mok199 Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poanoi Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 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 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro01 Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM07 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockingrobin Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poanoi Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelomsak Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HLover Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Dap said: thugs with guns Thugs or punk nerds? Edited April 2, 2018 by HLover . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 1 minute ago, lovelomsak said: You are right that is why he got shot he was thug and would not listen In the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dap Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, HLover said: Thugs or punk nerds? Certainly enough of each to go around 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelomsak Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now