Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Maybe he had his hands in his pocket and deserved to be shot, right pep?
Have you heard anything like that? Gotta link? I would think if that were the case the cops would be broadcasting that as usual.

EDIT: And I don't think I ever said you deserve to be shot if you have your hands in your pockets in a confrontation with police. I believe I said, that police will shoot you for that, and it's not unreasonable to fear that in that situation the person is reaching for a firearm.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
the nice part about all these guilty black people is that they're no longer alive to dispute the officer's story

So officer whitey is all like "oh yeah he was coming right at me and also he had marijuanas in his system AND was in the road" and all of the race car fans are like "sure that makes perfect sense what options did you have, officer? good riddance."

You know which black people are alive to tell their stories?

The ones that don't try to beat up officers and take their weapons. ~drops mic~
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
330
I don't care about the political side of this and I don't care about the race side of this.

No one should be disputing the militarization of police and the shoot first ask questions later is a problem.

But this case isn't a good example of that. Cops have always been armed, and given the authority to use those arms. You can find numerous examples of that, regardless of the dead persons race and there's nothing different about this shooting that suggests it's a product of militarization.

The issue with his particular conflict is the racial agitation imposed on it. It doesn't have to be viewed in that context at all, but some people will not pass up the opportunity to coerce others into believing that that is the case. First impressions are hard to defeat in most instances and unfortunately, yet another case will be stripped of it's right to be conducted on it's own merits.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
:lol

Is it really any wonder this guy was shot and killed? He robbed a store, then overreacts to a cop trying to get his attention to get him out of the street. Beats up the cop.

fucking duh.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Have you heard anything like that? Gotta link? I would think if that were the case the cops would be broadcasting that as usual.

EDIT: And I don't think I ever said you deserve to be shot if you have your hands in your pockets in a confrontation with police. I believe I said, that police will shoot you for that, and it's not unreasonable to fear that in that situation the person is reaching for a firearm.

I think the fact that Zimmerman said he reached into his pocket... no matter what he's reaching for... provides Trayvon all the information he needs to use WHATEVER means he needed to defend himself. If that means beating George to death, then that's what it means. Reaching to your pocket, I don't know what you're about to pull out of there, it could be a gun/knife, some other weapon.

I was poking fun at your idiotic stance in the travon thread. Maybe the thug in this case had his hands in his pocket... If so, you must agree he should be beat to death, or shot.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
:lol

Is it really any wonder this guy was shot and killed? He robbed a store, then overreacts to a cop trying to get his attention to get him out of the street. Beats up the cop.

fucking duh.

I am not shocked at all the usual suspects on the forum think you can punch a cop in the face and try to take his weapon after committing an assault and robbery a few minutes earlier without some shit going down.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I was poking fun at your idiotic stance in the travon thread. Maybe the thug in this case had his hands in his pocket... If so, you must agree he should be beat to death, or shot.
Thanks captain fucking obvious. I know what you were referring to... It doesn't make sense that you would refer to it here, other than for trolling purposes, since there's been no information indicating that's what happened here. And without that, you have failed in your attempt to make it look like I'm saying something different here.

But I somehow suspect that if Brown had reached for his pocket and the cop had shot him, you'd be fine with that. Right?
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Thanks captain fucking obvious. I know what you were referring to... It doesn't make sense that you would refer to it here, other than for trolling purposes, since there's been no information indicating that's what happened here. And without that, you have failed in your attempt to make it look like I'm saying something different here.

But I somehow suspect that if Brown had reached for his pocket and the cop had shot him, you'd be fine with that. Right?

You would be fine with it, correct? Or have your standards changed?

But you are right in the the fact this case is a little different. A thug assaulted a cop instead of a citizen. There are also several similarities. One would be the initial horrific reporting designed to inflame the black racists, and guilt ridden white leftists. People keep falling for the race mongering. After being lied to and fooled over and over, you would think people would wise up, but nope, instead they go burn down their own neighborhoods. They get what they deserve.

anyway...lets talk playoff baseball. It looks like both our teams may make it in.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
But this case isn't a good example of that. Cops have always been armed, and given the authority to use those arms. You can find numerous examples of that, regardless of the dead persons race and there's nothing different about this shooting that suggests it's a product of militarization.
You're right...

leadferguson.jpg


ferguson_missouri_militarized_police.jpg


Journalists having to wear gas masks because of police use of tear gas...

And no, cops don't or shouldn't have the authority to use arms in any manner they deem fit. There should be very specific circumstances where they can. Many of them are former military, they are trained to deal with this stuff. Shooting a person to kill them should be the last resort. There are more rules for engagement to kill people in war than there are for police to kill their own citizens.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
You would be fine with it, correct? Or have your standards changed?
Fine with it? I said it would be reasonable.

But you are right in the the fact this case is a little different. A thug assaulted a cop instead of a citizen. There are also several similarities. One would be the initial horrific reporting designed to inflame the black racists, and guilt ridden white leftists. People keep falling for the race mongering. After being lied to and fooled over and over, you would think people would wise up, but nope, instead they go burn down their own neighborhoods. They get what they deserve.
I already said I don't care about the race aspect. I don't necessarily think there was profiling going on here.

anyway...lets talk playoff baseball. It looks like both our teams may make it in.

We still have a long ways to go... and a tough September schedule. We could win the West, or we could flame out. Royals are playing great though.
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
330
You're right...

And no, cops don't or shouldn't have the authority to use arms in any manner they deem fit. There should be very specific circumstances where they can. Many of them are former military, they are trained to deal with this stuff. Shooting a person to kill them should be the last resort. There are more rules for engagement to kill people in war than there are for police to kill their own citizens.

Seriously, conflating two issues doesn't change the fact that you're arguing the wrong argument in this case. I'm guessing this is Ferguson. And I'm also guessing it's in response to the mass rioting that happened and not what the everyday citizen has to face when facing a patrolman. For all I know they're the National Guard, can you provide the source of those photos?
 

NoDak

UDFA
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
0

That cop is obviously wrong in the way he is acting and speaking to the public. He is clearly scared, and worried about what may happen.

But those people have got to be completely fucking retarded to be antagonizing anybody with a loaded weapon in an obviously highly stressful situation. Policeman or not.

Hey, there's already a fire burning right beside this ticking time bomb. Let's throw some gas on it and see what happens...
 

NoDak

UDFA
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
0
Seriously, conflating two issues doesn't change the fact that you're arguing the wrong argument in this case. I'm guessing this is Ferguson. And I'm also guessing it's in response to the mass rioting that happened and not what the everyday citizen has to face when facing a patrolman. For all I know they're the National Guard, can you provide the source of those photos?

It says police on their riot gear. But it doesn't make it any less dishonest in the way his argument and the pictures are presented. The discussion is about the policeman that shot Brown, when he says they are militarized, then provides pictures of policemen that are in obvious riot gear and were not present at the time of the incident. I'd bet any amount that the cop that shot Brown did not have any of that equipment with him at the time of the shooting.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
I don't care about the political side of this and I don't care about the race side of this.

No one should be disputing the militarization of police and the shoot first ask questions later is a problem.

I think this deserves it's own thread because this cop didn't shoot first, ask questions later and wasn't armed in military garb.
 
Top Bottom