More than 40 shot in Chicago over the weekend

[SummerMadness]

And the nearby places where guns laws aren't as strict are safer than Chicago.

Another factor is the income level of those places, areas with higher income outside large cities have lower levels of crime. However, areas of cities, suburbs or rural areas, regardless of the ethnic or racial makeup have similarly higher levels of crime. I think the number of people definitely plays in a factor in the amount and higher rates of crime, but it seems many ignore that to suggest their is something special about crime in Chicago (or any city).

 

[BubbaJack]

Another factor is the income level of those places, areas with higher income outside large cities have lower levels of crime. However, areas of cities, suburbs or rural areas, regardless of the ethnic or racial makeup have similarly higher levels of crime. I think the number of people definitely plays in a factor in the amount and higher rates of crime, but it seems many ignore that to suggest their is something special about crime in Chicago (or any city).

If we give them some money, will they stop killing?

 

[Aldebaran]

"Rushed towards one of the officers" - I've already talked about this. It's visible in the video link I provided earlier. YOU CAN WATCH IT FOR YOURSELF. He does not attack anybody. He does not raise his hands to attack anybody. This "rush" consisted of about 1-2 steps (before he was taken down again) and it looked to me like he was merely trying to escape, though as I've already conceded, that's inconclusive. Either way, that was AFTER he had already been tazed. There's no possible way that you can argue that this "rush" constituted King attacking the police first.


Not complying with an order to lay on the ground does not constitute an attack.


IOW, they were already on his back, which means they acted first. From the way this is described, that's a defensive move by King, not an attack.

After reading all this attempted justifying by you for King's actions, it sounds as if you believe the police should simply yell, "Get down on the ground!" and then not be able to follow up that command with force when the perpetrator (who just led them on a high speed chase) decides not to follow their orders. I guess that's one way of letting the criminals have their way.

 

[Aldebaran]

Another factor is the income level of those places, areas with higher income outside large cities have lower levels of crime. However, areas of cities, suburbs or rural areas, regardless of the ethnic or racial makeup have similarly higher levels of crime. I think the number of people definitely plays in a factor in the amount and higher rates of crime, but it seems many ignore that to suggest their is something special about crime in Chicago (or any city).

What's being ignored is the fact that there were an average of 2 murders every day in 2016, which is a huge spike--the largest increase in 60 years. Chicago records 762 homicides in 2016, up 57 percent from previous year

 

[Arcangl86]

What's being ignored is the fact that there were an average of 2 murders every day in 2016, which is a huge spike--the largest increase in 60 years. Chicago records 762 homicides in 2016, up 57 percent from previous year

And many anti-violence programs have drastically reduced their operations due to a funding crisis.

 

[iluvatar5150]

After reading all this attempted justifying by you for King's actions, it sounds as if you believe the police should simply yell, "Get down on the ground!" and then not be able to follow up that command with force when the perpetrator (who just led them on a high speed chase) decides not to follow their orders. I guess that's one way of letting the criminals have their way.

What a silly response.

For one thing, refuting your unsupported statements does not in any qualify as justifying King's actions. I said earlier that he was likely guilty of disobeying an order and resisting arrest. I'm sure you could tack a bunch of traffic charges in there, too. But that doesn't mean he attacked the police, and it certainly doesn't mean he attacked them first. You've consistently failed to support that claim - because you can't.

Additionally, you present a false dichotomy between the police beating someone to a pulp and the police taking the nouveau-Chicago approach of laissez-faire pacifism. King was on the ground and surrounded for a considerable length of time while a couple officers beat him and a bunch of others watched. Perhaps the officers could have tried to handcuff him instead of just beating him.

 

[Aldebaran]

What a silly response.

For one thing, refuting your unsupported statements does not in any qualify as justifying King's actions. I said earlier that he was likely guilty of disobeying an order and resisting arrest. I'm sure you could tack a bunch of traffic charges in there, too.

Leading officers on a high speed chase of up to 115 MPH would result in more than just a "bunch of traffic charges". Putting the public at risk of injury or death is rather serious. But then again, that's only one part of his arrest record: The Arrest Record of Rodney King

Additionally, you present a false dichotomy between the police beating someone to a pulp and the police taking the nouveau-Chicago approach of laissez-faire pacifism. King was on the ground and surrounded for a considerable length of time while a couple officers beat him and a bunch of others watched. Perhaps the officers could have tried to handcuff him instead of just beating him.

Take it up with the judge and jury who made the decision in the case when it went to trial.

 

[SummerMadness]

Leading officers on a high speed chase of up to 115 MPH would result in more than just a "bunch of traffic charges". Putting the public at risk of injury or death is rather serious. But then again, that's only one part of his arrest record: The Arrest Record of Rodney King

Take it up with the judge and jury who made the decision in the case when it went to trial.

Yet you still have not substantiated that he attacked police, rather you are jumping to every other subject besides the apparent use of excessive force.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yet you still have not substantiated that he attacked police, rather you are jumping to every other subject besides the apparent use of excessive force.

Failure to stop, driving at 115 MPH and putting the lives of everyone involved at risk is an attack on everyone in the area.

 

[Arcangl86]

Failure to stop, driving at 115 MPH and putting the lives of everyone involved at risk is an attack on everyone in the area.

And beating the crap out of him once he was already on the ground stopped this how?

 

[Aldebaran]

And beating the crap out of him once he was already on the ground stopped this how?

It stopped him from making further attempts at attacking the cops. They told him to get down, but that didn't work. They tried tasering him, but that didn't work either. Defying the police by failing to stop, then evading at 115 MPH, then ignoring orders, then resisting, etc. will only result in greater force being used until you comply. The more he resisted, the more the force escalated.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Leading officers on a high speed chase of up to 115 MPH would result in more than just a "bunch of traffic charges".

No kidding. It was a deliberate understatement. Now you're just arguing to argue.

Putting the public at risk of injury or death is rather serious. But then again, that's only one part of his arrest record: The Arrest Record of Rodney King

None of his priors were relevant to the actions of the officers that night. Why do you bring them up?

Take it up with the judge and jury who made the decision in the case when it went to trial.

What are you talking about? I was addressing the false dichotomy that YOU made.

If you can't make your argument anymore, then just stop arguing. Concede and move on. This flailing that you're doing is ridiculous and makes you look bad.

 

[Aldebaran]

No kidding. It was a deliberate understatement. Now you're just arguing to argue.

Just pointing it out for those who don't seem to understand the seriousness of what he did prior to what people see on the video.

None of his priors were relevant to the actions of the officers that night. Why do you bring them up?

It gives us a more complete picture of the guy's character and how he wasn't exactly the peaceful person he was made out to be. Beating his wife, using a tire iron to rob a convenience store (and those things were done before the infamous video), nearly running over cops who found him making out with a transvestite prostitute, hit and run, injuring his teenage daughter and her mother, and indecent exposure while on PCP.

As for what the cops knew about him before the video incident--they could have easily had his record run when the ran his license plate number during the chase. That, along with his actions during the chase itself, could have given them a clue as to what type of person they were going to be dealing with once he finally stopped driving recklessly at 115 MPH.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It gives us a more complete picture of the guy's character and how he wasn't exactly the peaceful person he was made out to be. Beating his wife, using a tire iron to rob a convenience store (and those things were done before the infamous video), nearly running over cops who found him making out with a transvestite prostitute, hit and run, injuring his teenage daughter and her mother, and indecent exposure while on PCP.

I think what you meant to say was that it gives you cover for justifying the actions of the police.

As for what the cops knew about him before the video incident--they could have easily had his record run when the ran his license plate number during the chase. That, along with his actions during the chase itself, could have given them a clue as to what type of person they were going to be dealing with once he finally stopped driving recklessly at 115 MPH.

Did they get that info prior to the stop? Do you have any evidence that they did that? Or are you making that up just as you made up the claim that he attacked them first?

 

[Aldebaran]

I think what you meant to say was that it gives you cover for justifying the actions of the police.

I said what I meant to say. Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't help your arguement.

Did they get that info prior to the stop? Do you have any evidence that they did that? Or are you making that up just as you made up the claim that he attacked them first?

It's standard procedure to run the license plate of a vehicle before making contact with the driver. That makes it safer for them in case the person they're stopping is wanted or has a violent history. Then officer can elect to call for additional officers to be there before approaching the vehicle.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's standard procedure to run the license plate of a vehicle before making contact with the driver. That makes it safer for them in case the person they're stopping is wanted or has a violent history. Then officer can elect to call for additional officers to be there before approaching the vehicle.

So the answer is no, you don't have any evidence they ran his plate and knew who he was prior to stopping him.

 

[Aldebaran]

So the answer is no, you don't have any evidence they ran his plate and knew who he was prior to stopping him.

It doesn't matter what my evidence is. There was a trial of the 4 police officers and the evidence was presented at that time. Perhaps you feel you know better than those who served on the jury(?)