100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Drivinmenutz
|
|
|
but too often, those taken from their families have their pasts instantly COMBED THrough for any and every past discretion, they are immediately painted as the thug who just got what they 'deserved',,, and it seems to happen MOST often with minorities,,, Michael Brown's "past discretion" took place just before he encountered the cop who killed him, and that "discretion" was clearly a crime. certainly did he grabbed someone (who never called in a crime and walked away unscathed) he stole some cigarettes he got in a struggle with an officer ,,EXCEPT for that last event, nothing warrants death,,,and the last event had ENDED , struggle discontinued,,, by the time he was killed IF he had been killed DURING a struggle, there would be less to dispute being killed after traveling over a hundred feet from the vehicle/altercation by foot, without a weapon,, again causes me to not agree that a death penalty is warranted,,, I am with you this did not warrant a death penalty ...just as the court allowed to kill Travon becouse of a stand your ground law ...know darn well if he would have never gotten out of that car and did as what was told ...that boy would be alive now ... unarmed u shoot to kill ...shakes head ... there is no in between they need to make a in between ...so others have and can have the right to their trial and chance for their life ... their will always be another group come out to say there where a lot of mistakes but not one to face any truth ...just what their truth is the opposite of the dead person ...kill and not be able to speak for them self... and blatantly ... I can't breath just said it all ... are you working with professionals that should know how to take down and not kill another for arrest ... I agree. Nothing occurred that warranted the "death penalty" in either case. The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training. The federal government spent hundreds of thousands training me to deal with potentially deadly situations. I can tell you, that one of the biggest lessons I have learned is the fact that no training will make you a superhero. A few (or even a few thousand) hours of "training" won't allow you to "take down" any suspect. Real life does not work like that. Just a like a gun will not make a dark alley safe, martial arts training will not make it safe to allow a deadly threat to get close to you. If the story the officer was telling were true (there is evidence supporting him and nothing given to the contrary), a perfect do-gooder-boy scout would done the same thing. If your job were to protect and serve and you were attacked by a psychopath who made an attempt at your life, you would be endangering everyone community by not doing SOMETHING. And when that psychopath turned and ran at you for getting out of the car, you would be endangering yourself and the community by giving him a fighting chance against you. Note: I am not saying that the cop was a "goody two shoes", but what I am saying is that a "goody two shoes" would have done the same thing in the same situation. The flip side to this all, is the fact that if the officer had the training, and reckless mentality to take this guy down hand to hand, people would be still be trying to crucify him for "using excessive force to beat up an innocent black kid". What you are describing is a society that has degraded into a society suffering from Moral Relativism. A society where malum in se and malum prohibitum are one and the same. Perhaps. To be honest, you are speaking over my head a bit on this one, my friend. For that I apologize. I fear I didn't explain myself well, however... My main objective was to explain the action of the officer stepping out of his vehicle instead of speeding off when he was attacked (which could also lead to lawsuits if Brown were injured during this process). I guess I am trying to say the officer did not necessarily intend to inflict death on Brown until Brown allegedly charged at him. After the assailant started running at the officer again, anyone in sound mind, would have fired upon the attacker. It is still not ok to shoot someone who is blatantly trying to run away unarmed, or blatantly surrenders. Dodo properly emphasized my other objective, as I believe many to have a very unrealistic view of the world and how real threats can and can't be dealt with. To clarify: Moral Relativism: the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves. Malum in se: An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature, and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Malum prohibitum: An act is said to be malum prohibitum when it is determined by another the be prohibited due to their dislike. It is not immoral in its nature nor injurious in its consequences but could be noticed and will be punished by the law of the state, like walking on the grass, public grass owned by the public. And yourself along with the other that you responded to are both in error. Once one has committed a trespass, the death penalty applies. If one commits a trespass by battery upon my person, I reserve the right to scatter what little brains possessed all over the lawn and be done with it. To any that tries to trespass upon the case, I reserve the right to remove all property owned or ever to be owned from their person by judgement in a court of record. However, in this instant case, the officer needs to be given the reason of doubt in regards to the original harassment, was it in response to a call about the previous action of Brown or just the tendency of Wilson to be a psychopath as demonstrated in other videos. Whatever the doubt, matters soon warranted the actions taken. When Brown committed aggravated battery (he grabbed the gun, makes it aggravated) he now needs to be addressed, peace needs to be restored. That is the entire lawful function of Wilson as a peace officer, restore the peace. Once challenged by a peace officer, you submit; you're day in court will come soon enough and if the officer has gone beyond his authority so will his. And sir, I would dare say the unrealistic view of the world would be yours. "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." -Alexis de Tocqueville I appreciate the definition. I feel as though you are creating disagreements where there is none, or perhaps very little. Maybe you are simply translating "How things are" verses "How things should be". I am saying, an officer should have the right to defend himself from a deadly threat just as you or I should. I am also saying that Brown brought the situation on through his own recklessness. (Which is similar to how I am interpreting your view.) Furthermore, I would like to think of my opinion being my own. I do believe that my training, having been tested in the real world, has given me a unique perspective in situations similar to these and what would/wouldn't work tactically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but too often, those taken from their families have their pasts instantly COMBED THrough for any and every past discretion, they are immediately painted as the thug who just got what they 'deserved',,, and it seems to happen MOST often with minorities,,, Michael Brown's "past discretion" took place just before he encountered the cop who killed him, and that "discretion" was clearly a crime. certainly did he grabbed someone (who never called in a crime and walked away unscathed) he stole some cigarettes he got in a struggle with an officer ,,EXCEPT for that last event, nothing warrants death,,,and the last event had ENDED , struggle discontinued,,, by the time he was killed IF he had been killed DURING a struggle, there would be less to dispute being killed after traveling over a hundred feet from the vehicle/altercation by foot, without a weapon,, again causes me to not agree that a death penalty is warranted,,, I am with you this did not warrant a death penalty ...just as the court allowed to kill Travon becouse of a stand your ground law ...know darn well if he would have never gotten out of that car and did as what was told ...that boy would be alive now ... unarmed u shoot to kill ...shakes head ... there is no in between they need to make a in between ...so others have and can have the right to their trial and chance for their life ... their will always be another group come out to say there where a lot of mistakes but not one to face any truth ...just what their truth is the opposite of the dead person ...kill and not be able to speak for them self... and blatantly ... I can't breath just said it all ... are you working with professionals that should know how to take down and not kill another for arrest ... I agree. Nothing occurred that warranted the "death penalty" in either case. The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training. The federal government spent hundreds of thousands training me to deal with potentially deadly situations. I can tell you, that one of the biggest lessons I have learned is the fact that no training will make you a superhero. A few (or even a few thousand) hours of "training" won't allow you to "take down" any suspect. Real life does not work like that. Just a like a gun will not make a dark alley safe, martial arts training will not make it safe to allow a deadly threat to get close to you. If the story the officer was telling were true (there is evidence supporting him and nothing given to the contrary), a perfect do-gooder-boy scout would done the same thing. If your job were to protect and serve and you were attacked by a psychopath who made an attempt at your life, you would be endangering everyone community by not doing SOMETHING. And when that psychopath turned and ran at you for getting out of the car, you would be endangering yourself and the community by giving him a fighting chance against you. Note: I am not saying that the cop was a "goody two shoes", but what I am saying is that a "goody two shoes" would have done the same thing in the same situation. The flip side to this all, is the fact that if the officer had the training, and reckless mentality to take this guy down hand to hand, people would be still be trying to crucify him for "using excessive force to beat up an innocent black kid". What you are describing is a society that has degraded into a society suffering from Moral Relativism. A society where malum in se and malum prohibitum are one and the same. Perhaps. To be honest, you are speaking over my head a bit on this one, my friend. For that I apologize. I fear I didn't explain myself well, however... My main objective was to explain the action of the officer stepping out of his vehicle instead of speeding off when he was attacked (which could also lead to lawsuits if Brown were injured during this process). I guess I am trying to say the officer did not necessarily intend to inflict death on Brown until Brown allegedly charged at him. After the assailant started running at the officer again, anyone in sound mind, would have fired upon the attacker. It is still not ok to shoot someone who is blatantly trying to run away unarmed, or blatantly surrenders. Dodo properly emphasized my other objective, as I believe many to have a very unrealistic view of the world and how real threats can and can't be dealt with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training. Those statements are also made by people who live in the imaginary world of the Lone Ranger, in which the hero is always able to shoot a weapon out of someone's hand. indeed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but too often, those taken from their families have their pasts instantly COMBED THrough for any and every past discretion, they are immediately painted as the thug who just got what they 'deserved',,, and it seems to happen MOST often with minorities,,, Michael Brown's "past discretion" took place just before he encountered the cop who killed him, and that "discretion" was clearly a crime. certainly did he grabbed someone (who never called in a crime and walked away unscathed) he stole some cigarettes he got in a struggle with an officer ,,EXCEPT for that last event, nothing warrants death,,,and the last event had ENDED , struggle discontinued,,, by the time he was killed IF he had been killed DURING a struggle, there would be less to dispute being killed after traveling over a hundred feet from the vehicle/altercation by foot, without a weapon,, again causes me to not agree that a death penalty is warranted,,, I am with you this did not warrant a death penalty ...just as the court allowed to kill Travon becouse of a stand your ground law ...know darn well if he would have never gotten out of that car and did as what was told ...that boy would be alive now ... unarmed u shoot to kill ...shakes head ... there is no in between they need to make a in between ...so others have and can have the right to their trial and chance for their life ... their will always be another group come out to say there where a lot of mistakes but not one to face any truth ...just what their truth is the opposite of the dead person ...kill and not be able to speak for them self... and blatantly ... I can't breath just said it all ... are you working with professionals that should know how to take down and not kill another for arrest ... I agree. Nothing occurred that warranted the "death penalty" in either case. The problem I have is with blanket statements like "they should be trained to take down and not kill". Statements like these are made by those with no experience or training. The federal government spent hundreds of thousands training me to deal with potentially deadly situations. I can tell you, that one of the biggest lessons I have learned is the fact that no training will make you a superhero. A few (or even a few thousand) hours of "training" won't allow you to "take down" any suspect. Real life does not work like that. Just a like a gun will not make a dark alley safe, martial arts training will not make it safe to allow a deadly threat to get close to you. If the story the officer was telling were true (there is evidence supporting him and nothing given to the contrary), a perfect do-gooder-boy scout would done the same thing. If your job were to protect and serve and you were attacked by a psychopath who made an attempt at your life, you would be endangering everyone community by not doing SOMETHING. And when that psychopath turned and ran at you for getting out of the car, you would be endangering yourself and the community by giving him a fighting chance against you. Note: I am not saying that the cop was a "goody two shoes", but what I am saying is that a "goody two shoes" would have done the same thing in the same situation. The flip side to this all, is the fact that if the officer had the training, and reckless mentality to take this guy down hand to hand, people would be still be trying to crucify him for "using excessive force to beat up an innocent black kid". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sun 12/14/14 08:50 AM
|
|
Do you understand what TRAINING , oath to protect and serve and a PAYCHECK are? adrenaline would explain a confrontation when one thinks their authority is unquestionable and their mannerism not able to be held to account, adrenaline explains most aggression between males, adrenaline even explains a struggle for a gun if even one party who is hyped up is known to have one, adrenaline explains shooting when one thinks the gun they have will be used against them, adrenaline doesn't explain having to fill someone with six bullets after they have put over a hundred yards behind them and away from the altercation,,, adrenaline would explain someone running after being shot,, it would not explain suddenly choosing to CHARGE after the danger they ran from so hard that one has lost their shoe,,,, As Ive said before,, the grand jury has spoken and it cant be undone, but it was certainly the tip of an iceberg that has been developing for a LONG TIME,,, Again, there was no football field between the officer and brown. This would indicate that the distance was closed (like, by Brown running back). There is no way a police officer (unless he was an Olympic shooter) could land that many shots on a moving target with a pistol at 100+ yards. How would adrenaline not explain charging at someone? You mentioned it makes people panic and do stupid things. You assume Brown was of sound mind. He had proven from his violent behavior he was not. A person of sound mind would not attack an armed officer, attempt to disarm him, and expect not to be met by deadly force. I would also find it difficult to believe he was not under an adrenaline rush either, further increasing the possibility of making illogical decisions. Just saying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The (Gag Law) has been approved in Spain. With this law, the production and distribution of images of the police in action, can get you a 30.000 Eur fine. 1. Photographing or recording police - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 2. Peaceful disobedience to authority - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 3. Occupying banks as means of protest - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 4. Not formalizing a protest - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 5. For carrying out assemblies or meetings in public spaces - 100 to 600 Euro fine. 6. For impeding or stopping an eviction - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 7. For presence at an occupied space (not only social centers but also houses occupied by evicted families) - 100 to 600 Euro fine. 8. Police black lists for protestors, activists and alternative press have been legalized. 9. Meeting or gathering in front of Congress - 600 to 30.000 Euro fine. 10. Appealing the fines in court requires the payment of judicial costs, whose amount depends on the fine. 11. It allows random identity checks, allowing for profiling of immigrants and minorities. 12. Police can now carry out raids at their discretion, without the need for "order" to have been disrupted. 13. External bodily searches are also now allowed at police discretion. 14. The government can prohibit any protest at will, if it feels "order" will be disrupted. 15. Any ill-defined "critical infrastructure" is now considered a forbidden zone for public gatherings if it might affect their functioning. 16. There are also fines for people who climb buildings and monuments without permission. Coming soon to a city near you.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no 'version' I wasn't there , neither was anyone posting I saw him grab and push a man on a video, I saw him leave with cigarettes I didn't See anything else after that I believe there was an altercation at the car I believe the gun was discharged at the car I do NOT believe that after Brown had run , he 'doubled back' and lunged at the officer what I or anyone else believes about what happens is their prerogative and wont change the finding or the TRUTH,,, which I doubt we will ever get the complete story on,,,though when I hear stories where one part is just a 'victim' and the other JUST an aggressor, I tend to find it less believable than a version where BOTH hold some accountability I also don't tend to believe people scared enough to put extra effort into GETTING away from a situation suddenly decide to return to it either,,,,, whatever happened, its enough of unarmed people being shot down,, by police or anyone else,,,,,,but especially by those PAID to protect,,,and serve but, wasn't there, no one here was,,,,,evidence proves the car altercation evidence proves a retreat from the car evidence is not clear on any point beyond that,,,,, except after he was being shot his body movement was forward instead of backward,,, whether that proves a 'lunge' or a 'charge' or just someone disoriented is not clearly proven or disproven by evidence,,, So, it seems there is a mountain of evidence provided which collaborates the officers story. There is also a history given of the suspect which collaborates the officer's story to some extent. On the flip side, there is no evidence against the officer's story. People want to persecute the officer without evidence. What happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" motto? Should the burden of evidence be placed on the accuser? In my honest opinion, Brown's actions got him killed, one way or another. The responsibility remains with him in this case. And the burden of evidence remains with those wanting to imprison the officer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wish I had a bit more time to give a full opinion on this. The shortened version of an answer to the OP the that schools are holding down those that are succeeding to allow those that are struggling to catch up. Yes, that is what is meant by teaching to "the lowest common denominator". The level of achievement is reduced again and again to the point where all students are expected to pass. This concept leaves even the average student untasked and the better students bored. Some East Asian systems have high standards for everyone. If you can't cut the mustard you get shifted to a trade school. Discipline is taught and expected. South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong are the four highest rated school achievement countries. High standards, I'd love to see an explanation for that. Three out of four are the good little puppet states. But Hong Kong should never be in your little group for reasons it seems not understood. That is correct. You do not understand. "Hong Kong emerged as a world educational leader on recent international assessments – a feat that is all the more impressive considering that Hong Kong has essentially rebuilt its education system since 1997, the year Hong Kong was returned to China after a century and a half of British rule. Hong Kong outperformed almost every other nation in the 2009 PISA assessment, bested only by neighbors Shanghai and Korea and the perennially top-performing Finland. Hong Kong’s students ranked fourth in reading and third in both math and science." Not correct, the misunderstanding is not in this direction. Seems the whole presentment has something to do with that statist outlook on life. Shows that when one depends on the government in order to develop any concept of an opinion, those opinions mean less than nothing. Doesn't NASA have some data on this? "Government is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act of individuals in isolation. Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention." - Chris Lyspooner And even the most destitute idiot while in doubt about much of life, has no doubt whatsoever about the morality and value of that thing many call "government". So before you go and try to place blame, I would suggest you better understand your sources. "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." - Thomas Jefferson This is one of my favorites and I thought it to be appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Obama taken to Hospital
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 12/11/14 11:52 AM
|
|
Go to any hospital and tell them you want a CT scan for your sore throat! You aint gettin one! They are very expensive and the regular public will not even come close to getting that level of treatment in any hospital unless your rich or the president! Nomatter what insurance you have Just pick it off the Tree where it grows,hmm?  I work in the medical field here in the U.S. Yup, it's broke. I can list a hundred reasons why. I think what the Sojourning was trying to point out is the fact that NOTHING is free. Economics 101 teaches us that anything of value always costs somebody something. The only exception to the rule occurs when something has no value, which, is not the case in medical care. So the question we ask is; "Where does the money come from?". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 12/11/14 09:01 AM
|
|
Common now. Why would you hire a police mis-fit? Seems like alot of police departments seek out misfits thats walk among us. Police should be heros to kids an not drity low life mis-fits. This cop had a proven back ground to be a walking time boomb just a ticking away. He was going to crack as sure as someday it will rain or the sun would shine. smiling "rac·ism ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." I hope that helps. I disagree with your claim of racism. But I agree the officer was in the wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case is why have a gun happy black hatein cop working around black people. My case is why have a gun happy black cop that hate white people working around white people? My case an point. Can you show me where this cop was "black hatin"? Proof you ask for okay. You saying all white cops have mad love your young black men? Proof the kid was not pointing the gun at anyone. Fact the child was alone by his self an was shot to death for having fun by a white cop that love young black kids/ Can you show me a pattern? Or is it racist everyone a white/hispanic/native american arrests a black guy. Is it racist when a soldier shoots someone on the battlefield of a different ethnic origin? If a white guy and black guy apply for the some job, is it racist every time the white guy gets hired? I agree, kid was not pointing a gun at anyone. No one was running away screaming. Kid did not state he was going to shoot anyone. And, he was just a kid. Cop over reacted and should be held accountable. That being said; There is no evidence that anyone has produced that points to this cop being racist. And you cannot assume racism without there being multiple accounts. Cleveland police were allegedly errant in the hiring of one of the officers, who’s application was turned down by the New York City Police Department and who was asked to leave the Independence Police Department after serving for less than a year because he was emotionally unstable and unfit for duty, MSNBC reported. Hope you feel better now. This merely implies the department hired someone who is unstable. This still does nothing to support your claim of racism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case is why have a gun happy black hatein cop working around black people. My case is why have a gun happy black cop that hate white people working around white people? My case an point. Can you show me where this cop was "black hatin"? Proof you ask for okay. You saying all white cops have mad love your young black men? Proof the kid was not pointing the gun at anyone. Fact the child was alone by his self an was shot to death for having fun by a white cop that love young black kids/ Can you show me a pattern? Or is it racist everyone a white/hispanic/native american arrests a black guy. Is it racist when a soldier shoots someone on the battlefield of a different ethnic origin? If a white guy and black guy apply for the some job, is it racist every time the white guy gets hired? I agree, kid was not pointing a gun at anyone. No one was running away screaming. Kid did not state he was going to shoot anyone. And, he was just a kid. Cop over reacted and should be held accountable. That being said; There is no evidence that anyone has produced that points to this cop being racist. And you cannot assume racism without there being multiple accounts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 12/06/14 09:38 AM
|
|
I think that cops are reigned in to a degree. A few bad apples. The problem is not cops though, the problem is crime. one problem is 'crime',,,there is no 'the' problem another problem is the JUSTICE SYSTEM allowing cops a free pass from 'criminal' prosecution,,, I agree. There are cases in which the cop has been given a free pass, and obviously shouldn't. Many cases actually. There are also cases, in which the reverse happened. Problem is there needs to be SOME leniency given to those who must put themselves in difficult situations. The world is not black and white as many would assume. Sometimes, even doing everything by the book and making all the correct decisions, you can still shoot someone who didn't NEED to be shot. Example; schizophrenic acting aggressive towards people is confronted by police. Acts really angry and quickly reaches into jacket. Any one with an ounce of training would shoot to kill. Then we find out after the fact that this man was unarmed and reaching for a lighter. Very tough to be black and white when the world is gray. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmm, would we increase or decrease employment if we started to require residency in the areas one wishes to police perhaps if there isn't a 'fear' of those one is supposed to serve and protect,, there will be fewer deaths,,,, ,,,,one can dream I agree and disagree. The flip side would be if there is a truly corrupt side of town, and those joining the force were from one of the local "gangs", for example. Now you would have one gang that was government funded. I'm sure, to an extent, it happens anyway though. Another bad outcome would be favoritism to friends/family in the area. But something to consider... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case is why have a gun happy black hatein cop working around black people. My case is why have a gun happy black cop that hate white people working around white people? My case an point. Can you show me where this cop was "black hatin"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The far far rights be well knowing like the far far left an in betweens. It was done with whats called "Deliberate Intentions" There are many, including me, who can't see the racial connection between the Fergerson and New York events. Fox News had several different people interview congressmen, the president of the Urban League, protesters in the street, etc. and asked them to explain the racial connection to either event. No one could come up with anything. Black witnesses confirmed Wilson's story and a black female sargeant was the highest ranking officer in the group that did the "take down" in New York. Where is the racism? I think a bunch of race baiters, including the President, Holder, and Sharpton are milking these events to generate as much conflict as possible. The President did it with the "War on Women", young vs old, rich vs poor, and he's still causing as much division as possible. unless you are or have loved a black male it doesn't surprise me for you not to understand it but if you research the race relations in THESE two regions of the country and the community police relations in the black communities involved,, it may be clearer,, if you care to try to understand,,,, I wish those who cry racism wouldn't just use the current instance as an example. If a pattern could be provided it would actually make an argument. What people are doing instead is providing this one case say "see, its racism. The victim was black", which, leads the public to naturally believe this is race-baiting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Cop in Toy Gun Killing Resigned From Previous Job After 'Dismal' Handgun Performance, According to Files . By JAMES HILL17 hours ago Cleveland Cop in Toy Gun Killing Resigned From Previous Job After 'Dismal' Handgun Performance, According to Files (ABC News) .The Cleveland police officer under investigation for the fatal shooting of a 12-year-old boy last month resigned from his previous job as a police officer after his superiors determined he had emotional maturity issues, an inability to manage stress and “dismal” performance in firearms training, according to a 2012 personnel file made public Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/cleveland-cop-toy-gun-killing-resigned-previous-job-224232060--abc-news-topstories.html I rest my case. Not sure where this points to racism. Only that he was under qualified. Again, based on what I have heard, the officer was in the wrong in this case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You assume too much. Perhaps its more a connection with police and courts, or prosecutors. Makes sense that they look out for each other, after working together. Seems much more likely than every cop determining "Oh he's black, lets get him off the streets". Besides, did the dispatcher say "there is a black guy pointing a gun at kids"? Please. You think them dirty cops knew it was a playgound full of white kids? The killer been on the job over a year an the driver been on the job over 10 years. I take it your not a police but I bet you know where the races live in your town/city. Again a white kid shoot kill to many people an if he don't kill his or her self. The cops do there best to bring them in alive. Who did this child hurt? Who did this kid kill? Tell me this child killed or hurt someone an I would agree with you an the cops. To agree with a child killer. Tells me the type of human you be. You know what you get when you ASSUME? You are jumping to conclusions without any base of logic here. For starters, read back on my posts. You ASSUME that I side with the cops only because I disagree with your conclusion of it being all about race. So, in your eyes it seems, I either call it racist or side with the cop in this case. This is called "oversimplification" and can be identified as a critical thinking fallacy. In fact, I point out where I suspect that cop used deadly force without first reading his surroundings. I'm sure we can find numerous accounts where white kids were abused and/or killed by police unjustifiably. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the shoe fit you can call it whatever you want too. Look at the kid that cut an stabed his school mates an againg the kid was taken alive. This child was black 12 yr old an playing a cool bad man with a play toy gun an was shot dead. Call it what you want. I would call it an "itchy trigger finger". Wouldn't be racism unless these acts were the same cop or department or even precinct. Then there would be a pattern. Life and death situations are unique and details define causation. You cant lump them all into a broad category and actually expect it to have meaning. Probably also insufficient training! But these days it is not unusual for a Cop to shoot if he encounters a Gun! http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385458/cop-killed-every-58-hours-michelle-malkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty Wouldn't want to be a Police-Officer,unthankful Job to say the least!  Standard police officers are highly under-trained. Yes. Again, in the military we were taught to look at other factors leading to a threat as a way to measure possible danger. If no one was running away from this kid in fear, for example, and/or, if this child were smiling as if playing, and/or, the manner in which he even touched his supposed "firearm" (did he look angry, happy, scared, etc.) would help one judge the level of potential threat. Kids play. They have played with toy guns since guns were invented (and probably before). If this 12 year old would have been 20, the likelihood of him playing "guns" would decrease dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 12/04/14 02:49 PM
|
|
I think someone said something about playing in there back yard growing up like cops an robbers. Just think if someone had call the cops to there home an said some white guy is pointing a gun at other kids. The cops get there an shoot a 13 yr kid to death. That dirty cop would go to prison for the rest of his or her life. You assume too much. Perhaps its more a connection with police and courts, or prosecutors. Makes sense that they look out for each other, after working together. Seems much more likely than every cop determining "Oh he's black, lets get him off the streets". Besides, did the dispatcher say "there is a black guy pointing a gun at kids"? On a side note: No one will ever have a perfect anything, to include enforcement of justice. All you have are a group of people with certain powers granted to them. With power comes the ability to abuse it. Anything "perfect" would actually cease to physically exist in this universe. This is why it is a bad idea to give up individual liberties/powers and hand them over to a group of people to handle it for us. To an extent, it may be necessary, but only under the best circumstances, and under the most desirable conditions. Perhaps we, as a society, have become too reliant on others to take over our responsibilities, which include protection. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
