Another "hands up, don't shoot" lie

[PreachersWife2004]

lol, ok. You're the one who started a thread with the title "Another hands up don't shoot lie." You're the one who presented this video in the context of Michael Brown and a host of other alleged cases of police misconduct. You're the one who made it the topic. If you want to talked about this situation in isolation, don't present it in the greater context of police abuse and public mistrust.

I posted it because people were saying he had his hands up. He did not. So it was yet another hands up lie. I didn't bring up the other guys, at all.

 

[dgiharris]

Yes, that's why. Because more often than not, the victim was actually a criminal.
Probably because, more often than not, it is true.

This attitude is completely counter to principles and theory of our justice system. There is a reason why we were set up as "innocent until proven guilty". that is because, through natural bias, when you are "accused" of something it is human nature to just assume guilt.

I don't know if you've ever witnessed an innocent person having their lives ruined, it sucks.

Oh, I know I'm biased. I am biased in favor of people who are usually not doing anything wrong.

One of the problems I have with police is the slippery slope in which our rights and liberties and even our life can be snuffed out by a police officer.

how is it that a citizen can be approached by law enforcement for a misdemeanor charge that warrants at best a $100 fine and then said citizen ends up with "trespassing, public misconduct, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, and assaulting a peace officer."

I'm not saying you support the above,. However, when our "default" is to just assume guilt and to just take officers at their word we enable an environment in which police abuse of power flourishes and the rights of the citizenry diminishes

It seems you are eager to condemn the police. Would you agree that this shows you are biased without knowing you are biased? Or are only people who turn out to be right subject to that failing?

This is a fair point, am I biased against police.

Absolutely. And that is as it should be BECAUSE our society is "supposed" to be one in which the citizenry and citizen rights are supposed to supersede that of state. The state is supposed to work for us not the other way around. It should require a reasonable suspicion and burden of proof in order to deny a citizen his rights, liberty, and life. But unfortunately, the scale and system is the exact opposite. It is too EASY to deny a citizen his rights, liberty, freedoms and even his life. And worse, we the citizens inadvertantly foster an environment in which we abdicate and surrender our rights and liberties to the authorities.

In the case of this video, yes, the victim is clearly in the wrong and police have more than enough justification to shoot him.

My rants are more so just generalized rantings

 

[iluvatar5150]

I posted it because people were saying he had his hands up. He did not. So it was yet another hands up lie. I didn't bring up the other guys, at all.

When you used the word "another," you referenced other alleged cases of people lying about a police shooting victim's hands being up. You put this incident in the context of those past incidents. You can't present a context for a story and then complain when people address that context.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

When you used the word "another," you referenced other alleged cases of people lying about a police shooting victim's hands being up. You put this incident in the context of those past incidents. You can't present a context for a story and then complain when people address that context.

No, I didn't. This thread isn't about other alleged police brutality, it's about the one that was alleged for this particular case, which was yet another hands up don't shoot lie.

Now, either you dispute that it was a lie or you don't. Can you stick to that part of the thread, or are you determined to continue to derail it?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This attitude is completely counter to principles and theory of our justice system. There is a reason why we were set up as "innocent until proven guilty". that is because, through natural bias, when you are "accused" of something it is human nature to just assume guilt.

I don't know if you've ever witnessed an innocent person having their lives ruined, it sucks.

Unfortunately, while the principle is useful in writing, in real life applications, it just doesn't work. And it's interesting because the same people who get on me for assuming one is guilty are the same ones who quickly assume the police are guilty.

I get wanting to assume one is innocent until proven guilty, but that should also apply to cops.

One of the problems I have with police is the slippery slope in which our rights and liberties and even our life can be snuffed out by a police officer.

how is it that a citizen can be approached by law enforcement for a misdemeanor charge that warrants at best a $100 fine and then said citizen ends up with "trespassing, public misconduct, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, and assaulting a peace officer."

Generally speaking, it is because the person decides to do just those things. If I get pulled over for a broken taillight, and I get belligerent and I refuse to show ID and then I get in a fight with the cop, how is it the cop's fault?

I'm not saying you support the above,. However, when our "default" is to just assume guilt and to just take officers at their word we enable an environment in which police abuse of power flourishes and the rights of the citizenry diminishes

And what happens when you automatically discount the police's account of things? How many times now have people cried "RACISM!" only to have dash-cam footage show a completely different story?

This is a fair point, am I biased against police.

Fair enough that you admit it. I respect that.

Absolutely. And that is as it should be BECAUSE our society is "supposed" to be one in which the citizenry and citizen rights are supposed to supersede that of state. The state is supposed to work for us not the other way around. It should require a reasonable suspicion and burden of proof in order to deny a citizen his rights, liberty, and life. But unfortunately, the scale and system is the exact opposite. It is too EASY to deny a citizen his rights, liberty, freedoms and even his life. And worse, we the citizens inadvertantly foster an environment in which we abdicate and surrender our rights and liberties to the authorities.

I just tend to think that over the course of all police actions, the wrongful actions (which I abhor) don't even come close to the good that police do.

In the case of this video, yes, the victim is clearly in the wrong and police have more than enough justification to shoot him.

Except that others disagree wholeheartedly with you. I had someone tell me LeVoy was clearly shot in the back. I didn't see that in the video at all. And again, initial reports said he had his hands up and was on his knees - at least THAT we know is not true.

My rants are more so just generalized rantings

I understand that, too, except that in many cases that just turns a thread into "WE HATE COPS" and "WE LOVE COPS" argument...I'm really more interested in talking about this particular case.


To that, I had originally thought that this all happened at the building and that it had put an end to the protest. It would seem that I was wrong.

 

[whatbogsends]

I posted it because people were saying he had his hands up. He did not. So it was yet another hands up lie. I didn't bring up the other guys, at all.

"Yet another hands up lie". We have 1 probable "hands up" lie with Ferguson. This would be a 2nd. Between those two events happening, we have a "hands up" truth, in which the officers who shot the guys with his hands up faced no consequence for their actions. There were two separate videos showing the officers shooting the man with his hands up.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/police-fatally-shoot-man-with-hands-up.7905587/

When you say "another hands up don't shoot lie", you are introducing the larger context, and making the claim of a pattern.

 

[whatbogsends]

Unfortunately, while the principle is useful in writing, in real life applications, it just doesn't work. And it's interesting because the same people who get on me for assuming one is guilty are the same ones who quickly assume the police are guilty.

I get wanting to assume one is innocent until proven guilty, but that should also apply to cops.

Generally speaking, it is because the person decides to do just those things. If I get pulled over for a broken taillight, and I get belligerent and I refuse to show ID and then I get in a fight with the cop, how is it the cop's fault?

And what happens when you automatically discount the police's account of things? How many times now have people cried "RACISM!" only to have dash-cam footage show a completely different story?

How many times have police claimed "they were resisting arrest!" only to have bystander footage show a completely different story?

Fair enough that you admit it. I respect that.

I just tend to think that over the course of all police actions, the wrongful actions (which I abhor) don't even come close to the good that police do.

I tend to think that over the course of police actions, the wrongful actions of bad cops are generally excused by other cops, and generally not prosecuted by the courts unless there is not only overwhelming evidence, but also a large public outcry.

There are many good police out there, but there are also entire departments of corrupt police that overlook false testimony by their officers, and officers behave in misconduct, not just in isolation, but in a group of their peers.

Except that others disagree wholeheartedly with you. I had someone tell me LeVoy was clearly shot in the back. I didn't see that in the video at all. And again, initial reports said he had his hands up and was on his knees - at least THAT we know is not true.

This particular case, the force used by the police absolutely looked justifiable.

Why is it that the so-called biased against police folks like DGI and myself can acknowledge when the police behave properly, and assess these situations without bias, but the pro-police folks can't seem to condemn obvious wrongful acts committed by police with full video evidence, coming up with excuses ranging from "well, you don't know what happened before the video", when the video shows clearly what happened for several minutes prior to the wrongful action of the police officer.

I understand that, too, except that in many cases that just turns a thread into "WE HATE COPS" and "WE LOVE COPS" argument...I'm really more interested in talking about this particular case.

If you don't want this to be discussed in context, then don't present it in context.

I don't hate cops. I don't love cops. Cops are people, some good, some bad. Cops are in a position of authority, that gives them more responsibility than an average citizen.

I do hate it when a cop abuses his authority, has clear evidence of him abusing his authority, has his false version of events corroborated by his peers, and the consequence is a slap on the wrists (administrative leave, followed by return to active duty).

I don't think cops should be held to an unreasonable standards. I don't want them punished for mistakes or have them fear that their mistakes will be punished. I do want them to be punished for clear, intentional abuses of their authority.

If i felt that the system was adequately policing the police, i would have much stronger feelings of support for police as a whole. By the actions of police officers that i have met and witnessed in my life, i don't place a large amount of trust in police as a whole.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Was it not another hands up don't shoot lie?

If it wasn't, what was it?

You're reading too much into what I'm writing. Stop. Don't post videos of unrelated incidents to try to prove some point about police. We know that some cops abuse their power. We know that some "victims" aren't victims at all.

In THIS case, we KNOW what led up to the shooting. It's all on video. There is no "what happened before?"

 

[Shodan]

How many times have police claimed "they were resisting arrest!" only to have bystander footage show a completely different story?

I don't know - how many times does it happen? This should also be compared to how many times BLM and the like claim the arrestee had his hands up and got shot, only to have footage show a completely different story.

Why is it that the so-called biased against police folks like DGI and myself can acknowledge when the police behave properly, and assess these situations without bias, but the pro-police folks can't seem to condemn obvious wrongful acts committed by police with full video evidence, coming up with excuses ranging from "well, you don't know what happened before the video", when the video shows clearly what happened for several minutes prior to the wrongful action of the police officer.

That's fair enough. Why don't you start a thread with links to video evidence, where it is obvious that the police acted wrongly, and I will condemn them. Keeping in mind, however, that what is obvious to you might be subject to qualifications and interpretations that might make it a bit more murky.

For instance, the Tamir Rice case. Evil racist cops gun down innocent black child in cold blood = obvious.

Cops receive a report of someone waving a gun around at midnight in a public park, race to the scene, confront a 170 pound male who, when told to "freeze" reaches for the gun in his waistband, which has been altered to look real = perhaps not so obvious.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[whatbogsends]

I don't know - how many times does it happen? This should also be compared to how many times BLM and the like claim the arrestee had his hands up and got shot, only to have footage show a completely different story.

We could compare the data if that data were available. As it is, we're forced to rely on what we have evidence. I've come across many times more instances of the police report being contradicted by video evidence than claims of police brutality being contradicted by video evidence, although they both do exist.

That's fair enough. Why don't you start a thread with links to video evidence, where it is obvious that the police acted wrongly, and I will condemn them. Keeping in mind, however, that what is obvious to you might be subject to qualifications and interpretations that might make it a bit more murky.

I've already linked one to a prior discussion in this thread. There have been plenty of other threads here with such cases.

For instance, the Tamir Rice case. Evil racist cops gun down innocent black child in cold blood = obvious.

Cops receive a report of someone waving a gun around at midnight in a public park, race to the scene, confront a 170 pound male who, when told to "freeze" reaches for the gun in his waistband, which has been altered to look real = perhaps not so obvious.

Regards,
Shodan

And, here we go. Not the place for this discussion here (as there are plenty of threads on this subject already, and the OP has already stated she doesn't want this thread to become that), but when you give a command of "freeze" as you drive up in a vehicle, and shoot the person dead within 2 seconds of driving up (meaning that there was less than 2 seconds between the "freeze" command and Tamir being shot), there is not enough time for a person to understand and comply with the command. The shooting was a foregone conclusion with the tactic of driving up directly upon Tamir.

 

[Shodan]

We could compare the data if that data were available. As it is, we're forced to rely on what we have evidence. I've come across many times more instances of the police report being contradicted by video evidence than claims of police brutality being contradicted by video evidence, although they both do exist.

Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man is not news. Therefore, wouldn't you expect there to be a disproportionate amount of attention paid to cases of the sort you allege, and therefore most of the other cases would attract no attention? Therefore it would look like there were lots of dogs being bitten, when in actuality very few were.

It would be inappropriate, not to say silly, to say "therefore we have a big problem with dog-catchers biting stray dogs". IYSWIM.

And, here we go. Not the place for this discussion here (as there are plenty of threads on this subject already, and the OP has already stated she doesn't want this thread to become that), but when you give a command of "freeze" as you drive up in a vehicle, and shoot the person dead within 2 seconds of driving up (meaning that there was less than 2 seconds between the "freeze" command and Tamir being shot), there is not enough time for a person to understand and comply with the command.

Two seconds is too long for someone to realize that, when the police yell "Freeze", you should probably not reach for a gun? How long should the police wait for someone to understand what the command "Freeze" means, and what do they do if he pulls a gun and starts shooting in the meantime?

The shooting was a foregone conclusion with the tactic of driving up directly upon Tamir.

I think that goes to a different understanding of "obvious". Because I don't think it is obvious that the police would have shot Rice if he had not reached for a gun.

That's sort of what I mentioned above - if you can come up with instances where a cop or cops shot somebody who simply surrendered peacefully, or shot him after he was handcuffed (as the BLM folks claimed with Lamar Grant), or shot him in the back while he was running away (as the BLM folks claimed with Michael Brown) , and nobody did nothing about it, then we can talk about condemning the police, at least in that one case.

But not until then.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[iluvatar5150]

Two seconds is too long for someone to realize that, when the police yell "Freeze", you should probably not reach for a gun? How long should the police wait for someone to understand what the command "Freeze" means, and what do they do if he pulls a gun and starts shooting in the meantime? I think that goes to a different understanding of "obvious". Because I don't think it is obvious that the police would have shot Rice if he had not reached for a gun.

No, two seconds isn't enough time.

Have you ever timed yourself saying the words, "Drop the gun"? I have. It took me between 1.3 and 2.1 seconds just for the words to come out of my mouth. Longer phrases would, obviously, take longer.

Have you ever timed your reaction time? I have. The best reaction time someone will have to a stimuli that they're expecting, but not extensively practiced for (e.g. "hit this button when the light turns green" for someone who isn't a professional button presser) is about 250ms, give or take about 50ms.

1.3 seconds + 250 ms + ~30ms for the sound to travel through the air from the cop to Tamir = a minimum possible reaction time of 1.85 seconds. That's 1.85 seconds if Tamir is standing there, ready and waiting to respond to the police's command and trying to respond as quickly as he can.

What's obvious is that people who like to judge these scenarios have little idea of how much time it takes for certain things to elapse.

 

[whatbogsends]

Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man is not news. Therefore, wouldn't you expect there to be a disproportionate amount of attention paid to cases of the sort you allege, and therefore most of the other cases would attract no attention? Therefore it would look like there were lots of dogs being bitten, when in actuality very few were.

It would be inappropriate, not to say silly, to say "therefore we have a big problem with dog-catchers biting stray dogs". IYSWIM.

Most of the actual cases in which police shoots man, files false police report, and video evidence disproves that police report never make national news.

As i had pointed out earlier in this thread, here's a "hands up, police shot" incident.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/police-fatally-shoot-man-with-hands-up.7905587/

Here's an instance in which the video evidence contradicted the officers claims, as they beat him, then charged him with eluding police, resisting arrest and aggravated assault on an officer.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dash-cam-video-exonerates-nj-man.7900220/

There's a large group of cops in Omaha, which assaulted a man, assaulted and falsely charged his brother, and destroyed evidence, and fabricated a false police report. Fortunately someone across the street took a video of the incident.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/extreme-overuse-of-force-by-omaha-pd.7860219/

There's this one which actually made the national news:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/police-officer-charged-with-murder.7874622/

Here's an officer making a wrongful arrest, only to be overridden by video evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...litary-vet-using-golf-club-as-a-cane.7908545/

The vast majority of those were NOT national news stories. The networks don't want to promote stories that don't follow their narrative. The narrative of the left leaning networks is NOT "police are bad" rather "racism is an issue". Any incident which shows police to be bad, but doesn't have a clear racial motive will be ignored just as much as any other story.

Two seconds is too long for someone to realize that, when the police yell "Freeze", you should probably not reach for a gun? How long should the police wait for someone to understand what the command "Freeze" means, and what do they do if he pulls a gun and starts shooting in the meantime?
I think that goes to a different understanding of "obvious". Because I don't think it is obvious that the police would have shot Rice if he had not reached for a gun.

That's sort of what I mentioned above - if you can come up with instances where a cop or cops shot somebody who simply surrendered peacefully, or shot him after he was handcuffed (as the BLM folks claimed with Lamar Grant), or shot him in the back while he was running away (as the BLM folks claimed with Michael Brown) , and nobody did nothing about it, then we can talk about condemning the police, at least in that one case.

But not until then.

Regards,
Shodan

Feel free to post your threads in which there's a false charge against a police officer and video evidence to contradict that claim. I'm sure that you can find examples, but i'm also sure i can find more examples of the converse.

As i've said in pretty much every thread on this subject, i don't condemn the police as a whole. I do, however, strongly disagree with those who push the narrative of "incidents of bad cops are so few that it's inconsequential and the bad cops only represent a few bad apples and the vast, vast majority are good cops".

I'm not saying the majority of cops are bad, or even close to that. I am saying the number of bad cops and the allowance of their actions by their peers and the justice system is a non-trivial problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[Shodan]

No, two seconds isn't enough time.

Have you ever timed yourself saying the words, "Drop the gun"? I have. It took me between 1.3 and 2.1 seconds just for the words to come out of my mouth. Longer phrases would, obviously, take longer.

I thought we were talking about the word "freeze".

Have you ever timed your reaction time? I have. The best reaction time someone will have to a stimuli that they're expecting, but not extensively practiced for (e.g. "hit this button when the light turns green" for someone who isn't a professional button presser) is about 250ms, give or take about 50ms.

1.3 seconds + 250 ms + ~30ms for the sound to travel through the air from the cop to Tamir = a minimum possible reaction time of 1.85 seconds. That's 1.85 seconds if Tamir is standing there, ready and waiting to respond to the police's command and trying to respond as quickly as he can.

What's obvious is that people who like to judge these scenarios have little idea of how much time it takes for certain things to elapse.

I am not following you. You said two seconds is not enough time. Isn't 1.85 seconds less time than 2.0?

The other point being that Rice responded to the "freeze" command by reaching for a gun. IOW he had enough time to hear that he was being ordered to freeze, but instead of freezing, he reached for a gun. So he did have enough time to hear the command, understand it, and not do what the police said.

Most of the actual cases in which police shoots man, files false police report, and video evidence disproves that police report never make national news.

As i had pointed out earlier in this thread, here's a "hands up, police shot" incident.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/police-fatally-shoot-man-with-hands-up.7905587/

Isn't Gilbert Flores the one who was caught on videotape yelling that he had a knife, and was determined to make the officers shoot him?

Here's an instance in which the video evidence contradicted the officers claims, as they beat him, then charged him with eluding police, resisting arrest and aggravated assault on an officer.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dash-cam-video-exonerates-nj-man.7900220/

There's a large group of cops in Omaha, which assaulted a man, assaulted and falsely charged his brother, and destroyed evidence, and fabricated a false police report. Fortunately someone across the street took a video of the incident.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/extreme-overuse-of-force-by-omaha-pd.7860219/

There's this one which actually made the national news:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/police-officer-charged-with-murder.7874622/

Here's an officer making a wrongful arrest, only to be overridden by video evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...litary-vet-using-golf-club-as-a-cane.7908545/

These I'm not familiar with. So okay - I condemn them, absent further evidence or research.

The vast majority of those were NOT national news stories. The networks don't want to promote stories that don't follow their narrative. The narrative of the left leaning networks is NOT "police are bad" rather "racism is an issue". Any incident which shows police to be bad, but doesn't have a clear racial motive will be ignored just as much as any other story.

Feel free to post your threads in which there's a false charge against a police officer and video evidence to contradict that claim. I'm sure that you can find examples, but i'm also sure i can find more examples of the converse.

That's kind of my point. The vast majority of times, arrests don't make the news because the police acted appropriately.

And I have already mentioned several instances where the police were wrongly accused of racism or excessive force, and were exonerated by the evidence. Darren Wilson, for instance, and Lamar Grant in my own part of the world.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[SnowyMacie]

Unfortunately, while the principle is useful in writing, in real life applications, it just doesn't work. And it's interesting because the same people who get on me for assuming one is guilty are the same ones who quickly assume the police are guilty.

I get wanting to assume one is innocent until proven guilty, but that should also apply to cops.

This kind of mentality is why we need to have our criminal justice system is innocent until proven guilty. It's not "wanting" to assume, that's simply how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. The reason it does not work in real life is due to how biased the system actually is. Public defenders offices are incredibly underfunded and understaffed because it's not popular to defend criminals, and as a result, we've got a messed up system. IMO, the best way to fix that is to merge the DA and Public Defender's office, and simply just have criminal lawyers who go back and forth from defending and prosecuting.

Generally speaking, it is because the person decides to do just those things. If I get pulled over for a broken taillight, and I get belligerent and I refuse to show ID and then I get in a fight with the cop, how is it the cop's fault?

The first time I was ever pulled over it was for going through my own church's parking lot. Our church was at a corner and cars often cut through our parking lot to miss the light. Anyway, I had dropped off a friend at apartments across the street, then went into our church to give something to my youth minister, and then left via "cutting through". The cop saw me, and told me that's why he pulled me over. I explained him the story, he then said "Well, you also didn't come to a complete stop", which also wasn't true because I had to stop to wait on a couple cars to pass. He then tried to accuse me of car theft (I drove a fairly nice car for a high schooler), and then joyriding. Once he realized there were no holes in my story, he let me go without a warning, but I'll never forget how determined he was to get me on something.

Another time in high school, this cop pulled us over for speeding (he came out of a gas station), stopped behind us at a light, and then pulled us over as soon as the light turned green. He must have been thinking "There's four teenagers in a car at midnight, they must have something", and asked us to get out of the car. The ignorant teenagers we were, we did. We searched my friends car and naturally found nothing, then let us go.

My friend was also pulled over around 11 PM for changing lanes without a signal. The cop basically asked him where he was headed, and then let him go, never even mentioning the signal change after he first went up to his window.

Another friend of mine was pulled over for speeding, and he actually was. He did everything right, and the cop asked him to get out of the car while she searched his car.

We're all white, and all of that happened in a middle class, white-dominated suburb.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And anyway, in this particular case, the wife said LeVoy was on his knees with his hands up when he was shot in the face. "Witnesses" backed her up.

Now with the video, we see that just wasn't true. We see what led up to the shooting and we see that LaVoy was not some innocent person murdered by cops.

 

[SnowyMacie]

And anyway, in this particular case, the wife said LeVoy was on his knees with his hands up when he was shot in the face. "Witnesses" backed her up.

Now with the video, we see that just wasn't true. We see what led up to the shooting and we see that LaVoy was not some innocent person murdered by cops.

The fact that in case the cops were right doesn't mean anything other than the fact they were right in this case. It doesn't change the fact that people are skeptical if not distrusting of cops due to the numerous cases law enforcement has acted outside of the law. There is still a very good reason we have the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

 

[whatbogsends]

I thought we were talking about the word "freeze".
I am not following you. You said two seconds is not enough time. Isn't 1.85 seconds less time than 2.0?

You said "freeze". I used "freeze" only as a response to your post.

The official version of the story is:

"Chief Tomba is quoted as saying, "Loehmann shouted from the car three times at Tamir to show his hands as he approached the car."[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice

There was no audio on the video

The other point being that Rice responded to the "freeze" command by reaching for a gun. IOW he had enough time to hear that he was being ordered to freeze, but instead of freezing, he reached for a gun. So he did have enough time to hear the command, understand it, and not do what the police said.

Isn't Gilbert Flores the one who was caught on videotape yelling that he had a knife, and was determined to make the officers shoot him?

Such is the claim.

Instead of simply taking the "official" story at its word, i encourage you to watch the two videos of him with his hands up as he's shot multiple times. In neither video can i detect a knife.

These I'm not familiar with. So okay - I condemn them, absent further evidence or research.

It'd be more appropriate to condemn them after research. I don't want you to take my word for it, i want you to look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.

That being said, i'll acknowledge that you're at least showing a sign of good faith in this discussion.

That's kind of my point. The vast majority of times, arrests don't make the news because the police acted appropriately.

No, in these cases, the police acted inappropriately, but the stories were not covered, because the major networks aren't in the business of making the police look bad without some other underlying narrative.

And I have already mentioned several instances where the police were wrongly accused of racism or excessive force, and were exonerated by the evidence. Darren Wilson, for instance, and Lamar Grant in my own part of the world.

Regards,
Shodan

Care to show me the video evidence exonerating Darren Wilson? I wasn't aware that any video of that incident existed.

I couldn't find anything for Lamar Grant. Would you provide that example as well?

Assuming you provide the story and video for Lamar Grant, that would be 2 instances supporting your claim (video evidence discredits claims of people against police), while i've provided 5 examples of the opposite (video evidence discredits the claims made by police officers as they have abused their authority/committed violence on a citizen).

If you want, i can provide another 5 clear examples of police abusing their authority/committing violence on a citizen, lying about the incident, only to be discredited later when video evidence is released. If you wanted, i could probably provide 10 more examples. Again, these aren't examples that come from the mainstream media, as they have no incentive to disseminate these stories, but mostly from local news networks.

Can you quickly provide 5 or 10 (actually, 8 or 13, since i've already provided 3 more examples) of the incidents you claim?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I thought we were talking about the word "freeze".

According to the police, the officer shouted "show your hands" three times.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/justice/cleveland-police-shooting/index.html

But that's a lie. You can't say "show your hands" 3x that quickly.

But even if he had said "freeze," that's still about 450-600ms by the rough measurement I just did.

I am not following you. You said two seconds is not enough time. Isn't 1.85 seconds less time than 2.0?

1.85 was an absolute best case scenario with the officer speaking quickly and the shooting victim ready for the command and waiting to respond (like you would be if you were playing jeopardy). Real-world parameters would put the reaction time way, way, beyond that. And the officer fired in less than 2 seconds.

The other point being that Rice responded to the "freeze" command by reaching for a gun. IOW he had enough time to hear that he was being ordered to freeze, but instead of freezing, he reached for a gun. So he did have enough time to hear the command, understand it, and not do what the police said.

This is all your imagination filling in blanks in what happened. Again, you can't comprehend an order that quickly - he may have responded to seeing the car drive up (which he had ample time to react to), but it's very difficult to comprehend a command issued from inside a moving vehicle and it's virtually impossible to comprehend and respond to one in the amount of time between the officer's car door opening and him opening fire.

Isn't Gilbert Flores the one who was caught on videotape yelling that he had a knife, and was determined to make the officers shoot him?

Yep. And he had gone on a bit of a rampage prior to being shot. But when he was shot, his hands were very much in the air and he was stationary.

And I have already mentioned several instances where the police were wrongly accused of racism or excessive force, and were exonerated by the evidence. Darren Wilson, for instance, and Lamar Grant in my own part of the world.

Darren Wilson wasn't exonerated by the evidence. The evidence wasn't sufficient to prove one account or another.

 

[farout]

His hands were up and he was shot in the back. Plus there is no need to fire that many bullets in to the car.

I am pretty non biased as I know very little about this. But I did not see hands up.