Bad boys, bad boys...watcha gonna do?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2017, 11:29 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: But..... 7 shots ?
That's what gets me.
I can't defend that, man.

We've (I say this generally btw) debated this before.  A semi auto, coupled with an adrenaline dump, lends itself to more shots being fired than are necessary.  You can shoot an entire 15 round magazine in around 2-3 seconds.  You're expecting completely rational decision making from a person in the midst of a fight or die adrenaline dump.  You've been to a range, fire seven shots as fast as you can, it will be accomplished quickly.  Then consider you're not in the midst of a potentially deadly situation.  Note that none of this is predicated on being correct in your perception.

[GMDino]

(06-20-2017, 11:29 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: But..... 7 shots ?
That's what gets me.
I can't defend that, man.

But he was nervous. 

Quote:“I didn’t know where the gun was, he didn’t tell me where the ******’ gun was, and then it was just gettin’ hanky. He was just staring straight ahead, and I was gettin’ ******’ nervous and then … I told him to get his ******’ hand off his gun … F**k.”

[Rotobeast]

(06-20-2017, 11:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We've (I say this generally btw) debated this before.  A semi auto, coupled with an adrenaline dump, lends itself to more shots being fired than are necessary.  You can shoot an entire 15 round magazine in around 2-3 seconds.  You're expecting completely rational decision making from a person in the midst of a fight or die adrenaline dump.  You've been to a range, fire seven shots as fast as you can, it will be accomplished quickly.  Then consider you're not in the midst of a potentially deadly situation.  Note that none of this is predicated on being correct in your perception.

I know it can be fast and I know I've not been in those situations.
It's just tough to defend with the officer's dialogue.
I've disarmed a couple of people, but never held someone at gunpoint and measured my safety within their actions.
I'm not going to debate anything, further.
I just know that something doesn't feel right here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2017, 11:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I know it can be fast and I know I've not been in those situations.
It's just tough to defend with the officer's dialogue.
I've disarmed a couple of people, but never held someone at gunpoint and measured my safety within their actions.
I'm not going to debate anything, further.
I just know that something doesn't feel right here.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that.  I just have to think that there was something that we aren't aware of that led twelve people to acquit.  

[Dill]

(06-20-2017, 10:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: GMDino logic.

The actions of around 5-10% of muslims is not indicative of all muslims.

The actions of less than 1% of LEO's is indicative of all LEO's."

"Actions"?

What percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims shoot people illegally?

Do you suppose it is more or less than .01%?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2017, 12:33 AM)Dill Wrote: "Actions"?

What percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims shoot people illegally?

Do you suppose it is more or less than .01%?

Shoot, blow up, behead, rape, assault, throw off buildings, mutilate their genitalia take your pick.  Keep losing.

[Dill]

(06-21-2017, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Shoot, blow up, behead, rape, assault, throw off buildings, mutilate their genitalia take your pick.  Keep losing.

Please actually answer this question instead of obfuscating as usual.

What percentage of the world's 1.6 Muslims shoot people illegally?
(Feel free to substitute "kill" for "shoot" if you think it will make a statistical difference.)

I don't think you meant to imply 5-10%. That would be a mind-boggling number, and what would the body count be--double that of WWII?

Would you say it is more or less than .01%? I would say less.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2017, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: Please actually answer this question instead of obfuscating as usual.

Don't co-opt my terms.  It's transparent and won't work.  

Quote:What percent of the world's 1.6 Muslims shoot people illegally?  
(Feel free to substitute "kill" for shoot if you think it will make a statistical difference.)

We've had this discussion before.  Iran actively promotes the death of homosexuals, as does most of the middle east.  Numerous surveys of muslim countries finds wide support for draconian punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and other "religious" crimes.  We've had this discussion before as well.  Of course, despite your stated preference for surveys, you deny these surveys.

Quote:Would you say it is more or less than .01%?  I would say less.

Nope.  Can I infer that you believe that the % of LEO's engaged in bad activity is the same percentage?

[Dill]

(06-21-2017, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't co-opt my terms.  It's transparent and won't work.  

We've had this discussion before.  Iran actively promotes the death of homosexuals, as does most of the middle east.  Numerous surveys of muslim countries finds wide support for draconian punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and other "religious" crimes.  We've had this discussion before as well.  Of course, despite your stated preference for surveys, you deny these surveys.

Nope.  Can I infer that you believe that the % of LEO's engaged in bad activity is the same percentage?

I can see that co opting your terms won't work--a "transparent" appeal to the standard you apply to others. Vague sweeping claims about what "most of the Middle East" promotes or "supports" do not answer my question. "Promote" and "support" were not in your list of actions above.

Third time at bat. Again.

What percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims kill people illegally? 

"Nope" more than .01% or "nope" less than .01%? I will accept scattershot snark and obfuscation if, somewhere in all that, you have an answer.

[GMDino]

(06-21-2017, 01:41 AM)Dill Wrote: I can see that co opting your terms won't work--a "transparent" appeal to the standard you apply to others. Vague sweeping claims about what "most of the Middle East" promotes or "supports" do not answer my question. "Promote" and "support" were not in your list of actions above.

Third time at bat. Again.

What percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims kill people illegally? 

"Nope" more than .01% or "nope" less than .01%? I will accept scattershot snark and obfuscation if, somewhere in all that, you have an answer.

Unless ISIS is representing the police let's take the foreign affairs discussion elsewhere and concentrate on how nervous this cop got that he shot a man seven times because the victim told him he had a gun and was NOT reaching for it in a calm, controlled manner.

Oh...and he *thought* he smelled weed so that meant the victim must not care about others since there was a child in the car.

Seriously folks.

[Dill]

(06-21-2017, 08:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: Unless ISIS is representing the police let's take the foreign affairs discussion elsewhere and concentrate on how nervous this cop got that he shot a man seven times because the victim told him he had a gun and was NOT reaching for it in a calm, controlled manner.

Oh...and he *thought* he smelled weed so that meant the victim must not care about others since there was a child in the car.

Seriously folks.

Actually that wasn't a foreign affairs discussion. We were removing the double standard in an analogy between police miscreants and Muslims.

[GMDino]

(06-21-2017, 01:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually that wasn't a foreign affairs discussion. We were removing the double standard in an analogy between police miscreants and Muslims.

And I agree we shouldn't be making that analogy.

It's a calculated move to destroy the actual conversation by distracting and convoluting it with Muslims.

[GMDino]

If you remember the story from a few years ago when James Blake was attacked and the officers attempted to cover it up until a video verified his version of the story.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/06/james-blake-details-inspiration-behind-ways-grace/67110/

Quote:JAMES BLAKE DETAILS INSPIRATION BEHIND 'WAYS OF GRACE'


In the latest edition of TenniStory from the Tennis Channel, former world No. 4 James Blake details how personal and outside events led him his latest book, “Ways of Grace.”

In an incident that caused ripples on a national landscape, Blake was aggressively attacked by an undercover police officer in September 2015 in New York City in a case of mistaken identity.

“It was something that was just so shocking at the time to feel that vulnerable, to know that you’re completely in their hands and at their mercy,” said the Tennis Channel commentator. “It’s a difficult situation.

“I’ve been up nights since then thinking about what could have happened if I fought back.”

Since then, Blake has been determined to make a difference in cases like this. Recently, it was announced that instead of going through with a lawsuit against the city of New York, a legal fellowship that will investigate police misconduct will be created in Blake’s name.

Another motivating factor was thinking about one of his longtime heroes, Arthur Ashe, and the impact that the former Wimbledon champion had outside the realm of sports.

“He wanted to use his voice to influence and help others in a positive way,” Blake said. And Ashe’s book, “Days of Grace,” provided further inspiration.

“I wanted it to be a book really about something, something that I care about, something that will hopefully make a difference and open a dialogue, open a discussion, about race, about activists, about athletes that are doing good things,” Blake added.

While some outside observers feel that athletes should only stick to sports, Blake notes that “athletes are human beings. They have real issues that are on their mind.

“Any sort of discussion on those topics, I think is a positive one.”

Good interview too.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/28/534671434/former-tennis-player-james-blake-on-athletes-and-activism

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2017, 01:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually that wasn't a foreign affairs discussion. We were removing the double standard in an analogy between police miscreants and Muslims.

No, you were flailing, it was amusing.  Now back to GMDino resurrecting years old events.  Carry on.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2017, 12:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you were flailing, it was amusing.  Now back to GMDino resurrecting years old events.  Carry on.

Sorry SSF.  I was listening to an interview as I typed that.  His book sounds very interesting and rather than start a whole new thread I placed here as he was a victim of an attack and attempted cover up.

He seems to be doing the right thing about it though.

[GMDino]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/cobb-county-georgia-officer-dashcam-footage-we-only-kill-black-n797721

Quote:Cobb County, Georgia, Officer in Dashcam Video: ‘We Only Kill Black People’




 Department Plans to Fire Cop for 'We Only Kill Black People' Remark 1:49

A veteran police lieutenant in Georgia who was caught on camera during a traffic stop last year saying officers "only kill black people" will be fired, authorities announced Thursday.


In dashcam video from July 2016, first obtained by WSB-TV of Atlanta, a white woman can be heard telling Cobb County police Lt. Greg Abbott that she was scared to put her hands down because she had "seen way too many videos of cops." Abbott, who is also white, then says, "But you're not black. Remember, we only kill black people. Yeah, we only kill black people, right?"


Abbott, a 27-year veteran of the police department, will be removed from the force, Cobb County Police Chief Mike Register said at a news conference Thursday afternoon.



 Georgia Officer in Dashcam Footage: 'We Only Kill Black People' 1:33



"The statements were inexcusable and inappropriate," Register told reporters. "I don't know what's in [Abbott's] heart, but I certainly know what came out of his mouth."


Abbott's lawyer, Lance LoRusso, said his client had been cooperating with the internal investigation.


"His comments must be observed in their totality to understand their context," LoRusso said in a statement. "He was attempting to de-escalate a situation involving an uncooperative passenger. In context, his comments were clearly aimed at attempting to gain compliance by using the passenger's own statements and reasoning to avoid making an arrest."


The date of the incident in the suburbs of Atlanta was not immediately clear. It happened the same month that Baton Rouge police fatally shot Alton Sterlingduring a confrontation outside a convenience store and a suburban Minneapolis officer fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop. It also came in the wake of several other high-profile police shootings of black men, many of which sparked protests.


WSB, the local TV station, told Cobb County police about the incident last Friday, Register told reporters. Police officials then turned the dashcam video over to internal investigators. That internal review, Register said, suggested Abbott was trying to be "sarcastic."


A study released in May recommended that police in Cobb County address public perceptions of racism and discriminatory policing. The study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police encouraged the department to keep track of what happens when officers interact with people of different races, "given the societal concerns over biased policing."

Maybe it was just a "poor joke"?

Anyway...he was NOT fired.

He retired.  With full benefits.

Quote:Cobb County police Lt. Greg Abbott stood to lose his job for the remarks. But Cobb County Public Safety Director Samuel Heaton said Friday the department had received an e-mail from Abbott requesting immediate retirement.

"He was eligible for that. Once he retires he is no longer employed so no disciplinary action can take place. He is entitled to his retirement, which he would've received even if he was fired," Heaton told CNN.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2017, 10:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/cobb-county-georgia-officer-dashcam-footage-we-only-kill-black-n797721



Maybe it was just a "poor joke"?

Anyway...he was NOT fired.

He retired.  With full benefits.

So, you're advocating that he should have been fired and lost a lifetime's work of pension and all his benefits?

[GMDino]

(09-07-2017, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you're advocating that he should have been fired and lost a lifetime's work of pension and all his benefits?

I'm merely sharing the story.

There probably should have been some form of investigation to see if this was a pattern with the officer...but he took the easy way out instead.

I do wonder about someone getting full retirement benefits even if they are fired.  Is that fired for *any* reason?  If so they have a GREAT union.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2017, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm merely sharing the story.

This level of disingenuousness is why I, and many others, have so little respect for your opinions.

Quote:There probably should have been some form of investigation to see if this was a pattern with the officer...but he took the easy way out instead.

Let's see, on one hand you can go through an investigative process, fueled by media outrage (read up on negative outcome bias) and possibly be fired and lose your benefits.  On the other hand you can retire and not deal with all that bullshit and secure your pension and benefits.  Seems to me the "easy way out" is actually the smart way out.  Of course, the really smart way out is to not say something so insanely stupid in the first place.

Quote:I do wonder about someone getting full retirement benefits even if they are fired.  Is that fired for *any* reason?  If so they have a GREAT union.

No, if you are fired for cause you do not get your benefits in many (most?) instances, hence the smart move being to retire.

[GMDino]

(09-07-2017, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This level of disingenuousness is why I, and many others, have so little respect for your opinions.

I didn't know they had an election for a spokesperson. Congrats!

(09-07-2017, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's see, on one hand you can go through an investigative process, fueled by media outrage (read up on negative outcome bias) and possibly be fired and lose your benefits.  On the other hand you can retire and not deal with all that bullshit and secure your pension and benefits.  Seems to me the "easy way out" is actually the smart way out.  Of course, the really smart way out is to not say something so insanely stupid in the first place.

Seems like something someone would do when they have something to hide/don't want investigated?

If only ordinary citizens could do the same when falsely accused/arrested. Just say nah, I don't want an investigation and walk away. Instead they get charged with "resisting arrest" when they were being wrongly arrested anyway.

(09-07-2017, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, if you are fired for cause you do not get your benefits in many (most?) instances, hence the smart move being to retire.

The article said he would get his full benefits even if he was fired.