.

[Mountain_Girl406]

Tamir Rice comes pretty close to a case of the cops driving up to someone and shooting them. A 12 year old kid with a toy gun, never even got the chance to resist arrest, not that it's assumed he would have. Philando Castile didn't resist either. What should they have done differently to protect themselves when the cops arrived?

 

[Circle Christ]

Tamir Rice comes pretty close to a case of the cops driving up to someone and shooting them. A 12 year old kid with a toy gun, never even got the chance to resist arrest, not that it's assumed he would have. Philando Castile didn't resist either. What should they have done differently to protect themselves when the cops arrived?

The Philando Castile case is still under investigation. What doesn't make sense is the girlfriends video supposedly live streaming after he was shot.

And Tamir Rice had a toy gun from which he'd removed the orange tip that would show it was a toy. He was walking through his neighborhood intermittently pointing it at people. And was in a park where prior , like weeks earlier, people had been shot, when police pulled up on him and he started raising the toy gun.

Had it been a real gun but the cops gave the benefit of the doubt that it was a toy and Rice had pulled the trigger, what then?
It's split second decision. And police who shoot people don't just chuck it under the bridge as an , 'oh-well'. It lives with them to the day they die.

 

[PapaZoom]

Tamir Rice comes pretty close to a case of the cops driving up to someone and shooting them. A 12 year old kid with a toy gun, never even got the chance to resist arrest, not that it's assumed he would have. Philando Castile didn't resist either. What should they have done differently to protect themselves when the cops arrived?

Tamir was pointing the gun at people. The cops didn't just drive up and shoot Tamir. They were responding to a person with a gun. A gun is not a toy even if it's a toy gun. And when you point the gun at a police officer, you're going to get shot.

We don't know the circumstances with Philando Castile. We only have the video after he was shot. The cop didn't just pull him over and shoot him. Phil had a gun. When you have a gun, you keep your hands in view. If it looks like you are going for your gun, even though you maybe aren't, you're going to get shot. The cop may have acted too fast, maybe he feared for his life. Maybe he not cut out to be a cop. The day Phil was killed, Jesse Jackson called it murder. What an irresponsible thug. Cops carry guns for a reason.

I'm white. If I get pulled over and I have a gun in my possession, I'm showing my hands. I make no sudden moves, innocent or not. The cop cannot read my mind. I tell the officer I have a gun and wait for his instructions.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Did Tamir clearly point the gun at the police?
Should Philando have refused the demand to get his ID after telling the cop he was carrying, assuming that's how it happened?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You need to read more carefully ... or kick the hyperbole addiction - not sure which.

Perhaps. You should understand what the words you use mean.

 

[Circle Christ]

Did Tamir clearly point the gun at the police?
Should Philando have refused the demand to get his ID after telling the cop he was carrying, assuming that's how it happened?

He didn't have to clearly point the gun straight at police. Police had a report of someone pointing a gun at people on the street. When a very obvious police car pulled up to Tamir when he was in the park at the gazebo there he started to raise the same gun that people had reported he was pointing at them.


As for Philando, he's a crip gang member. His girlfriend claimed he was reaching per police orders for his CC permit when he was shot. We don't have that on video. What we have is a girlfriend supposedly live streaming to her Facebook page after he was shot. Which is enormously suspect when the emotion of the first article read wears off and you start to piece together what she wants people to believe about all that.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

As for Philando, he's a crip gang member.

There's no evidence that he was ever a Crip. We know that he didn't have a felony record, and he did have a CC permit.

 

[Circle Christ]

There's no evidence that he was ever a Crip.

There's a Facebook page that proves otherwise.

We know that he didn't have a felony record

We do? How do we know that? He had at least 55 traffic violations on his record.

And he did have a CC permit.

CC permit was issued in a different city years before this. Is there proof of a current issued CC permit?

The girlfriend narrating her own phone video claimed the officer pulled them over for a broken tail light. Apparently she didn't realize police have their own audio record.

LISTEN: Philando Castile Dispatch Audio/Police Scanner

 

[Goatee]

Crazy gun ho police!

 

[SepiaAndDust]

There's a Facebook page that proves otherwise.

Oh, a Facebook page.... That's adorable.

We do? How do we know that? He had at least 55 traffic violations on his record.

Any felonies? No.

CC permit was issued in a different city years before this. Is there proof of a current issued CC permit?

It's proof that he applied for and received a CC permit.

 

[Circle Christ]

Oh, a Facebook page.... That's adorable.

Aren't you just the sweetest thing.
You don't know anything about Crips but you're just the sweetest thing.

Any felonies? No.

Prove it.

It's proof that he applied for and received a CC permit.

You're not aware so let me help. CC permits expire.
The question was, did he have a current CC permit? The issue isn't one he had long ago in another city.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Aren't you just the sweetest thing.
You don't know anything about Crips but you're just the sweetest thing.

I know that there hasn't so far been any evidence presented that he was a Crip. Should any come to light from a reputable source, I'll accept it. Until then, though, nobody has any good reason to believe that he was a Crip (wishful thinking notwithstanding).

Prove it.

I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. You have to prove that he had a felony charge before you can claim that he did.

You're not aware so let me help. CC permits expire.
The question was, did he have a current CC permit? The issue isn't one he had long ago in another city.

I didn't say that he had a current one. I said that he had one. Even if it was expired or otherwise invalid, he still went to the effort to procure one, and one was issued.

 

[Circle Christ]

I know that there hasn't so far been any evidence presented that he was a Crip. Should any come to light from a reputable source, I'll accept it. Until then, though, nobody has any good reason to believe that he was a Crip (wishful thinking notwithstanding).

No such thing as wishful thinking.
As I said, you don't know anything about the Crips. And to think the Facebook page means nothing is naive in that regard of proof you know nothing about the Crips.

I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. You have to prove that he had a felony charge before you can claim that he did.

I don't think you understand how a question works. You claim there are no felonies on his record. We don't know that.

I didn't say that he had a current one. I said that he had one. Even if it was expired or otherwise invalid, he still went to the effort to procure one, and one was issued.

Wow! Well, that right there just shot down any hopes you might have had of trying to sound like you knew something about the law in your second quote.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

No such thing as wishful thinking.
As I said, you don't know anything about the Crips. And to think the Facebook page means nothing is naive in that regard of proof you know nothing about the Crips.

I don't think you understand how a question works. You claim there are no felonies on his record. We don't know that.

Wow! Well, that right there just shot down any hopes you might have had of trying to sound like you knew something about the law in your second quote.

Still waiting for your evidence. All you've done so far is to make claims about me. I'm not the topic of discussion.

Provide evidence for your outlandish claims. If you can't, then retract. If you won't do even that, then you should at least remain silent.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We all agree that some cops are bad. What we can't assume is that they were motivated by racism. If cops unjustifiably shoot and/or kill someone, we need due process, don't we? Would we like the worst assumed of us? They deserve to be innocent until proven guilty, like the rest of Americans.

Do you really believe what's in the video is not the standard? Do you really believe these all just happen to be "bad cops", or that this is not racially motivated?

Which of the two law abiding citizens do you think are more likely to be shot and killed?

Sure, this is an example using an extreme situation but it gives plenty of insight into what goes on even in less extreme situations.

As for Mr Gibbs:...

Every time I hear of a black man being killed by the cops, he’s almost always a criminal thug I have no desire to defend.

.....then why not just shoot them all because they are, or we just think they are criminal thugs, no defense/due process even necessary? What a stupid thing to say.

Gibbs is way too short sighted.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Perhaps. You should understand what the words you use mean.

Specifically, to which word or words are you referring?

 

[Abella30]

I read the article but I don't find it impressive. The article seems to brush aside these deaths because they happen to men with questionable pasts. The author then argues that if these men had been raised right, they wouldn't have been shot.

I think a better article is https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.cad60c241e42

There are many Americans, not just BLM activists, who are concerned about the level of force utilized by some police agencies. I don't expect the police to shoot to kill unless their life is truly being threatened. A man reaching for his pocket is not threatening anyone. That mans criminal history isn't even relevant unless the cop knows that history at the time of the event and that history shows evidence of violence.

Police agencies deal with people every day. Sometimes those people continue to reach for their wallet when it might be better to keep their hands on the steering wheel. I expect cops to anticipate that people do not always behave perfectly and I further expect cops to be able to address those scenaios without killing people. I don't think my expectations are too high.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you really believe what's in the video is not the standard? Do you really believe these all just happen to be "bad cops", or that this is not racially motivated?

Which of the two law abiding citizens do you think are more likely to be shot and killed?

Sure, this is an example using an extreme situation but it gives plenty of insight into what goes on even in less extreme situations.

As for Mr Gibbs:...

Every time I hear of a black man being killed by the cops, he’s almost always a criminal thug I have no desire to defend.

.....then why not just shoot them all because they are, or we just think they are criminal thugs, no defense/due process even necessary? What a stupid thing to say.

Gibbs is way too short sighted.

Blacks shoot at cops at at rate of 10 to 1 over whites. You would be careful too, if you were in his shoes.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Status unproven
http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-crips-member/

 

[expos4ever]

Here are at least two problems with the article:

1. It implicitly buys into the absurd notion that the police have a right to KILL you if you resist arrest! Where does that idea come from!? People resist arrest for all sorts of reasons that do not merit DEATH: they are drunk, they are angry, they rightly or wrongly resent authority, they are trying to act tough, etc. Yes, some of these are "bad" reasons (see point 2, below, for more detail). But - and I can't believe no else has commented on this (unless I missed it) - they should not be punished with DEATH! The only legitimate justification for the police to use deadly force is if they reasonably believe their lives (or the lives of others) are at risk. If someone is fighting back, the better path - and certainly the Christian path - is to back off, and let matters cool down. And please don't tell me that that it is not often the case that the officers can indeed back off and yet still "contain" the situation.

2. Somewhat related to the first point, the article buys into the notion that people who are not behaving reasonably in an arrest scenario are guilty of some great moral transgression that, by implication, justifies their being killed. Again, and this may really be an elaboration on point number 1, even the best of us is deeply flawed, prone to anger, moments of rash behavior, poor judgment etc. The problem with the article is that it implicitly appeals to a ridiculously naïve view of human nature that does not respect the degree to which almost all of us are damaged and hurt, and can act inappropriately under stress. But, again, the penalty for this should certainly not be death!