gisambards wrote:This is exactly what the sort of behaviour I'm criticising. Because I tried to give any sort of benefit of the doubt to the officers involved, this idiot continues to insist that I want random people to get murdered by the police. In a previous thread, because I tried to correct one of Damiana's exaggerated accounts of the events in question, I get accused of being petty and nasty.
SandTea wrote:I'm glad you don't want an innocent man murdered. You may be surprised by that but it is still a good thing. My "sickening" stance against senseless murderers might seem silly to you but to everyone else, who are reasonable people, it is a completely understandable position....Wouldn't it be nice, instead, to not have cops kill innocent people? But yeah, lets just yell some more about how it's totally OK to kill random people. If you want folk to not call people "nasty" I wold recommend said people to not be nasty.
Maria Haberfeld, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said that officers typically arrive at a scene in a "heightened state of mind ... they know they are going to face someone with a deadly weapon and there is fear."
.......
"Police officers have right to protect themselves and the public from undo harm," said Cedric Alexander, a nationally recognized policing expert and veteran police chief who was called in to review the Ferguson police department after the 2014 fatal shooting of Michael Brown.
'''"The basic triad is -- to talk to people, keep a distance and bear less lethal weapons," said David Klinger, professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri in St. Louis. Klinger is a nationally recognized policing expert and has done extensive research in officer-involved shootings.
gisambards wrote:...or Damiana's spreading of misinformation.
Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:Gis, I don't think it's the least bit helpful to call one of your critics an idiot. That certainly doesn't help you get your point across, which is a shame because I see a lot of validity to it.
DamianaRaven wrote:What have I posted in this thread that isn't true?
The cops show up to this completely innocent man's house (remember, he wasn't even part of the gaming spat that started this mess, just the unfortunate owner of an address someone made up) and shoot him dead as soon as he opened the door.
Yeah, no need to bother finding out whether it's even true or not, just storm in and start shooting!
what makes cops so seemingly understandable when they summarily execute an innocent man for opening his door?
There are SEVERAL hospitals within 8 minutes of that address and the story says they had "medical rescue personnel" standing by, so it seems like they very deliberately decided "fuck this guy we just shot." Surely, they wouldn't have left him lying on the ground, potentially wounded and still armed so they either just left him there without checking to see if he could still whip out a gun and shoot people, or they KNEW he was unarmed and abandoned him on the ground anyway.
gisambards wrote:You made things up on the last thread about this sort of thing as well - remember, you had a tantrum when I pointed it out?
Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!
skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!
Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
Why not block me if my posts make you so frustrated, that or just ignore the threads I post in CAAS? Of course, you don't have to, but you also don't have to read them, either. It's nice to have choices.
DamianaRaven wrote:gisambards wrote:You made things up on the last thread about this sort of thing as well - remember, you had a tantrum when I pointed it out?
Not really, so it mustn't have been a very good one. Why not block me if my posts make you so frustrated, that or just ignore the threads I post in CAAS? Of course, you don't have to, but you also don't have to read them, either. It's nice to have choices.
Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!
skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!
Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
gisambards wrote:That is the issue I have here.
“A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.”
Jim wrote:The problem with that is that it encourages the formation of a "bubble of ideologies" instead of productive discussion, we shouldn't have to censor those who give different views because we don't agree with them.
DamianaRaven wrote:Jim wrote:The problem with that is that it encourages the formation of a "bubble of ideologies" instead of productive discussion, we shouldn't have to censor those who give different views because we don't agree with them.
I'm not trying to censor anyone, just pointing out that no one has to deal with my shenanigans of they find me infuriating. The Mod Squad doesn't cut me any special favors if I'm out of line and if not, then there's really no other way of shutting me up. As I understand the policy around here, I'm required to follow the posted rules of this forum, not anyone's personal standard of journalistic integrity.
Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!
skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!
Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
Best of luck resolving this issue to everyone's satisfaction. In the meantime, my assessment of the situation seems true enough from my perspective.
DamianaRaven wrote:At no point have I accused anyone of murderous malevolence, so there's that, at least.
DamianaRaven wrote:what makes cops so seemingly understandable when they summarily execute an innocent man for opening his door?
Jim wrote:(and he was uncooperative and reaching for his waist, potentially carrying a firearm)
DamianaRaven wrote:Jim wrote:(and he was uncooperative and reaching for his waist, potentially carrying a firearm)
Have you seen the video? The cops who were screaming these orders at him were across the street, taking cover behind a vehicle. From the way the video is shot, it doesn't seem at all unlikely that he couldn't actually see anybody. How was this guy even supposed to know they were addressing him and not one of his neighbors, much less that they were about to shoot him?
Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!
skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!
Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
DoglovingJim wrote:With this information the police saw a perceived threat and they neutralized it. They did what was best with the information they had, and they are not to be blamed for the intel being wrong.
SandTea wrote:That would be a horrible future and one I would hope no one wants.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests