1 day, 2 shootings in spotlight:

[GMDino]

(09-20-2016, 02:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Clearly this guy was acting strangely for some reason.  the question is did he do anything dangerous or threatening.

Doesn't look like anything that justified use of deadly force.  He probably was not the church going, well behaved college student that some claim he was, but it doesn't look like he did anything that justified him being shot.

If he wasn't would have his mug shot and criminal history already.  

But I guess if the 911 call said he looked like he was smoking something the officers had to approach it as life or death.

[*michaelsean*]

Nope nothing wrong with what the guy did that I can pick out. The comparison is stupid though. The police shot at the other dude.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2016, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all let me say that I agree with you that there is a lot more to this than what the video showed.  But when there are two clear videos of police shooting an unarmed man who is doing nothing threatening and is not even accused of being involved in any type of criminal activity then most of the public are going to feel that the officer should be in jail.  

All it takes is probable cause to make an arrest.  They do not have to have proof enough to convict just to make an arrest.  And with all the cases of police lying to protect guilty police officers you have to understand why the public feels this is another case  of police feeling like they are "above the law"

You did an outstanding job of trying to tap dance around my point and ended up helping reinforce it.  Since the use of lethal force is part of an LEO's job you need evidence that they used it improperly.  In all but the most extreme cases this cannot be determined at the scene.  Just acknowledge this simple, and correct, point and we'll move on.

[fredtoast]

(09-20-2016, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Since the use of lethal force is part of an LEO's job you need evidence that they used it improperly.  In all but the most extreme cases this cannot be determined at the scene.  

There were three eyewitness police officers on the scene who saw everything that happened.  What evidence that was NOT at the scene do they need to look at?

The victim was unarmed.  He was not involved in any violent criminal behavior.  He did not do anything to threaten the officers.  If deadly force was justified then every officer would have fired his gun. 

[GMDino]

(09-20-2016, 04:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You did an outstanding job of trying to tap dance around my point and ended up helping reinforce it.  Since the use of lethal force is part of an LEO's job you need evidence that they used it improperly.  In all but the most extreme cases this cannot be determined at the scene.  Just acknowledge this simple, and correct, point and we'll move on.

(09-20-2016, 12:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all let me say that I agree with you that there is a lot more to this than what the video showed.  But when there are two clear videos of police shooting an unarmed man who is doing nothing threatening and is not even accused of being involved in any type of criminal activity then most of the public are going to feel that the officer should be in jail.  

All it takes is probable cause to make an arrest.  They do not have to have proof enough to convict just to make an arrest.  And with all the cases of police lying to protect guilty police officers you have to understand why the public feels this is another case  of police feeling like they are "above the law"

Serious question though...how often can criminal activity be proven immediately?

[Millhouse]

Cops did good in not killing the alleged bomber. Didnt do good in killing the man in Tulsa. More and more research is being done on police violence against all races and areas, and I dont know if race is at the core of the issue anymore realistically. If I had to guess, I would say the police across the country need to re-evaluate their core training and operating principles in dealing with all the citizens, because it isnt just black people dying at the hands of a trigger happy cop.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2016, 05:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:




Serious question though...how often can criminal activity be proven immediately?

I think pretty quickly it can be determined a crime has occurred.  (I think I just channeled Yoda)

[GMDino]

(09-20-2016, 05:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Cops did good in not killing the alleged bomber. Didnt do good in killing the man in Tulsa. More and more research is being done on police violence against all races and areas, and I dont know if race is at the core of the issue anymore realistically. If I had to guess, I would say the police across the country need to re-evaluate their core training and operating principles in dealing with all the citizens, because it isnt just black people dying at the hands of a trigger happy cop.

This times a million.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2016, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There were three eyewitness police officers on the scene who saw everything that happened.  What evidence that was NOT at the scene do they need to look at?

The victim was unarmed.  He was not involved in any violent criminal behavior.  He did not do anything to threaten the officers.  If deadly force was justified then every officer would have fired his gun. 

Wait, didn't you just say there's a lot of things we don't know about this situation?  Yet, you are know making factual statements concerning the whole incident.  Were you seeing how fast you could contradict yourself?

(09-20-2016, 05:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Not the point I was addressing, genius.

Quote:Serious question though...how often can criminal activity be proven immediately?

Proving criminal activity is not necessary for an arrest.  I know you think I just contradicted myself on this subject and that you got me.  You didn't and you don't understand why or you wouldn't have just asked this question.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2016, 10:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, didn't you just say there's a lot of things we don't know about this situation?  Yet, you are know making factual statements concerning the whole incident.  Were you seeing how fast you could contradict yourself?


Not the point I was addressing, genius.



Proving criminal activity is not necessary for an arrest.  I know you think I just contradicted myself on this subject and that you got me.  You didn't and you don't understand why or you wouldn't have just asked this question.

Wasn't trying to "get you".  I expect you'd agree that officers need held to a higher standard since they can legally shoot and kill or even arrest and take away citizen's freedom.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2016, 10:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wasn't trying to "get you".  I expect you'd agree that officers need held to a higher standard since they can legally shoot and kill or even arrest and take away citizen's freedom.

Yeah, that's not what you said though.  Try actually making a point instead of pretending you did.

[Rotobeast]

It's a damn shame that this man lost his life.

That being said, something isn't adding up.

#1. The vehicle doesn't appear old enough to be in such disrepair that it'd stall. (although still mechanically possible)
#2. How many people park in the middle of a 2 lane highway, where there is a double line (which excludes the idea of passing and stalling). Everyone knows to pull to the right shoulder.

I think another person was involved, somewhere in the equation.
Lovers spat ?
Road rage ?
Something is amiss.

Regardless, the family deserves answers.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(09-20-2016, 10:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Proving criminal activity is not necessary for an arrest.  I know you think I just contradicted myself on this subject and that you got me.  You didn't and you don't understand why or you wouldn't have just asked this question.

Why is "improper use of deadly force" not "criminal activity"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 12:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is "improper use of deadly force" not "criminal activity"?

You tell me counselor.  You're the lawyer who gets the the law wrong.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2016, 10:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that's not what you said though.  Try actually making a point instead of pretending you did.

Try following human conversations:

I asked a question.  You answered.

That part you got right.

Then you accused me of something I didn't do.

You got that part wrong.

So I expanded on my point and you accused me of changing what I said.

You got that part wrong too.

Stop being so defensive.

Back on topic:  Are officers ever arrested on scene?  I'd guess not as they are given much more leeway in their behavior because of the training and responsibilities.  I could be wrong.

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 01:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You tell me counselor.  You're the lawyer who gets the the law wrong.

I can not explain your comments when I don't know what they mean.

Why can't a police officer be arrested on probable cause like everyone else accused of criminal behavior?  That is actually a big issue with a lot of people who accuse the police of acting like they are "above the law".  Maybe if you explained it to everyone we could help reduce some of the tension.

Or you could just continue to show the typical mature, professional police officer attitude that works so well in dealing with the public.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2016, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There were three eyewitness police officers on the scene who saw everything that happened.  What evidence that was NOT at the scene do they need to look at?

The victim was unarmed.  He was not involved in any violent criminal behavior.  He did not do anything to threaten the officers.  If deadly force was justified then every officer would have fired his gun. 

Yes but another officer fired his tazer at the same time the chick shot the dude. Soooooooo there's that.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2016, 09:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I can not explain your comments when I don't know what they mean.

Why can't a police officer be arrested on probable cause like everyone else accused of criminal behavior?  That is actually a big issue with a lot of people who accuse the police of acting like they are "above the law".  Maybe if you explained it to everyone we could help reduce some of the tension.

Or you could just continue to show the typical mature, professional police officer attitude that works so well in dealing with the public.

It has been explained by me, in detail, in this very thread.  The fact that you failed to grasp the obvious explanation is merely the latest example of you displaying ignorance of criminal law. 

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2016, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has been explained by me, in detail, in this very thread.  The fact that you failed to grasp the obvious explanation is merely the latest example of you displaying ignorance of criminal law. 

You claimed that there was not pobable cause at the scene.  I asked what evidence was not at the scene and you have refused to answer.

There were 3 officers at the scene who all agreed deadly force  was not appropriat.  What more is needed to establish probable cause?

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2016, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You claimed that there was not pobable cause at the scene.  I asked what evidence was not at the scene and you have refused to answer.

There were 3 officers at the scene who all agreed deadly force  was not appropriat.  What more is needed to establish probable cause?

Source? I mean, we know there was one officer that fired the fatal shot, but were other shots fired? One officer had a taser out, but at least one other also had a weapon out, was it a sidearm? Did they fire? Did they miss something the other officer saw? Did these officers make a statements saying that is was not appropriate or are you just making an assumption because the officer that fired the lethal shot has been named and none of the others?