Who could have imagined?

[*Nately120*]

(12-03-2020, 12:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now that you've supplied it the actual data will be ignored.  For some, "this is the way".

Hot take...let's not overturn Roe v Wade.

[fredtoast]

(12-03-2020, 01:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think a "reasonable person" would assume they would end in death,

That is kind of a silly argument considering the crowd of people around the police telling them he was going to die.

[fredtoast]

(12-03-2020, 12:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now that you've supplied it the actual data will be ignored.  For some, "this is the way".

And some will ignore the fact that the big reason that killing caused such an outrage was that a white Prosecuting Attorney saw a video of the murder and still did not charge the killers.  For them "that is the way".

How many black people who committed murder got that benefit?

[BrownAssClown]

(12-03-2020, 12:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now that you've supplied it the actual data will be ignored.  For some, "this is the way".

Whatever you say Mando, but how many of those were recorded? How many of those were black cops kneeling on a white man's neck until dead? How many black folks hunting down and shooting a white jogger because he didn't belong in that neighborhood?

I have no doubt that blacks kill whites because of race, racism happens to all races. The point is from that data is how many of those killings was race related? Hell, how many were justifiable homicides? The best thing to happen in law enforcement in the last 20 years or so is the body cam. Most law enforcement officers are upstanding professionals, but the few that aren't cast a dark cloud over all and draws the attention of the media and the public in general. It's a good thing that law enforcement have body cams and our citizenry are equipped with cell phone cameras. Footage can condemn or exonerate people including law enforcement. The more transparency, the better it is for everyone. BTW, sorry for the slight thread derailment, but a lot of these threads morph into something different than just the original topics.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-03-2020, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is kind of a silly argument considering the crowd of people around the police telling them he was going to die.

I enjoy asking these questions because your non-answer never fails to amuse.  Say you were the defense attorney for one of these officers and your statement above was The People's argument against your client.  What would be your defense of your client?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-03-2020, 03:59 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: Whatever you say Mando, but how many of those were recorded? How many of those were black cops kneeling on a white man's neck until dead? How many black folks hunting down and shooting a white jogger because he didn't belong in that neighborhood?

To the former, very few.  To the second, those people weren't LEO's so I'm not sure why you think that incident is relevent. 

Quote:I have no doubt that blacks kill whites because of race, racism happens to all races. The point is from that data is how many of those killings was race related? Hell, how many were justifiable homicides? The best thing to happen in law enforcement in the last 20 years or so is the body cam. Most law enforcement officers are upstanding professionals, but the few that aren't cast a dark cloud over all and draws the attention of the media and the public in general. It's a good thing that law enforcement have body cams and our citizenry are equipped with cell phone cameras. Footage can condemn or exonerate people including law enforcement. The more transparency, the better it is for everyone. BTW, sorry for the slight thread derailment, but a lot of these threads morph into something different than just the original topics.

You need only look to the Uniform Crime Report for many of your answers.  I agree with your main point though, most LEO's are good people and are unfairly demonized by the media, Democratic politician's and a public that have been persuaded that most LEO's are willing participants in a racist machine designed to kill "people of color".  I also agree about body cameras, to a large extent.  I wouldn't want them on all the time, that kind of Big Brother crap is unacceptable to me.  But they should be turned on when a call is answered or a contact is initiated.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2020, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I enjoy asking these questions because your non-answer never fails to amuse.  Say you were the defense attorney for one of these officers and your statement above was The People's argument against your client.  What would be your defense of your client?

Are you an attorney too?

[GMDino]

The problem is that is is cyclical.

The police don't want to have a bad reputation so they cover stuff up.

People get mad about the cover up.

The police claim they can't do their job if people are mad at them.

Or

The police get a bad reputation from a few bad apples.

The people want some changes.

The police fight changes saying it means they can't "do their jobs".

Or

Good cops resign because the of the reputation they are getting from the bad cops.

Police end up hiring replacements that are not as good or not as well trained.

The new officers do things that give the police a bad reputation.

The cycles never end.

All professions get a bad rap sometimes.  Most of the time the members don't just rally together and say "Let us do things our way or we aren't doing it at all".

There has to be some give from both ends.  If the police are hiring bad people and covering up for them that needs exposed and there has to be clear air.

But then I've said for years around here that when you give someone the right to take you property, freedom and life as part of their job they SHOULD be scrutinized more.  And f they can't handle that they shouldn't do the job.

Somehow that makes me anti-cop to some of the more "liberal" minded around here.

Edit to share the ling from another thread about just how these cycles continue in one place...while we try and play the game of "how could this happen":

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Good-Cop-Bad-Cop?pid=950659#pid950659

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 01:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are you an attorney too?

I'm asking the attorney.  Your reading skills continue to deteriorate. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: The problem is that is is cyclical.

The police don't want to have a bad reputation so they cover stuff up.

People get mad about the cover up.

The police claim they can't do their job if people are mad at them.

Or

The police get a bad reputation from a few bad apples.

The people want some changes.

The police fight changes saying it means they can't "do their jobs".

Or

Good cops resign because the of the reputation they are getting from the bad cops.

Police end up hiring replacements that are not as good or not as well trained.

The new officers do things that give the police a bad reputation.

The cycles never end.

All professions get a bad rap sometimes.  Most of the time the members don't just rally together and say "Let us do things our way or we aren't doing it at all".

There has to be some give from both ends.  If the police are hiring bad people and covering up for them that needs exposed and there has to be clear air.

But then I've said for years around here that when you give someone the right to take you property, freedom and life as part of their job they SHOULD be scrutinized more.  And f they can't handle that they shouldn't do the job.

Somehow that makes me anti-cop to some of the more "liberal" minded around here.

Edit to share the ling from another thread about just how these cycles continue in one place...while we try and play the game of "how could this happen":

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Good-Cop-Bad-Cop?pid=950659#pid950659

Don't pimp your cop hating thread in my thread.  If people want to read it they'll read it.  Also, please don't deny it's a cop hating thread, you didn't post one single positive story in that thread.  Unless it's very well hidden.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2020, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I enjoy asking these questions because your non-answer never fails to amuse.  Say you were the defense attorney for one of these officers and your statement above was The People's argument against your client.  What would be your defense of your client?

I always give clear answers to your questions.  You are the one who refuses to answer questions.

I suppose the only defense would be that my client was just following the orders of the training officer.

Some people have tried to argue that he died because of the drugs in his system.  I might try to use something like that, but there have been two autopsies and both attribute the cause of death to "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression".  

The one thing I would not try to argue is that no "reasonable person" would think that a man being choked and unable to breath would die.  Everyone who saw it knew he was dying.  And they were 100% correct.  It would be an insult to the intelligence of the jury to to try and make that argument.  The jury is not going to be a blindly biased as you and your law enforcement friends. 

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2020, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the former, very few.  To the second, those people weren't LEO's so I'm not sure why you think that incident is relevent. 

This has been explained to you about a hundred times already.

The District Attorney's Office is a crucial part of the criminal justice system.  Many of the problems that lead to protests are the way District Attorneys will protect law enforcement officers or their friends who kill black people.

The DA who ran the grand jury proceedings in Ferguson made a mockery of the system in order to protect Michael Brown's killer.  Even if that killing was justified people don't believe the outcome because of the way the DA rigged it.

I have said many times that the single biggest reform that could restore some trust to police officers would be to have an independent prosecutor that handles all case of alleged police misconduct.  There is just much of a conflict of interest between law enforcement and th DAs that they work with every day.  And I don't see how any law enforcement officer could object to an independent prosecutor unless they are depending on their buddies in the DAs office to protect them.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2020, 02:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't pimp your cop hating thread in my thread.  If people want to read it they'll read it.  Also, please don't deny it's a cop hating thread, you didn't post one single positive story in that thread.  Unless it's very well hidden.

There are multiple positive posts about police officers in that thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are multiple positive posts about police officers in that thread.

Not from your buddy.

[GMDino]

(12-04-2020, 03:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not from your buddy.

Not that it would matter to you.

But to the point of my sharing that story here it goes to show that it will take both sides to make effective change and les playing the victim from both sides.

And there are so many stories like that one.  Bad people doing bad things and no changes being made.

I'd rather people be better and police be better but I get that blaming "the other side" is always easier.

Who could have imagined?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I always give clear answers to your questions.  You are the one who refuses to answer questions.

Sure, Fred.

Quote:I suppose the only defense would be that my client was just following the orders of the training officer.

Wow, thank god I'll never have to rely on you for my legal defense.  The "I was following orders" defense was put to permenent rest during the Nuremburg Trials.

Quote:Some people have tried to argue that he died because of the drugs in his system.  I might try to use something like that, but there have been two autopsies and both attribute the cause of death to "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression".  

Then you'll forgive me for questioning why you might use that defense.

Quote:The one thing I would not try to argue is that no "reasonable person" would think that a man being choked and unable to breath would die.  Everyone who saw it knew he was dying.  And they were 100% correct.  It would be an insult to the intelligence of the jury to to try and make that argument.  The jury is not going to be a blindly biased as you and your law enforcement friends. 

How about this?  My client was under the clear impression that his FTO knew what he was doing.  While it is certainly true that bystanders stated what was happening would kill the victim it is difficult to determine what expertise would allow them to come to that determination.  Additionally, the FTO, who is known to have experience in this matter, is rightfully assumed to be aware of his actions and their potential lethality.


You put a lot of stock in the statements of those witnessing the event.  I cannot tell you how many times I've heard statements from bystanders that are 100% erroneous.  While it is certainly true that the man died after this incident that lends the witnesses no more expertise in this matter than those who say the exact same thing during an arrest in which the person being arrested did not die.  Outcome does not grant expertise.

For those of you out there eager to twist the above statement (which, of course includes yourself) I am in no way excusing the officer's actions.  I've consistently condemned them from the moment they were known.  What I am pointing out is that, for those other officers, it is very reasonable for them to assume, as a reasonable person, that their FTO, who has considerably more experience than them (hence his position), is not engaging in behavior likely to end Floyd's life.  IIRC one of the officers was a recent academy graduate.  Statements from bystanders would have zero bearing on my position.  I can't tell you how many people I've seen arrested with a crowd of people shouting that they didn't do anything wrong or that the person's rights were being violated.  Were they right simply because they all stated it?  Or are the statements of a crowd of people watching an arrest not necessarily the most compelling evidence?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not that it would matter to you.

Sure it would, it would demonstrate that you're actually capable of seeing both sides.  By your own admission you do not.  You even labelled the thread "Good cop, bad cop" and then proceeded to post nothing but negative stories.  That's why I find your positions on law enforcement irrevocably biased and your protestations (I learned that word from a movie btw) otherwise to be easily dismissed.

Quote:But to the point of my sharing that story here it goes to show that it will take both sides to make effective change and les playing the victim from both sides.

If you want both sides to be part of the solution then don't endlessly demonize one side and then be shocked when they are reluctant to treat with you.

Quote:And there are so many stories like that one.  Bad people doing bad things and no changes being made.

Proportionately those stories are a minute fraction of law enforcement interaction.  People like you treat them like the norm.  This, again, proves your ill intent in this regard.

Quote:I'd rather people be better and police be better but I get that blaming "the other side" is always easier.

Who could have imagined?

How about the "other side" owning some of this issue as well?  According to you this is solely a problem on the side of law enforcement.  It's not, and your desire to treat it as such is why you'll make zero headway on this issue.  But don't worry, you'll get to keep blaming law enforcement for your myopic (learned that from a movie too) views on this subject.

[BrownAssClown]

(12-04-2020, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the former, very few.  To the second, those people weren't LEO's so I'm not sure why you think that incident is relevent. 


You need only look to the Uniform Crime Report for many of your answers.  I agree with your main point though, most LEO's are good people and are unfairly demonized by the media, Democratic politician's and a public that have been persuaded that most LEO's are willing participants in a racist machine designed to kill "people of color".  I also agree about body cameras, to a large extent.  I wouldn't want them on all the time, that kind of Big Brother crap is unacceptable to me.  But they should be turned on when a call is answered or a contact is initiated.

The reason I brought up the other incident is because it happened just prior to the kneeling incident and racial tensions were already high in the country and boiled over with the Floyd incident.

Yes, I'll say it again, most LEO's are good folks that do a good job and are a credit to their profession, but just like any profession,(Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, etc.) you have the bad apples. I truly don't see LEO's being demonized by the media anymore than any other profession to be honest, as a matter of fact, I see "feel good" stories all the time on the news such as cops taking underprivileged kids to Wal-Mart and buying them coats,toys,etc.

I just don't believe that politician's (Democrat or otherwise) or the public have been persuaded that most LEO's are willing participants in a racist machine killing"Killing people of color". I just call bull-pucky on that, just like I think the term"De-fund the Police" is bull-pucky.

Do I believe there needs to be some kind of police reforms in our country? You bet, just like teacher's who sexually prey on their students and I've heard plenty of stories about that in the media over the last several years, there needs to be education reforms also. I would hope college students that are wanting a degree in education that want to teach would have to take classes on the subject and be aware that "that kind of behavior" is just unacceptable. Just like racial profiling and police brutality should be unacceptable in law enforcement.

I just realized I'll probably catch heck from all the doctor's, lawyers, cops and teachers on the board who read this.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2020, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How about this?  My client was under the clear impression that his FTO knew what he was doing.  While it is certainly true that bystanders stated what was happening would kill the victim it is difficult to determine what expertise would allow them to come to that determination.  Additionally, the FTO, who is known to have experience in this matter, is rightfully assumed to be aware of his actions and their potential lethality.

The problem is that the jury will get to watch the video and it will be clear what is happening.

What if the FTO took out a gun and shot Floyd through the head?  Would you try to argue that my client would be entitled to assume that Chauvin knew what he was doing and did not think it would kill Floyd?

Calling the crowd of people watching stupid for thinking Floyd was dying would be the same a calling the jury stupid for thinking he was dying.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-04-2020, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the jury will get to watch the video and it will be clear what is happening.

What if the FTO took out a gun and shot Floyd through the head?  Would you try to argue that my client would be entitled to assume that Chauvin knew what he was doing and did not think it would kill Floyd?

Yeah, Fred, great comparison.  You're displaying quite the legal acumen here.

Quote:Calling the crowd of people watching stupid

I didn't say that, stop lying.  I don't generally use that word, but you lie about what other people say so often it's the exact word I'm going to use from now on when you do it.

Quote:for thinking Floyd was dying would be the same a calling the jury stupid for thinking he was dying.

And now you're being dishonest.  It's ok though, I know when you retreat to this type of behavior it's because you have nothing.  Maybe repeat your use of the Nuremburg defense?  That was eye opening to be sure.  Notice you didn't even attempt to address my main point, which we know means you can't.  Enjoy your weekend.