and they should work for you.

Unfortunately there's no auto spell correct on mine.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think you guys are mixing up the wallet guy and the gun guy.

I think when the picture of the gun-wallet surfaced all hope of separating stories has been burned to the metaphorical ground.

Cops shooting people and getting away with it? What a suprise.

fire4effekt wrote:Cops shooting people and getting away with it? What a suprise.

People jumping to conclusions on the internet? What a surprise.

Jumping to conclusions? Whats aqquitted mean to you?

Does the name make the posts qualify as irony, or just absurdity?

fire4effekt wrote:Jumping to conclusions? Whats aqquitted mean to you?

What does he turned and pointed a gun at armed officers after being told to stop and drop mean to you?

And what of the other two examples presented on the AP report?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People who point guns get shot, people who are are black, also get shot.

What of them? Deadshane already made note that when you respond to officers in a threatening manner (and reaching into your pants or jacket is construed as a threatening action) you will get shot. Cops don't wait around to make sure you have a gun. If they did chances are that some wife and children won't see their dad ever again (or husband and kids).

Ah yes. The race card. I knew it was only a matter of time before that came into play.

I think you guys are mixing up the wallet guy and the gun guy.

I think Orkeosaurus is right. As usual.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about the numbskull who pointed a gun at armed police offers - I was talking about Amadou Diallo, a foreign national who was standing unarmed on his front step and got slotted for looking suspicious, basically. The cops claimed they thought he may have been a mugger or a rapist - I wonder why?

Ah yes. The race card. I knew it was only a matter of time before that came into play.

See above. Diallo would still be alive if he was white, in all probability.

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

Fateweaver wrote:Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

Obviously it is not.....

Albatross wrote:

Albatross obviously knows NOTHING about gun battles.

That being said....

I am in law enforcement.

If I give you an instruction to lower your weapon and get on the ground, whether it be a gun, squirt gun, or dandelion, if you do anything but move in an unthreatening and compliant manner, you have just taken your own life in your hands.

I'm going home to my family tonight....period. People tend to forget that the police are just as much real people as the people that get shot. The police that stop and try to determine whether "that is a real gun or not" are the ones that wind up dead.

If a cop tells you to do something, comply. If he's in the wrong, sue the city later.

Drop that gun, squirt gun, or dandelion or I will shoot you in the face. I have the badge, do as I tell you. I'm not being a bully, I'm trying to keep order or get to the bottom of whatever is going on. As far as I'm concerned, its my life or yours.

Like I said, I'm going home tonight.

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Wow. Way to not conform to white american stereotypes there, champ. How can people criticise the UK's so-called 'Big Brother' methods of law-enforcement, and prefer the above? That blows my mind. I would rather forfeit (some of) my privacy, than forfeit my life.
@Deadshane - I may not have been in a firefight, but as far as I'm concerned people who think the way you seem to don't deserve to hold the power of life and death over another human being.

The three cops didn't decide the kid needed to die.

The kid decided he was going to die by a) running, and then b) pulling out a gun, and then c) starting to turn and point the gun at the three cops. A three-step process demonstrating either a death wish or a total lack of intelligence.

So the three cops spend three seconds (the same three seconds, not cop 1 shoots for 3 seconds, then cop 2, then cop 3) firing as fast as they can. 40 rounds go downrange, 11 hit the target. He was dead before he hit the ground... which was the only way the cops could be sure he wasn't going to be shooting at them.

Sure, I feel a little sorry for the kid's parents... but then, they failed to intill in him a respect for the authorities, not to mention respect for the law, so even that much is tempered.

I know I'm a little late to this thread, but I'm not seeing how these two statements corroborate each other....

A teenager killed in a confrontation with New York City police over the weekend was shot 11 times, the medical examiner's office said Sunday.

three gunshot wounds in the middle of his back, five in his right side and three on his left side

He then turned and pointed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol at them, Browne said.

It's not too impossible.

Say his back is to the cops. He holds the gun in his right hand. He turns 270 degrees, so that his profile is slimmer and his gun is pointed at the officers. The first five shots go into his right side. Now being shot, he continues to turn as he was doing before, landing another three in his back (after a 90 degree turn), and another three in his left side (after a second 90 degree turn).

Dreadwinter wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

Obviously it is not.....

Explain to me how him being black was the reason he got shot. I mean, apparently it doesn't matter that he pointed a gun at cops after being told to stop.

I really am clueless as to how him being a minority meant him getting killed for the same exact reason a white kid would have gotten killed. Enlighten me as to why this is suddenly a race issue and no longer "I have a death wish" issue.

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

FOR THE LAST fething TIME! I am NOT referring to the kid who pointed the gun at the cops - I don't know what skin-colour he had!

I am referring to a different case in which an unarmed black man was shot dead by police officers in NY. His name was Amadou Diallo. Look it up.

Albatross wrote:

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

FOR THE LAST fething TIME! I am NOT referring to the kid who pointed the gun at the cops - I don't know what skin-colour he had!

I am referring to a different case in which an unarmed black man was shot dead by police officers in NY. His name was Amadou Diallo. Look it up.

Unarmed? You should really read the article the OP linked to man, he had a 9mm.

Albatross wrote:

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

FOR THE LAST fething TIME! I am NOT referring to the kid who pointed the gun at the cops - I don't know what skin-colour he had!

I am referring to a different case in which an unarmed black man was shot dead by police officers in NY. His name was Amadou Diallo. Look it up.

Ah okay, but we've gone over this. When the cops tell you to stop what the feth you are doing and put hands up or get on your knees, if you act in such a way as to be construed as threatening (and reaching into your jacket or pants WILL be construed as threatening) you will be shot or tased or whatever the cop happens to be pointing at you.

I'm sure Deadshane would really love to be told to his face after shooting an unarmed black man acting in a threatening manner that he only shot the guy because he was black. Again, a white man doing the same thing would also have been shot dead.

Police don't tell you to put your hands up in the air just to hear themselves speak.

Again, stop the race card nonsense. In a country where it's played anytime something involves minorities it sure as hell gets old really quick.

Now do you understand Albatross. Again, explain to me why you think the wallet guy was shot (and let's in fact pretend he didn't make a gesture construed as threatening).

@Orkeosaurus - Are you winding me up?

I know THAT kid had a gun, but the guy I was talking about, didn't. In fact, the Diallo case is mentioned in the article that he linked.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

FOR THE LAST fething TIME! I am NOT referring to the kid who pointed the gun at the cops - I don't know what skin-colour he had!

I am referring to a different case in which an unarmed black man was shot dead by police officers in NY. His name was Amadou Diallo. Look it up.

Unarmed? You should really read the article the OP linked to man, he had a 9mm.

Alba is talking about wallet guy mentioned at the bottom of the article. I thought he was talking about the kid in the main article. My point still stands though. It's not a race issue as much as the BH's want to make it one.

Read this and tell me racial profiling didn't play a part in his death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/26/nyregion/diallo-verdict-overview-4-officers-diallo-shooting-are-acquitted-all-charges.html


I find the term 'race card' offensive - is it wrong for black americans to be sensitive to racial issues when segregation is within living memory? This might open a can of worms actually...

Racial profiling didn't play a part in his death.

When crime statistics are more in line with demograhphic statistics, then "racial profiling" might be a factor. As long as the majority of crimes are committed by the minority of a population (regardless of race) then law enforcement are justified in certain assumptions.

It just shows to me that they had remorse for making a mistake. I don't see any example of racial profiling unless you want to construe "we believed him to be a rapist or a robber" as racial profiling.

Here in the States if you are lurking around anywhere you have no right to be you will be suspected of being up to no good.

Albatross wrote:

I find the term 'race card' offensive - is it wrong for black americans to be sensitive to racial issues when segregation is within living memory?

No, but it IS wrong to assume that every interaction between a police officer or other government representative, and a citizen is motivated by color of skin. Stating that somebody is playing the race card might offend you, but you being offended doesn't make the statement any less (or more) true. People "play the race card" everyday, justifiably and not.

No, but it IS wrong to assume that every interaction between a police officer or other government representative is motivated by color of skin.

I never made that statement.

@Nurgleboy - Figures or it didn't happen/you're a racist.

@Fateweaver -

Here in the States if you are lurking around anywhere you have no right to be you will be suspected of being up to no good.

And shot dead? Ah, the 'Land of the Free'....

I am happily a Racist.

Ugh, I give up Albatross. You are being ignorant just to be argumentative.

This has been beaten to death. He acted in a manner the cops construed as hostile AFTER being questioned as to his reasoning for being where he was. A cop that wants to go home to his or her family will not wait to see if it's a spoon or a dandelion or a weapon that gets pulled from a suspects jacket or pants or shirt pockets.

When you are told to keep your hands where they can be seen (and most likely he was told that) and you have a gun pointed at you, you would be wise to comply with officer demands. For whatever reason wallet-guy decided to be a moron that night.

Albatross wrote:

No, but it IS wrong to assume that every interaction between a police officer or other government representative is motivated by color of skin.

I never made that statement.

You didn't have to. "So-and-so is playing the race card" is a statement of belief that somebody is claiming discrimination without merit. The only way to be offended by this is to believe that claims of discrimination are always founded, and that people never lie about such things.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Yes, because everyone knows white cops have it out for black people. If it had been a white guy pointing a gun at cops they wouldn't have shot at him. It is so clear to me now.

No, not really.

FOR THE LAST fething TIME! I am NOT referring to the kid who pointed the gun at the cops - I don't know what skin-colour he had!

I am referring to a different case in which an unarmed black man was shot dead by police officers in NY. His name was Amadou Diallo. Look it up.

Unarmed? You should really read the article the OP linked to man, he had a 9mm.

I understand now, we're not speaking the same language. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE OR I WILL SHOOT YOU IN THE SPINE. LAST WARNI"BANG".

@Fateweaver - I'm not, I swear.
They didn't question him - they approached him in plain clothes in an intimidating fashion. The prosecution claimed that they did not identify themselves as police officers sufficiently clearly (possibly excacerbated by the fact that the victim wasn't a native english-speaker), and approached with guns drawn. It is likely that Diallo thought he was being robbed, which is why he went for his wallet and held it out after first trying to seek refuge in his apartment.
But fair enough, if you don't want to discuss it further I'll leave it there.

@Nurgleboy - I hope you're joking, but sadly I suspect you aren't.

I'm not racist, I hate everyone that isn't me.

As to the race card it gets played more often than the most popular top 40 songs on any radio station, ie. about 3 times an hour around where I am at.

Ah, so the prosecution says. Because lawyers don't ever lie.

Let's just agree to disagree on this Albatross.

That's some pretty good shooting (11 hits out of 14 shots) by the NYPD - not the level of marksmanship you'd expect from your average northeastern donut-muncher...

@Lordhat - Nice attempt at twisting my words. I dislike the term 'race-card' because it trivialises racial issues, and is used by racists to divest themselves of any responsibilty for discriminatory behaviour by claiming that the other party is being hypersensitive to some percieved slight. Yes, I am aware that people can make false claims of racism, and no I don't always believe that all claims of discrimination have foundation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Fateweaver - Fair enough. I have a feeling any debate we would ever have would end that way .

I am a a Racist in the fact that I can acknowledge that there are differences between the races.

And just to lighten the mood a bit....

Frazzled wrote:Here's the only part of Sebster's monologue thats relevant:

A lethal response is justifiable when the officer has a reasonable expectation that the non-compliance represents a deadly threat,

There's always an investigation after. They had a reasonable expectation. They capped him because of it. Its irrelevant what the item is. Any statements otherwise are carping without facts.

Yeah, and there was an investigation and then a trial, and the officers involved were acquitted. I don't like second guessing juries because they've sat there for two weeks or more listening to testimony and expert statements, and I'm just some guy who's read a few articles about it. So I'm happy to accept the jury's opinion and figure at the end of the day the justice system operated as it should, and that the officers acted in good faith and with proper judgement.

But the big thing to remember is that Amadou Diallo was sitting out the front of his apartment, a perfectly reasonable thing to do. He reacted in an understandable manner when he saw four men in plain clothes with guns drawn get out of a regular car and head towards him. When cornered he drew his wallet from his pocket, either to show it policemen or to hand it over to robbers, an action many people would take without realising how the officers might have perceived it.

So yeah, at the end of the day it can be put down to a series of unfortunate events that left a guy who did nothing wrong being shot by policemen. But those unfortunate events would not happen to a white kid living in the suburbs, they will only happen to a black guy living in the wrong part of town.

And that's pretty f*cked up.

So yeah, at the end of the day it can be put down to a series of unfortunate events that left a guy who did nothing being shot by policemen. But those unfortunate events would not happen to a white kid living in the suburbs, they will only happen to a black guy living in the wrong part of town.

?

Seriously?

??

Fateweaver wrote:

So yeah, at the end of the day it can be put down to a series of unfortunate events that left a guy who did nothing being shot by policemen. But those unfortunate events would not happen to a white kid living in the suburbs, they will only happen to a black guy living in the wrong part of town.

?

Seriously?

??

Statistically speaking, yes really!!!

...!!!

...!

I will add of course, that those situations could easily be switched in a different situation/reality/country. There is no reason besides the preconception of race, for these things to happen. If the guy was a well known criminal, then it is an entirely different story.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I am a a Racist in the fact that I can acknowledge that there are differences between the races.

There is only ignorance and subspecies, there are no true races. The concept of race is about as helpful to determining someones demographic, as a butter knife is to cutting down a tree, to see the rings.

The color of a persons skin means nothing, absolutely nothing. People choose to put meaning where they feel it is lacking, thus the concept of race is perpetuated. You can get pedantic if you want, but the whole concept of race... being used to say you are in fact not racist... is doubly ignorant. If someone is wearing baggy jeans, has a doo-rag on, and is sporting a thousand dollars worth of gold accessories in a poor neighborhood... you can begin to develop a demographically based conclusion from that. The fact that a person may be white, pink, black, brown, or tangerine, has nothing to do with any of this though.

I have known asian gangbangers, latino gangbangers, white gangbangers, black gangbangers, and at no point was it not obvious why most of them were living that life. Look at someones socioeconomic condition, and you will get a plethora of information to derive shaky conclusions from. The fact that I am Irish, and I like potatoes, has little more to do with the fact that I ate a lot of potatoes as a kid; most likely as any other person with a preferred cultural dish would do.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I am happily a Racist.

And that ladies and gentlemen is about the level of civil discourse in this thread. Could someone lock this wounded beast before it's cancer kills all of us? Or do I have to throw my hat back in the ring? I'm back home for the holiday, so I'll have a lot of time for text walls.

Fateweaver wrote:?

Seriously?

??

Sbuh? Are you claiming that police actions are just as aggressive in suburban white areas as they are in inner city areas with high minority populations? The officers involved were part of an operation to target high crime areas, something you will not see in the suburbs.

As an ex security guard.. the guy who got bashed sensible for flippin the bird made me smile. I wasn't even allowed to have a nightstick. :(

Also everyone who thinks cops are harsh whatever, has obviously never seen the scum they deal with everyday. Even just petty thieves are disgusting volatile spankers. Or worst of all cocky teenagers who know their rights.. With their continual whinging "you cant do this to me dont touch me bro" .. Argh glad I dont do that job anymore.


Bash em all sensible I say.

As to the op story you point a gun at a cop you are dead. And No one will miss you.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I am a a Racist in the fact that I can acknowledge that there are differences between the races.

And just to lighten the mood a bit....

Clerks II rocks!


And in response...




NSFW, obviously.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I am a a Racist in the fact that I can acknowledge that there are differences between the races.

such as...

Albatross wrote:Read this and tell me racial profiling didn't play a part in his death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/26/nyregion/diallo-verdict-overview-4-officers-diallo-shooting-are-acquitted-all-charges.html


I find the term 'race card' offensive - is it wrong for black americans to be sensitive to racial issues when segregation is within living memory? This might open a can of worms actually...

A quote from your article:

During the trial, the officers acknowledged their mistake in shooting Mr. Diallo. The defense lawyers made the officers' testimony the centerpiece of their defense, asserting that the shooting was justified because they had believed Mr. Diallo was grabbing a gun. Officer Carroll sobbed as he described how he had realized his error and held Mr. Diallo's hand as he lay dying.

In short: they shot because they beleived he was reaching for a gun. If the police think you are reaching for a gun, it doesn't matter if you are blue they are going to shoot you. Period.

Moral of the story? Don't do something that could be miscontrued as reaching for a gun! Certainly don't do it quickly, or without telling the officer what you are doing. And if he tells you not to do it, don't do it. I have been stopped by the police a number of times. I am polite, I do as they tell me, and surprise surprise, I have never ever had any problems with them.

It's that simple. Really, it is.

Are there cops who are jerks? Yes there are. Are there cops who are racists? No doubt. But the fastest way to get in trouble is to assume that the one who you are dealing with now is one of the bad apples. If he isn't, that just pisses him off. If he is, then he's going to be even more pissed off for you calling him on it. And bad things then happen to you.

Vulcan wrote:Moral of the story? Don't do something that could be miscontrued as reaching for a gun! Certainly don't do it quickly, or without telling the officer what you are doing. And if he tells you not to do it, don't do it. I have been stopped by the police a number of times. I am polite, I do as they tell me, and surprise surprise, I have never ever had any problems with them.

It's that simple. Really, it is.

It also has to be recognised that the police are a lot more polite and a lot easier to get along with when they're in low crime areas. This is not a sleight on the police, in more dangerous areas they have to be more aggressive in order to maintain authority, but it does mean that if you live in the wrong area police will be more aggressive even if you've never broken the law.

And more importantly, it has to be recognised that if you live in the wrong area it is a lot more likely that you'll end up in a situation where policemen will be pointing a gun at you, and you might accidentally do something that ends up with you getting shot. It is perfectly sensible for police to patrol more aggressively in high crime areas, but it does mean that innocent people will end up on the wrong end of that aggression sometimes.

It is all, as you say, that simple.

Dave Chappelle knows the real problem behind all of this... sketch artists... it is all their fault.

It IS Dave Chappelle, who is known for his poopy mouth... so watch at your own risk.

sebster wrote:

Nurgleboy77 wrote:I am a a Racist in the fact that I can acknowledge that there are differences between the races.

such as...

Melanin content and possibly epicanthic eye folds? I guess?

So this week I was bored at work a bit since holidays and what have you, and I decided to get in contact with some of my counterparts in different militarys what not. Interesting thing I learned and I bring this up to totally discredit albatross is that for 4-5 years almost all bobbys (I think their called over in there in the UK either) or COPS carried as standard issue desert eagles .50cal's. . This was their first issue weapon once they finally were allowed to carry firearms. Of coarse because of the kill rate after almost 5 years your parliament decided to replace these weapons with 9mm. Hrmm and he says our cops are bad. I Picked this up off a private ammunition forum from some british soldiers.

Wrexasaur wrote:There is only ignorance and subspecies,

I think all modern humans are actually the same subspecies.

There is more genetic difference between a man and his wife than there is between the same man and a Uighur man or Congolese pygmy or Trobriand Islander.

So this week I was bored at work a bit since holidays and what have you, and I decided to get in contact with some of my counterparts in different militarys what not. Interesting thing I learned and I bring this up to totally discredit albatross is that for 4-5 years almost all bobbys (I think their called over in there in the UK either) or COPS carried as standard issue desert eagles .50cal's. . This was their first issue weapon once they finally were allowed to carry firearms. Of coarse because of the kill rate after almost 5 years your parliament decided to replace these weapons with 9mm. Hrmm and he says our cops are bad. I Picked this up off a private ammunition forum from some british soldiers.

I love it when someone is both smug AND wrong. This never happened.

How does this discredit me? I am fully aware that Britain has an Armed Response Unit, that is called out to deal with incidents as needed. They carry HK MP5s, generally.
But almost all? No, the overwhelming number of British 'bobbies' are armed only with a baton and CS Gas. How do I know all this? Because I live here - I didn't fething read it on the internet.

And Desert Eagles?

I think someone may have been taking the piss out of you.

you seem rather upset their albatros would it be because of the truth at hand. GASP you can't bash on the U.S as much because it's just the same over their. I work hand in hand with foreign militarys so by your account that would mean that well your own british troops lie.. hmmmm your no cop... not a soldier thats all easy to see well think what you want because I know I will

If British troops told you that, they were lying. Armed Response Officers are not 'almost all' british police officers, and they most certainly do not carry Desert Eagles, nor have they ever, as far as I can tell. I am not remotely upset by anything you posted - I just found your triumphalism and smug attitude fairly amusing, considering the fact that not only was it factually incorrect, but it was also poorly spelt, with poor awareness of basic grammar and punctuation throughout.
If you don't wish to get people's backs up, don't be a knob - just say: 'I heard that british cops do (X), is this true or not?'.
And I haven't 'bashed' America/Americans here, as far as I'm aware.

:S

Why would they carry desert eagles? Desert eagles are not good weapons. They are overly powerful, and underly useful. They are big, shiny, and make big holes in watermelons on T.V. but in an actual life threatening situation they are slow to draw and difficult to steady due to their weight and they are exceptionally difficult to keep on target. They are not a policeman's weapon.

@jp400 - Hey, how about I just say what I want and you mind your own business? The guy was wrong, and in claiming to be right, was trying to rub my nose in it. If the MODs have a problem with what I said, then they'll pick me up on it I'm sure.
Not that I have to explain myself to you, of course.

Albatross wrote:@jp400 - Hey, how about I just say what I want and you mind your own business? The guy was wrong, and in claiming to be right, was trying to rub my nose in it. If the MODs have a problem with what I said, then they'll pick me up on it I'm sure.
Not that I have to explain myself to you, of course.

Sickburn.

@Shuma

Eh?

I don't get it...

EDIT: Nevermind, I googled it!

The only time i have ever seen armed police in England was when we had the ruling party (Labour) conference in Manchester. There was a large police presence over the event (including metal detectors on the streets) , with maybe two armed officers (MP5's) for every fifty regular Bobbys.

@Empchild: Consider the source of your information. Is it not likely that in a private ammunition forum posters just might exaggerate the truth to give more weight to their words? Granted, there are some sections of the police force where almost all officers will be armed - those looking after MoD institutions, nuclear power/processing centres. If someone told you that 'almost all' British police were armed, they were either lying or mis-informed.

Desert Eagles have never been carried by our police officers. As Shuma says, they are a horribly inappropriate weapon for Police.

Nuclear Police get Glocks, IIRC. A mate of mine applied for a job with them.

Albatross wrote:@jp400 - Hey, how about I just say what I want and you mind your own business? The guy was wrong, and in claiming to be right, was trying to rub my nose in it. If the MODs have a problem with what I said, then they'll pick me up on it I'm sure.
Not that I have to explain myself to you, of course.

How about everyone just takes a breath and settles down so we don't need to lock the thread?


Not singling you out specifically, Albatross... there's baiting from both sides here, and I couldn't be bothered wading through all this nonsense to sort out who started it. So everyone keep it civil, please.

No problem - even when I'm rude, I'm usually civil about it!
Comes with the territory, old chap.

Albatross wrote:Nuclear Police get Glocks, IIRC. A mate of mine applied for a job with them.

Quite right sir. Although if they are involved with the transportation of Nuclear waste, they have access to 30mm calibre weaponry! I'm guessing though, that this is quite firmly affixed to the boat they are riding in and, can't be 'dual-wielded' :(

I'm guessing though, that this is quite firmly affixed to the boat they are riding in and, can't be 'dual-wielded' :(

Boo! Fixing stuff to boats? Boring....

Albatross wrote:
Boo! Fixing stuff to boats? Boring....

Yeah, us Brits have no sense of fun

@J - Exactly mate - a weapon's not a weapon unless you can wave it around your head! Any Nob knows dat!

NWA tells me other wise! #@$% the police!

Imperialescortservice wrote:NWA tells me other wise! #@$% the police!

agreed, and albatross you can take it or leave it, but I feel that a solid point has been made overall as you were sitting their telling us about how crazy our police are for shooting the fella with the wallet when he didnt speak english. When in the end it had nothing to do with the thread and what it was started for. It was started over the little fella who pulled a gun on the cops not on the guy who had a wallet in his hands, and btw if you want to attack grammer what have you reap what you sell chap. It is a weak arguement that they teach you about in debate classes in college. It is used when you have no other legit "attack" on somone. Really as an open forum you have the right to say whatever you want hence why it is an open FORUM. Me personally I presented information that I learned from my counterparts across the pond and as if this was a court room used it to more prove a point. Truthfully I agree a desert eagle is one of the worst weapons ever made, and I have no ideas why the isrealis(however it's spelled) made it to be honest, but I was getting annoyed that you kept bringing up the stupid wallet point when that wasn't even what the thread was on. Talking about how cowboy(my words) american cops are, so when I recieved this info I figured hey why not use it as more of a taste of ones own medicine and in some levels discredit my oponent in this debate. So that said take it however you will, but remember this is just a forum and using swear words from a book series, however great it is, is rather well disapointing. That said I had a lovely thanksgiving

Wall...of...text...

QUOTE TENNIS!

agreed, and albatross you can take it or leave it, but I feel that a solid point has been made overall as you were sitting their telling us about how crazy our police are for shooting the fella with the wallet when he didnt speak english. When in the end it had nothing to do with the thread and what it was started for. It was started over the little fella who pulled a gun on the cops not on the guy who had a wallet in his hands

I know - but the article posted mentioned Amadou Diallo. And the thread has evolved into a general 'cops shooting civilians - is it justified?' sort of thread - it's not even massively OT to talk about Diallo in the ORIGINAL context of the thread, IMO.

and btw if you want to attack grammer what have you reap what you sell chap.

What do you think folks? Should mention it? Nah... too much of a cheap shot.

It is used when you have no other legit "attack" on somone. Really as an open forum you have the right to say whatever you want hence why it is an open FORUM. Me personally I presented information that I learned from my counterparts across the pond and as if this was a court room used it to more prove a point.

Which was what? That almost all British Police officers had Desert Eagles for 4-5 years? You presented it like you had some sort of killer argument that was going to 'discredit' me - if you take that attitude don't be surprised if I take the piss out of you for being wrong. I wouldn't have mocked you if you had just asked if anyone knew if it was true. Also, I'm confused as to where you got this info - was it from British servicemen or an guns/ammo website? IIRC, you said both.

when I recieved this info I figured hey why not use it as more of a taste of ones own medicine and in some levels discredit my oponent in this debate.

See above. You are not 'my opponent' in this debate. It's an open forum for people to share views.

I was getting annoyed that you kept bringing up the stupid wallet point when that wasn't even what the thread was on.

Not my problem. An innocent man died, suck it up. How do you think his family feels?

this is just a forum and using swear words from a book series, however great it is, is rather well disapointing.

Erm...what? You've lost me. Which book series?

That said I had a lovely thanksgiving

Glad to hear it!

Empchild wrote:
agreed, and albatross you can take it or leave it, but I feel that a solid point has been made overall as you were sitting their telling us about how crazy our police are for shooting the fella with the wallet when he didnt speak english. When in the end it had nothing to do with the thread and what it was started for. It was started over the little fella who pulled a gun on the cops not on the guy who had a wallet in his hands, and btw if you want to attack grammer what have you reap what you sell chap. It is a weak arguement that they teach you about in debate classes in college. It is used when you have no other legit "attack" on somone. Really as an open forum you have the right to say whatever you want hence why it is an open FORUM. Me personally I presented information that I learned from my counterparts across the pond and as if this was a court room used it to more prove a point. Truthfully I agree a desert eagle is one of the worst weapons ever made, and I have no ideas why the isrealis(however it's spelled) made it to be honest, but I was getting annoyed that you kept bringing up the stupid wallet point when that wasn't even what the thread was on. Talking about how cowboy(my words) american cops are, so when I recieved this info I figured hey why not use it as more of a taste of ones own medicine and in some levels discredit my oponent in this debate. So that said take it however you will, but remember this is just a forum and using swear words from a book series, however great it is, is rather well disapointing. That said I had a lovely thanksgiving

I trust that these 'debate classes' also taught you about making your point in a way that in comprehensible to your fellow debaters? I don't think Albatross was flaming you for being rubbish at writing, merely pointing out that if you wish people to take you seriously; you have to make sense.

Also, the point of a debate is not to 'win' or 'attack' other people, it's to further your understanding and advance a groups knowledge.

Glad you enjoyed Thanksgiving Is that kinda equivalent to Christmas (our biggest holiday)in the UK?

I recieved the info from servicemen, as part of a private forum from which I am a part of. I am not now nor have I ever been part of a guns and ammo forum what I work from is for my job, which is ammunition. The point of a debate (here in the states granted I don't know how other countries treat it) is to win. By instilling ones point across in a arguement and getting the populace to see things in your light is what it breaks down too. Please remember that their are many international divides here as to you constantly saying " piss" in the states means well not saying, but thankfully I know some of your countrys slang so I understand what you mean, but most people probably don't. Also I was refering to the gaunts ghost series as you continually say "feth". Oo I like soccer care less about tennis. Also baseball is a blast to kick back with a beer and watch too.

Technically this isn't a debate it's a discussion or argument. Debates are formal.

Empchild wrote:Also I was refering to the gaunts ghost series as you continually say "feth"

Some common swear-words and other vulgarities are auto-censored here.

I'm surprised anyone would fail to notice that. We need a fething sign on the registration page or something.

Empchild wrote:I recieved the info from servicemen, as part of a private forum from which I am a part of. I am not now nor have I ever been part of a guns and ammo forum what I work from is for my job, which is ammunition.

Fair enough, but please don't present something that amounts to hearsay as actual fact. No-one is going to mind if you ask for a clarification

The point of a debate (here in the states granted I don't know how other countries treat it) is to win. By instilling ones point across in a arguement and getting the populace to see things in your light is what it breaks down too.

As Shuma says. This is not really a debate with formal rules and/or goals. It is simply people kicking some ideas around.

you continually say "feth".

You are aware of the swear filter, yes?