Wellll, I never said coerced or even inferred it.
I did say that the authority told or decided the young cop was capable of handling such situations and by believing such poor information it makes the cop a victim too.
All that commit crimes can be said to be victims in some way. But, intent does play a part as well.
Well what do you think someone is intending when they fire 12 rounds at another person?
Intend? Depends upon the state of mind. You said half did not hit the man. If outright cold blooded murder was the intent all 12 would have hit. The man was not a small target.
So intent to outright kill is in question. Panic and confusion mixed with adrenaline puts a mind in a questionable state. His seniors failed in the training and judging his abilities. He failed in knowing or admitting to know himself. He should pay but, so should his seniors. And I am sure the dead man’s family is being inundated with greedy lawyers.
As long as you agree that he did something wrong and should pay, then there isn’t anything else to debate. Ucc wants to paint him as an innocent man responding to a dangerous thug with appropriate force. I think that’s obviously ludacris.
Imagine is you were a racist tea party, wealth worshipping type of person, and you were sitting here having to decide whether to take the side of the young black poor person, or the agent of the state who’s job it is to personally impose the state’s will on the individual.
What a mind fuck for someone like that. It’s like, “am I more racist?, or am I more anti-government?”.
The problem is I can’t because, I see neither as innocent or complete victim. I can argue for and against both. Any rational intelligent human could. The one thing that causes irrational and stupid thought is emotion attached to beliefs. Passion distorts truth and lies equally.
Being able to argue both sides is great. But knowing which side you should argue is greater.
To know, you need to know both or in this case all sides. There is more than just two lives or sides in this.
What do you guys think about the 2 people in Ohio that were killed this week while carrying toy guns? One had picked up the toy gun in a wal mart, then someone called 911, then he got shot to death. The other was a 12 year old boy in a park. The guy who called 911 said about 10 times, “he’s got a toy gun out here”. Then the cops showed up and shot him to death.
I think shit is hitting the fan for police departments. Changes will have to be made or the feds will use these incidents as an excuse for taking over all.
How do you feel about this one?
azcentral.com/story/news/loc … /20530475/
Note the title about 12yr old girl getting shot then read the story.
I think that when someone gets sentenced to death, or executed by the state, or however you want to put it, that it should be after trial, and I believe that they get an automatic appeal, so they shouldn’t be killed by the state until after that appeal. I think that if the cops would have shot the guy with rubber bullets then they could have gotten him into court and then we’d know all the facts of the case. Then the public could be informed, and justice could be meticulously served. Well…as long as the prosecutor doesn’t go in and give a defense to a grand jury and we can actually get into trial, but if you’ve got prosecutors who are serving as de facto defense lawyers for police officers then you wont even be able to get an indictment, because the prosecutors dereliction of his duty would taint the process. Kind of like what obviously happened in Ferguson. Ucc doesn’t seem to want to admit that indictments are notoriously easy to get, and that this case should have been simple for any competent prosecutor, and that someone getting no billed by a grand jury doesn’t mean that “they didn’t do anything wrong”.
I think the best way to prevent these incidents is probably to see to it that police are aware that they have to follow the law, and that they aren’t supposed to usurp the authority of the courts by executing people in the streets. Cops are notorious for steroid use, corruption, accepting bribes, killing people under questionable circumstances, etc… We have to change the way they act toward the public because when they kill people in the streets, love it or hate it, in some cases the frustrated public, feeling powerless to save their children and communities will just burn a bunch of shit down. There is a cost associated with letting them behave this way and fire bullets indiscriminately at unarmed minors, and everyone who pays money to an insurance company is going to bear it.
Yes, and I do see the feds stepping in. The media is seeing to that. It could be good or very bad.
The 2 biggest shopping malls in my area were basically shut down today by hundreds of protesters. I was just trying to go and pick up a package on the highway where the mall entrance is, and there were so many people out there that it blew my mind.
When I was a kid, they still had KKK rallies around here. There are more protesters for this stuff than there ever were KKK guys at any of those things I inadvertently drove through. The times they are a changin. It’s gonna be a big hurt for all the people who use “tradition” to designate a state of racism and classism.
Shades of the late 50s and 60s .
Do you think the people of today have what it takes?
I think people are gonna live how they want to live, whether the law allows it or not. Just like the kock brothers have to power to pollute so much that the epa becomes indispensable and there’s nothing we can do about it, the regular Americans can turn over cars and bust out windows and riot because that’s what they have the power to do. People should respect the rule of law with regard to process, as those people are professionals in that field. The prosecutor in the Ferguson case essentially went in and failed to advocate for the people in a prosecutorial way such that the officer could be put on trial and the facts discovered. So I don’t know what to tell you about that, except that he has the power to do it, and that the people in the streets have the power to set buildings on fire. If he’d done his job, then we’d eventually know the truth. But he didn’t, so we have to see things happen the ugly way.
Ok, let me ask this, would you destroy your own neighborhood or town or go to the source??? If I am pissed at someone, I am not going to burn my own home.
I don’t think anyone burned their own homes. The source, probably as they saw it was the establishment in their neighborhood. The store owners who are favored by police, the businesspeople and the affluent people who are profiting from their community without giving anything back except bullets. The local chamber of commerce, the city council, the people who are taking and not giving. The ones who have the protection as opposed to the ones who don’t.
Everyone knows that if a business owner accuses someone of stealing that the alleged thief gets in trouble. But if you accuse a store of ripping you off and demand money back, then they call the police…guess what…you still get arrested.
Certain elements of society are immune from prosecution by the police. Like the bank, or the guy who owns the business, or the wealthy types who can afford enough lawyers to make a travesty of the justice system, or the police who make back room deals with prosecutors so that they can get away with murdering the children of the community.
I mean those people are the source. They carry the same ideology as the modern koch-libertarian. Might is right. Money is might.
The great irony is when the public comes to burn down their buildings and they want to complain.
How can one class of people think that it’s ok to impoverish another, and then get upset when the consequences come. I mean, the people were content to live in poverty and were hardly fighting back. But once you start killing their children over jaywalking and some he said she said story put out by a man accused of a wrongful killing, I mean…any rational person would lash out and do as much damage as they could. Especially since we all know which way the game is rigged.
I mean you act like that auto-zone was some pillar of the community doing charitable work and that some loonies just burned it down and somehow screwed themselves over in the process.
Those stores pay next to nothing to employees, provide no job security or future, sell non-oem cheapskate parts for jacked up prices, and their primary function is to remove resources from the community. Sort of like a wal-mart, or a dollar store.
I don’t think it counts as a bad thing to make a statement toward businesses like that.
I mean just because someone gives someone a 10 dollar an hour job doesn’t mean they’re contributing to the community. No one who makes 10 bucks an hour can live with any dignity. Plus, none of these places, for the most part are owned by the people who are effected by the disproportionate application of justice.
I mean think about it like this. There are people like UCC, who believe that a no bill from a grand jury means the cop, “did nothing wrong”. And that a kid shoplifting a pack of cigars should be charaterized as a “strongarm robbery”.
Think about what it means when a person chooses those characterizations for the parties involved.
People who think like that are the problem. And they’re going to be the targets of all the outrage when more shit like this hits the fan.
The police are more out of touch with America than Mitt Romney or John Mccain.