or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 77

post #1141 of 6072
When Mike Brown turned around he'd only suffered a grazing wound to the thumb. I haven't seen a good description of that wound but everything I've heard suggests it was trivial. I haven't been shot, but I've been cut pretty good a couple times. It gets your adrenaline flowing, but it doesn't hurt much at first. Plus, Brown had lost both of his shoes, and he really had nowhere to go. If he goes home, the cops will just follow him to his front door. If he continues running the cop would eventually catch him.

Besides, look at everything else Brown did that day. He robs a store, bullies the clerk, then walks brazenly down the middle of the street, making no effort to hide the loot. He seems to have been spoiling for a fight.
post #1142 of 6072
Hands up, don't shoot! Turk

No Justice, No Peace

A good slogan and a good marketing/PR campaign always wins out. Screw the facts
post #1143 of 6072
Google says:
Quote:
As for a possible motive for Taylor's actions, Gill said he would not speculate on whether it was an act of suicide by cop. However, he did note that Taylor had made posts on Facebook in the days leading up to the shooting that indicated he knew he had warrants out for his arrest for a prior burglary, that he was homeless and that he felt his life had "hit rock bottom."

"I feel God can't even save me on this one," he posted on Aug. 7. In another post on Aug. 9, he wrote, "It's about my time soon."

The Utah State Medical Examiner's Office also noted that Taylor had a blood-alcohol content of 0.18 at the time of the shooting, more than twice the legal limit for driving.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=31772096
post #1144 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You mean every young male dressed up like a gangbanger. That narrows it down a lot, actually.
That's an awfully general description. "Gangbanger" could apply to 90% of the male population in many areas. No idea about that part of Utah.
Quote:
You mean like if someone was waiving a gun around at a convenience store? It's the proper role of the government to pay people's cell phone bills but not to respond to people waiving guns around in public?

So here's the transcript from the call to police
Quote:
Dispatcher: Did he threaten you or anything like that, or did he just flash it?

Caller: Yeah, I just seen a gun as he walked by.

Dispatcher: OK, but again, did he make threats at you, did he threaten to shoot you or ...

Caller: No, he did not threaten me in any way. I just saw it as he was walking by.

The caller later said: "They’re obviously looking, looking for trouble, just the way they look."

No one was being threatened actively. Nobody was waving any guns around.
Quote:
The attention focuses on that guy because he responds suspiciously--the police drive up and he walks away, not looking back, ignoring commands. Hiding his hands. Going for his waistband. Pulling his hand out suddenly.
His actions can easily be explained as a drunk underaged kid trying to walk away from a policeman. And, uh, considering he didn't have a gun, that seems to be the right analysis.


I understand why the cop was cleared. Legally, his actions were "justified." The problem is the whole system of how it happened. A system that leads to drunk morons getting shot because they "might" have a gun is deeply flawed. You really believe that there's no ways the police could have handled that situation that wouldn't have led to them "having" to shoot that dude? Come on.
post #1145 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Google says:

As for a possible motive for Taylor's actions, Gill said he would not speculate on whether it was an act of suicide by cop. However, he did note that Taylor had made posts on Facebook in the days leading up to the shooting that indicated he knew he had warrants out for his arrest for a prior burglary, that he was homeless and that he felt his life had "hit rock bottom."

"I feel God can't even save me on this one," he posted on Aug. 7. In another post on Aug. 9, he wrote, "It's about my time soon."
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=31772096

That is the worst sort of ex post facto rationalizing bullshit. They shot him in five fucking seconds, no reason to think it was a suicide by cop. He certainly didn't force their hands, even if it was a "justified" shooting.

Quote:
The Utah State Medical Examiner's Office also noted that Taylor had a blood-alcohol content of 0.18 at the time of the shooting, more than twice the legal limit for driving.
Oh, right, or maybe he acted like an imbecile because he was drunk and underaged. Hrmm, which is more likely, that or the suicide by cop bit.
post #1146 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

While I have a big problem with the way cops are acting these days I will say if a cop pointed his gun at me I would comply in a most careful fashion. No idea why people people are being this defiant and stupid but it can reasonably be predicted a certain number of unwarranted deaths will occur from this behaviour.

I've had it happen to me in Hungary. Was on the subway (drunk) with some friends, some special police apparently decided they wanted to shake us down. They're wearing body armor, helmets, carrying long weapons (MP5s or the like) and they start shouting at us in Hungarian. I don't speak a word of it, my buddy does. He's also a diplomat's kid, so he pulls out his diplomatic ID and they instantly get apologetic and go away. I was just frozen the whole time.

I was really freaked out by it (worse than by having civilians point guns at me, which has happened). Having state violence directed at you is pretty overwhelming. That's worse than anything you see in the US, but not such a huge difference. At least these guys were pretty unlikely to actually shoot, might have just cost us some money.


It would certainly be ideal if people would act in a way that would minimize their own risk, but we should build as many safe guards into the system as we can to avoid this sort of incident. We have some aggressive policing tactics compared to many other First World countries, and it ends up forcing violence in situations that would have stayed peaceful otherwise. That's the problem we can most readily address.

Extreme example, we've seen plenty of situations in this thread where there was a no-knock raid for some drug charge and a homeowner pulled a gun (or the cops thought he did) and ended up dead. If you don't use no-knock raids as widely, you're going to get a lot fewer of those.
post #1147 of 6072
True story, I have had Mexican Federales point automatic weapons at me in Reynosa. But, strangely I didn't feel endangered. I thought their motive was solely to rob me, and they did. It was the Mexican Way LOL

It happened right outside La Zona if you are wondering.
post #1148 of 6072
post #1149 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

True story, I have had Mexican Federales point automatic weapons at me in Reynosa. But, strangely I didn't feel endangered. I thought their motive was solely to rob me, and they did. It was the Mexican Way LOL

It happened right outside La Zona if you are wondering.

post #1150 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

Why all the focus on Ferguson relative to Staten Island by the Justice Department and the NY media and NY activists like Al Sharpton

Theory 5: the media and most activists are reactionary much more than they're actively planning on how to direct stories. Ferguson resonated for whatever reason, so the groups looking to capitalize on the various issues it presented jumped. At some point they may have sat down and asked why Ferguson and not NYC, but it's a mistake to give these guys more agency than they really have.

It's the same deal with politicians. Everyone wants to look for strings directing puppets, but they're largely just reacting. Ferguson didn't blow up because a group sitting around a boardroom table decided this was the cause célèbre for the month, it hit the news, took off, and then everyone dove in and sorted out the plan later.
post #1151 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

That is the worst sort of ex post facto rationalizing bullshit.
I'm not sure I understand this. How else would anyone know what the hell Taylor was thinking when he pretended to pull a gun on a cop?
Quote:
They shot him in five fucking seconds,

It's actually twenty-four seconds from the time Taylor sees the cop to when he's shot. You can see him hiding his hands, saying "no, fool" to the cop when ordered to show them, then making some bizarre gesture pulling shirt up and reaching to his waistband. If Taylor had had a gun he'd have fired it half a second after he was shot.

This is really useless. You saw the video. You know the context. If you don't think it's a good shoot, you're just hopeless.
Quote:
He no reason to think it was a suicide by cop.

How else do you explain what he did?
Quote:
Oh, right, or maybe he acted like an imbecile because he was drunk and underaged. Hrmm, which is more likely, that or the suicide by cop bit.

Or maybe he decided to make the cops kill him because he was drunk and suicidal? The link between drunkenness and suicide is very well established.
post #1152 of 6072
I've been wondering why the Garner case has not resonated like the Mike Brown case. Within 48 hours, the Brown case was a huge worldwide story. Poor Garner's case is going to be big but will not equal Brown's.

Seriously, I think the difference is the marketing and the slogans. To me, the Garner case is much worse but it wasn't marketed as aggressively, it had no real winner slogan and the agitators didn't pour as much gasoline on it as they did on Ferguson.

Eric Garner deserved better.
post #1153 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm not sure I understand this. How else would anyone know what the hell Taylor was thinking when he pretended to pull a gun on a cop?
It's actually twenty-four seconds from the time Taylor sees the cop to when he's shot. You can see him hiding his hands, saying "no, fool" to the cop when ordered to show them, then making some bizarre gesture pulling shirt up and reaching to his waistband. If Taylor had had a gun he'd have fired it half a second after he was shot.

How else do you explain what he did?

Twenty four whole seconds from boiling out of their car with guns drawn (again, over a situation where no one was in danger) to a guy getting shot.

Who knows what he was thinking. He went from standing on the street not hurting anybody (since, you know, he didn't actually have a gun) to be screamed at by armed police with drawn guns, to dead. You're putting the burden of proof on an INNOCENT guy (who's dead, to boot). He wasn't armed, hadn't committed any crimes, and got killed. He just responded in a very strange way to a crazy situation.
Quote:
This is really useless. You saw the video. You know the context. If you don't think it's a good shoot, you're just hopeless.
It is a "justified" shooting. Legally, they're clear and I agree with that decision. I do not agree with the way they created the situation where escalation to deadly force was the only option. Nothing about that situation cries for leaping from their cruiser with guns drawn and ready to shoot. It is absurd to pretend that was the only or optimal way to respond to that. It appears to be legal, but that's not the standard we should settle for. Police shouldn't be creating situations where instant compliance is mandatory to avoid "necessary" uses of deadly force. If that's what they really need to do in a law enforcement scenario, fine, but this sure doesn't appear to be one of those scenarios and there are many other similar examples.

The point isn't to put cops in jail. It's to avoid people getting shot. Some police need to go to jail for criminal shootings, but mostly, we need to address this system that leads police to create situations where they "have" to shoot people. I know you've never met a police shooting you couldn't justify, but this shit is corrosive to a civil society.
Quote:
Or maybe he decided to make the cops kill him because he was drunk and suicidal? The link between drunkenness and suicide is very well established.

You're reading tea leaves and finding what you want to find with the suicide motivation. He didn't even have a gun, so how would he have known the police would show up? If we're postulating he had a gun and flashed it to get the police to show up so he could suicide-by-cop, why'd he lose the gun and where'd it go? Or do we think he decided to commit suicide in the mere seconds after the police showed up? That narrative really doesn't hold water.
Edited by Gibonius - 12/3/14 at 8:55pm
post #1154 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

I've been wondering why the Garner case has not resonated like the Mike Brown case. Within 48 hours, the Brown case was a huge worldwide story. Poor Garner's case is going to be big but will not equal Brown's.

Seriously, I think the difference is the marketing and the slogans. To me, the Garner case is much worse but it wasn't marketed as aggressively, it had no real winner slogan and the agitators didn't pour as much gasoline on it as they did on Ferguson.

Eric Garner deserved better.

From what I remember, it started out as "Huh, another black guy got shot," wasn't getting that much news coverage (some). The street protests started up immediately, but the whole St Louis area has bad relations with the police and Ferguson mishandled it from the beginning (letting him lay in the street for hours uncovered, etc). It only really started getting huge coverage when the police went full military, gassed protesters, and abused the press. Once the press became part of the story, they really dove in whole hog.


No idea why the Garner thing didn't blow up. Not like NYC's black community has good relations with the police.
post #1155 of 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

No idea why the Garner thing didn't blow up. Not like NYC's black community has good relations with the police.

Possibly because the evidence was so clear that there was some glimmer of hope that the cop(s) would be indicted and the process might actually work for once? Probably too far-fetched and naive a suggestion. But the Garner case seems to be getting proper attention after the grand jury's decision.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?