Autopsy prompts more protests over killing of black man in California

[mok199]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

I grew up I the red light area of Amsterdam, your country without proper gun laws and racist, trigger happy police needs to get real. 

mabey you should write the children of officers killed in the line of duty...

Edited April 1, 2018 by mok199
speliing

[poanoi]

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 In plain language a bullet in the back  does not mean someone was intentionally shot in the back.

in plain language: 6 bullets in the back means the police intentionally shot him in the back, or were illiterate shooters.

source: i'm an ex hunter

[pedro01]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

You've dropped this turd in discussions before.  There's no constitutional mandate for firemen to do their job either.  Does that mean they can show up and a four-alarm blaze and then, realizing their lack of constitutional mandate, just pass the time at a nearby coffee shop while the building burns to the ground?  Then we'd have no recourse but to say "sucks, but that's the way it is".

 

 

 

When you say "dropped this turd" - I presume you mean you disagree somehow.

 

Is it in the supreme courts ruling or in my using it to provide evidence the police have no obligation to protect.

 

As for firemen - what makes you think that's relevant? Your only argument is one of false equivalence.

[attrayant]

 

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

When you say "dropped this turd" - I presume you mean you disagree somehow.

 

It's a stinker that does nothing to defend the actions of the police or advance any sort of rational argument.  You seem to offer this as if it's some sort of justification for police not doing their job.

 

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Is it in the supreme courts ruling or in my using it to provide evidence the police have no obligation to protect.

 

We don't need such evidence because it's a non-sequitur.  That's why I called it a turd of a reply.  Your post was in response to somebody being critical of the Sacramento Police failing to protect.  I It's a valid criticism since the Sacramento Police Officer's Association has the word PROTECTing right on their web site:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

As for firemen - what makes you think that's relevant? Your only argument is one of false equivalence.

 

Look up the phrase 'literary parallelism'.  You say that police have no constitutional mandate.  I gave an example of another profession that also has no constitutional mandate, and showed how ridiculous it is to expect somebody to refuse to do their job (or be justified in not doing it) simply because they're not constitutionally mandated to do it.

 

[DM07]

On 4/1/2018 at 1:27 PM, geriatrickid said:

The cameras became detached during the struggle did they not? 

When you use the expression "innocent kid" what do you mean? Innocent of what, as he was a convicted felon on parole. Do you think the young girls he pimped would call him innocent? How about the women he beat up? Or how about the victims of his armed robberies?  Don't call him "innocent" when the reality was that he was a violent thug who preyed on society's weak. If he was  killed without justification, it will be up to the court to  address the case, not a screaming mob  who ignore the man's violent activities.

None of the past cases matter in this one, though!

In this case he was "an innocent kid", no?!

[rockingrobin]

17 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

When you say "dropped this turd" - I presume you mean you disagree somehow.

 

Is it in the supreme courts ruling or in my using it to provide evidence the police have no obligation to protect.

 

As for firemen - what makes you think that's relevant? Your only argument is one of false equivalence.

I am not convinced that the ruling conveys what you are suggesting.

To understand the article you have to revisit the DeShaney v Winnebago County decision.

While the 14th amendment does not give  the state a duty to provide the general public with adequate protective  services. It limits the state itself from taking life, liberty etc.

[attrayant]

The plaintiff was also seeking damages, so the ruling was in part meant to indemnify the police department on the grounds that it can't possible be expected to be everywhere and do everything with 100% efficacy.  I actually agree with this to some extent.  If citizens feel that their police aren't doing their job (as defined by the citizens, not by the Supreme Court), then they have an electoral remedy: throw the mayor or governor out of office, and the police chief along with them.  And keep doing that until the police operate inline with the public's expectations.

 

This still does not mean that a duty to protect cannot be included in the job description of a police officer, nor that the citizens should not expect protection from their police force.  To suggest otherwise is, well, just nutty.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

The plaintiff was also seeking damages, so the ruling was in part meant to indemnify the police department on the grounds that it can't possible be expected to be everywhere and do everything with 100% efficacy.  I actually agree with this to some extent.  If citizens feel that their police aren't doing their job (as defined by the citizens, not by the Supreme Court), then they have an electoral remedy: throw the mayor or governor out of office, and the police chief along with them.  And keep doing that until the police operate inline with the public's expectations.

 

This still does not mean that a duty to protect cannot be included in the job description of a police officer, nor that the citizens should not expect protection from their police force.  To suggest otherwise is, well, just nutty.

I agree , it is difficult to see how the ruling is relevant to this particular case.

[geriatrickid]

On 4/1/2018 at 2:01 PM, poanoi said:

in plain language: 6 bullets in the back means the police intentionally shot him in the back, or were illiterate shooters.

source: i'm an ex hunter

And did you hunt with a semi automatic  Glock  side arm? It is quite possible that the deceased turned  as he was  shot, or he was shot in the thigh and turned. Whatever the  method,  6 bullets were discharged in a matter of seconds. These were not bullets where one shot was fired, the deceased targeted and shot again over a period of minutes. It was a rapid discharge.

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, DM07 said:

None of the past cases matter in this one, though!

In this case he was "an innocent kid", no?!

Apparently not. A  felon on parole has limited civil rights.

There does not appear to be any significant difference between the constitutional status of probationers and parolees. See United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 265-66 (9th Cir. 1975) (Ninth Circuit concluding that the reasons justifying warrantless searches by parole officers of their parolees are equally applicable in probation setting).

Even if not on parole,  he had a legal obligation to obey a lawful instruction. He was told not to move and that is an instruction given to protect both the safety of the  person and of the law enforcement agents. He instead  engaged in a physical confrontation. He died because he was as stupid as he had been up until that time.

[poanoi]

12 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

And did you hunt with a semi automatic  Glock  side arm? It is quite possible that the deceased turned  as he was  shot, or he was shot in the thigh and turned. Whatever the  method,  6 bullets were discharged in a matter of seconds. These were not bullets where one shot was fired, the deceased targeted and shot again over a period of minutes. It was a rapid discharge.

i have shot with semi automatic pistols,

they are too inaccurate to be used beyond 30 m,

and a human within 30 m can not spin around within the fraction of a second it takes for the bullet to travel 30 m.

the shooters were either deliberately shooting in his back, or incompetent

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by poanoi

[Dap]

On 4/1/2018 at 7:14 AM, mok199 said:

just obey the law.!!!  try and be defiant, and this is what may happen..police officers have a job to do....

Riiiiiiight! More examples of (Racist) thugs with guns.

[Dap]

On 4/1/2018 at 8:20 AM, pedro01 said:

 

Their job is not to protect. Supreme court ruling says so... https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Sucks - but that's the way it is...

Yeah! Not too thrilled with the actions of the supreme court either.

[Dap]

On 4/1/2018 at 9:04 AM, mok199 said:

back up.....had he obeyed the officers he would be alive today..period..1 bullet or 10 bullets..this hands up don't shoot mike brown bullshit is out of control and a false narrative and is getting officers killed either now by targeting them or random violence......this topic has been debated to death...be the big tough defiant man grandstanding and looking for a leagal settlement and some free facebook time, and you may get killed..police don't need to take time to caudel the criminal nor should they....what would you do if this ''considered armed and dangerous '' phsyco was running loose in your back yard,with you children asleep in the house..he breaks into your house and its a hostage situation.. stop this after the fact bullshit...

Oh yeah, like the lady that was pulled over for a rear light (safety) violation. Like I said, thugs with guns.

[Dap]

On 4/1/2018 at 9:58 AM, geriatrickid said:

How would you disarm a violent felon reaching for his gun who was attacking you?

Would you say, oh please dear sir, reconsider and  let's sing a song of love?

 

How bout that tazer thing usually used on white folk? 

[lovelomsak]

9 minutes ago, Dap said:

Riiiiiiight! More examples of (Racist) thugs with guns.

You are right that is why he got shot he was thug and would not listen 

[HLover]

7 minutes ago, Dap said:

thugs with guns

Thugs or punk nerds?

Edited April 2, 2018 by HLover
.

[Dap]

1 minute ago, lovelomsak said:

You are right that is why he got shot he was thug and would not listen 

In the back?

[Dap]

2 minutes ago, HLover said:

Thugs or punk nerds?

Certainly enough of each to go around 

[lovelomsak]

For the life of me I cannot understand how he got shot in the back. Like Geriatric kid says he probably got turned around after the first or second shot into him. Would officers not have be placed behind him otherwise? I have not seen the video  cannot find it ,but sounds as though all the police were in front of him when he came at them. Who was behind him to shot  probably no one.Like was previously posted he probably got turned about by impact of bullets during the shoot up and rapid fire did the job.

Edited April 2, 2018 by lovelomsak