100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Another cop/teen shooting in St. Louis | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 08/22/15 09:58 PM
|
|
I am confused... What happens if a black officer kills a black civilian and vice versa? it is still BLUE on black crime, the uniform AGAINST the 'threat' if it is black(or any other color) on blue, SWIFT justice is dispensed in the name of the officer,,, So the issue isn't about black subjugation, but about overall police brutality...? the two cannot be seperated,,,,its about both,, overall police brutality which disproportionately impacts the black and the poor ( who are disproportionately black people) But isnt that because crime rates are generally higher in these communities? And not just petty crimes, but violent, senseless ones... Black is not the issue i am pointing out towards since i know a similar problem faces some hispanic communities as well... Poor also isnt the issue i am referring to, because any ethnic or even majority group has that anywhere in the world, but rather what people choose to do when they are poor. It is not uncommon that people in lower socioeconomic groups are high risk to turn to violent crimes and illegal activities, brought about by lack of education and proper guidance. But many groups, having started out as poor, ignorant and marginalized have also been successful at policing themselves from entering these said activities. What i am saying is that there are communities that have a gang mentality (not the same as organized crime rings) and view law enforcement as the target enemy. When they look at themselves as the oppressed ( whether true or not ), and justify guns and violence as a means to gain power and control in this set-up, the individuals living in these communities become the victims of their own self-fulfilling ideals. My questions... Are these communities actually being actively oppressed without cause? Or did they make the situation for themselves, to begin with? How should law enforcers defend themselves legitimately in these communities? define cause....do these communities have CAUSE to see cops as enemies because of how they are treated or do the cops have CAUSE to treat them how they do because they feel they are seen as enemies? at the end of the day, the one being paid for the job has RESPONSIBILITIES to fill in that job,,,,and determining if an unarmed someone 'looks' enough like a threat to take their life should not be one, when all some have to do to 'look' like a threat is step out the house in anything other than expensive clothes or office wear,,, law enforcers have gear and training to defend themselves 'legitimately' fatal force being something that should be trained as a LAST resort , not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens Deescalation, keeping safe distance,, etc,, need to be more of the protocol than shoot first and ask questions later,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who shot who? And who was unarmed? What were the inherent circumstances?
The original post stated.. 1. It was a drug raid. 2. Suspect pointed a gun at an officer. 3. Officer fired first and claimed life of the one pointing the gun at him. In contrast, the following report stated... 1. Shootings of unknown cause was underway. 2. No officers 3. Stray bullet claimed innocent victim. Doesn't really seem to be a safe distance when it comes to guns...whether it is pointed at you or not.... There are a lot to be said about the balancing act of enforcing laws and letting crime step all over you...either way, someone always has something to protest about... -------- As to looking and acting suspicious compared to being actually of suspicious character... Id like to make a case on homeland and immigration security detaining foreign and local entrants based on looks alone and on intuitive suspicion as an analogy, but this would have to cover acts of terror as well as other more heinous illegal activities, and keeping just one issue in context seems to be hard enough... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Sat 08/22/15 10:56 PM
|
|
Deescalation, keeping safe distance,, etc,, need Lol wut? Lets examine this using the three main cases in this thread.... to be more of the protocol than shoot first and ask questions later,,, Tyrone Harris: Why are you firing into our unmarked police vehichle? Would you please stop? Mr. Bail-Bey: Why are you pointing a gun at us? Would you please stop? Mike Brown: Why are you trying to grab my service weapon? Why are you beating me? Would you please stop? And de-escalation? How do you de-escalate a person firing on you? Let me tell you how...you fire back....or hope the sideways holding thug misses,I guess Geez  And might I add, in these three cases...there isnt one thing that points to racism: Mike Brown was stopped because he fit the description of a person seen robbing an elderly store owner...and rightfully so. Tyrone Harris was engaged because he fired upon an unmarked police vehicle filled with, well, police. What a genius, eh? And Mansur Bail-Bey ran from a raided dope house and pointed a handgun at police officers. Being black had nothing to do with any of these incidents....acting like a criminal, did. This is like taking candy from a baby....I almost feel bad lol Now bring on the spin and fantasy scenarios. Im going to bed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 08/22/15 10:57 PM
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right'
not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police unfortunately you never know if they are armed or unarmed... do you MS. How could you know if they have a gun hidden under their shirt or in the small of their back... how?.. How does you theory pan out for the two cops who were killed very recently ( Tn. & La.).. you know, the 2 who never got the chance to even get their gun out of the holster before they were murdered... by thugs with illegal or stolen guns.. guns hidden under their shirts.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... You are referring to a common tactic by certain posters to use the classic "straw man" argument which shifts the subject to another issue that has nothing to do with the one being discussed. The "straw man" can then be attacked in the hopes that the reader won't notice that the actual response had nothing to so with the issue. Notice how smoothly the armed drug dealer became a "unarmed citizen" in the argument for the purpose of defaming the police in general. If you go back in Mingle and read the poster's comments on Ferguson, MO that created the "hands up, don't shoot" lie, you will see how all the lies were treated as evidence and all the evidence was treated as lies. From Wiki: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1] The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Straw man...is a very good term coined for that... Now i know why Mr. Scarecrow wanted a brain for himself..... I will watch out for this in other debates and quote you on that in the future.  I learn something new everyday. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JAMYLA BOLTON No protests, no catchy chants, no #BlackLivesMatter...... I am just lil girl, shot dead by thugs while trying to do my homework.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... no , this thread was begun to COMPARE the reaction to this girls death to the reaction to the death of 'thugs' I am explaining the difference between the crime the justice system addresses (civilian vs civilian) and the deaths the justice system excuses (civilian vs cop) the latter is protested because cops work WITHIN the justice system which is supposed to represent the SOCIETY individual criminals are not owing to anyone, arent paid for being criminals, and dont have any expectation to represent anyone but themself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police unfortunately you never know if they are armed or unarmed... do you MS. How could you know if they have a gun hidden under their shirt or in the small of their back... how?.. How does you theory pan out for the two cops who were killed very recently ( Tn. & La.).. you know, the 2 who never got the chance to even get their gun out of the holster before they were murdered... by thugs with illegal or stolen guns.. guns hidden under their shirts.. so, if you dont know if they are armed, thats justification to shoot them? is that what your view is? wow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 08/23/15 08:43 AM
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... You are referring to a common tactic by certain posters to use the classic "straw man" argument which shifts the subject to another issue that has nothing to do with the one being discussed. The "straw man" can then be attacked in the hopes that the reader won't notice that the actual response had nothing to so with the issue. Notice how smoothly the armed drug dealer became a "unarmed citizen" in the argument for the purpose of defaming the police in general. If you go back in Mingle and read the poster's comments on Ferguson, MO that created the "hands up, don't shoot" lie, you will see how all the lies were treated as evidence and all the evidence was treated as lies. From Wiki: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1] The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." thanks for sharing, albeit strawman has NOTHING to do with my posts the original implication is some hypocrisy between not protesting this angels death and the black lives matter protests,,, the OP,, last line "No protests, no catchy chants, no #BlackLivesMatter.......just a beautiful lil girl, shot dead by thugs while trying to do her homework" BLACK LIVES MATTER Is part of the topic, protests of COPs killing unarmed black men is therefore also part of the topic I also dont read through every page before I post,, so the false accusation is excused,,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist, David Klinger, says the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional for police to shoot someone in the back if they believe that person could be a threat.
The latest shooting happened while officers were serving a search warrant. They encountered Ball-Bey and another suspect running from the home, police said. Ball-Bey turned and pointed a handgun at the officers, who shot him, authorities said. He died at the scene. 18-year-old Tyrone Harris Jr. was wounded by plainclothes officers in Ferguson when he allegedly first fired at them. His father labeled that account "a bunch of lies" and insisted his son was unarmed. Later, police released surveillance video recorded moments before the shooting that appeared to show the younger Harris pulling a handgun from his waistband and running in the direction of the officers. Taken from: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mansur-ball-bey-report-autopsy-shows-man-killed-st-louis-police-shot-in-back/ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. if one POINTS a weapon that is imminent fatal threat that should be justified in being met in kind
the problem I have is if one never POINTS a weapon because they DONT HAVE ONE,, and the police are still unable to handle it without LETHAL force,,, and that is the crux of the protests, , not about meeting force with force as in shooting someone aiming a gun, but about using deadly force of a weapon against someone unarmed,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police unfortunately you never know if they are armed or unarmed... do you MS. How could you know if they have a gun hidden under their shirt or in the small of their back... how?.. How does you theory pan out for the two cops who were killed very recently ( Tn. & La.).. you know, the 2 who never got the chance to even get their gun out of the holster before they were murdered... by thugs with illegal or stolen guns.. guns hidden under their shirts.. so, if you dont know if they are armed, thats justification to shoot them? is that what your view is? wow As stated by another poster and to answer your question... The Supreme court gives police the right. That is why there were no charges against the cop in the Brown case.. because he acted within the perimeters of the law. Ball - Bey had a gun and was fleeing, again the police acted within the parameters of the Supreme court ruling. So to answer the question. The Supreme court gives the right and guidelines of when a police officer can use deadly force. When the suspect is armed or unarmed. But you already knew this? You answered my question with a question (non answer) so now that I answered yours, common decency would be to answer mine( below) How does you theory pan out for the two cops who were killed very recently ( Tn. & La.).. you know, the 2 who never got the chance to even get their gun out of the holster before they were murdered... by thugs with illegal or stolen guns.. guns hidden under their shirts.. Were these 2 cops even given the chance to diffuse the situation?. Did they even have time to realize the suspect had a hidden gun.. before that gun was used to murder them. Or are you going to give your standard "oh, that's just regular crime".. answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... no , this thread was begun to COMPARE the reaction to this girls death to the reaction to the death of 'thugs' I am explaining the difference between the crime the justice system addresses (civilian vs civilian) and the deaths the justice system excuses (civilian vs cop) the latter is protested because cops work WITHIN the justice system which is supposed to represent the SOCIETY individual criminals are not owing to anyone, arent paid for being criminals, and dont have any expectation to represent anyone but themself Okay.....whatever...i could be wrong, i could be right on my perception of things...but i just want to point out what i think of each of the 4 statements you just made... 1. Comparing the death of an unsuspecting innocent vs that of one who chooses a life of crime under the circumstances stated has no merit in making an argument for police brutality or unequal treatment by any legal justice system. 2. It is a fact that people who choose a life of crime, are more likely to die because of it, whether by the hand of another criminal, by the hand of law enforcement, or by even by the hand of civilians should the situation warrant it. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. That is a fact and has nothing to do with a corrupt justice system. What is unfortunate here is the unnecessary collateral damage. 3. Police brutality and a screwed criminal justice system that favors law enforcement happens when violence (via actual lethal acts or threatened lethal acts) is against law abiding citizens and/or general public welfare. Citizens engaging in criminal acts and in possession of or using illegal weapons cannot expect the same consideration as citizens who do not engage themselves in these situations. 4. Criminals generally engage in their line of work BECAUSE of the payout. They willingly risk their own lives as well as the lives of others because of the payout that they are looking forward to making. It is about money, not morality. I don't see the point of argument about having to mention police brutality because of income in connection with this. Police corruption and brutality more often happens when they work for the criminals, not against them. ----- However which way you want to argue your point, whatever it may be...your line of argument does not make a case against police brutality. Your reasoning does however, makes a case for criminal activity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the topic is st louis police shoots black teen..the teen had a gun for god sake,but some ppl keep wanting to post about something that has nothing to do with this topic,why do thay keep going on and on about unarmed black teens being shot by racist white cops,your on the wrong thread, I think that thread is called ALL white ppl are racist, or thats how SOME ppl on here are trying to make me think thats how thay feel about white ppl,GEEEZZZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeating for CONTEXT, which is often overlooked in the quest to be 'right' not as a first line of defense when responding to UNARMED citizens I have not referred to any specific person, I have referenced a specific SITUATON, of unarmed citizen being gunned down or otherwise killed by police i must have missed something...what situation are you referring to? the situations mentioned in this thread those of armed suspects...yes? ...and the protesters mentioned in the original post here were throwing glass bottles and bricks at the officers. No guns, but still projectile objects with intent to do morbid damage. The officers did not open-fire at these armed but un-gunned civilians. They first used inert and followed up with tear gas as deterrents, which is a legitimate first and second line of defense. why are you referring to a situation of innocent civilians being shot unarmed by law officers, when it is not part of the topic? you are injecting an issue that is not part of the topic at hand...it is confusing me... no , this thread was begun to COMPARE the reaction to this girls death to the reaction to the death of 'thugs' I am explaining the difference between the crime the justice system addresses (civilian vs civilian) and the deaths the justice system excuses (civilian vs cop) the latter is protested because cops work WITHIN the justice system which is supposed to represent the SOCIETY individual criminals are not owing to anyone, arent paid for being criminals, and dont have any expectation to represent anyone but themself Okay.....whatever...i could be wrong, i could be right on my perception of things...but i just want to point out what i think of each of the 4 statements you just made... 1. Comparing the death of an unsuspecting innocent vs that of one who chooses a life of crime under the circumstances stated has no merit in making an argument for police brutality or unequal treatment by any legal justice system. 2. It is a fact that people who choose a life of crime, are more likely to die because of it, whether by the hand of another criminal, by the hand of law enforcement, or by even by the hand of civilians should the situation warrant it. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. That is a fact and has nothing to do with a corrupt justice system. What is unfortunate here is the unnecessary collateral damage. 3. Police brutality and a screwed criminal justice system that favors law enforcement happens when violence (via actual lethal acts or threatened lethal acts) is against law abiding citizens and/or general public welfare. Citizens engaging in criminal acts and in possession of or using illegal weapons cannot expect the same consideration as citizens who do not engage themselves in these situations. 4. Criminals generally engage in their line of work BECAUSE of the payout. They willingly risk their own lives as well as the lives of others because of the payout that they are looking forward to making. It is about money, not morality. I don't see the point of argument about having to mention police brutality because of income in connection with this. Police corruption and brutality more often happens when they work for the criminals, not against them. ----- However which way you want to argue your point, whatever it may be...your line of argument does not make a case against police brutality. Your reasoning does however, makes a case for criminal activity. you're making to much sense, that c0nfuses them into changing the topic... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's see whose political thread will last the longest...  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let's see whose political thread will last the longest... Knock it off with the common sense.. o.k. Pansy?.. no need for that here...Lol |
|
|
|
|
