3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

i think the guy you worked with was a serial fantasist.

 

What you replied to is one of the most improbable and dumbest things I have read on the internet in quite awhile. We shoot military personnel in the foot for going AWOL. LOL okay sonny boy.

13 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

We all know if he had complied he would still be able to walk. There is no excuse when you are approached you put your hands up and say yes sir no sir. That's you only job if outside of the car.

And we all know that when the police shoot unarmed black people some really, really bad stuff happens.   

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

And we all know that when the police shoot unarmed black people some really, really bad stuff happens.   

Yeah they burn down their own businesses. Now if one was a racist that reaction would actually be humorous. They play directly into the hands-off their enemy.

 

You shoot one of them and they damage themselves. It is the ultimate self destructive thing to do. 

 

If somebody shoots me I go shoot them.

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Cryingdick

32 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Yeah they burn down their own businesses. Now if one was a racist that reaction would actually be humorous. They play directly into the hands-off their enemy.

 

You shoot one of them and they damage themselves. It is the ultimate self destructive thing to do. 

 

If somebody shoots me I go shoot them.

“Now if one was a racist”

 

In a post in which you make generalized negative comments about a whole race of people:

 

“Yeah they burn down their own businesses.”

 

”They play directly into the hands-off their enemy”

 

“You shoot one of them and they damage themselves. It is the ultimate self destructive thing to do.”

 

The evidence of your own words.

 

 

 

No matter what, Police have to find a new way to neutralize people they need to take in for own safety, or the suspects own safety. 

 

Two words, serve and protect is the police duty!

 

so many innocent who have been murdered by a mistake, or out of coincident and mistakes, as police officers who are violent, criminal and racists. 

 

Basic training and more basic training is necessery to make police officers safer and better. 

 

 

A racist post has been removed.   Continue and suspensions will be given.  

 

Supporting racism is racism.

 

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Now if one was a racist”

 

In a post in which you make generalized negative comments about a whole race of people:

 

“Yeah they burn down their own businesses.”

 

”They play directly into the hands-off their enemy”

 

“You shoot one of them and they damage themselves. It is the ultimate self destructive thing to do.”

 

The evidence of your own words.

 

 

 

Yeah, the current way the black community at large deals with issues is self defeating. This is why many people simply no longer care. 

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Cryingdick

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Yeah, the current way the black community at large deals with issues is self defeating. This is why many people simply no longer care. 

Again, gross generalization and to avoid any misunderstanding you name the whole community of people who are the target of your gross generalizations.

 

The evidence of your own words.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, gross generalization and to avoid any misunderstanding you name the whole community of people who are the target of your gross generalizations.

 

The evidence of your own words.

Generalizations get started because for the most part they are true.

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Yeah, the current way the black community at large deals with issues is self defeating. This is why many people simply no longer care. 

You're an American, so let's hear from you how African American intra violence and destruction should be addressed by way of changes to policy and policing. If you've got any, what do your African American friends from the cities have to say?

Yet another thug with a long criminal history getting the martyr tag. It's not really that hard to do what an armed police officer instructs you to do during an arrest.

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

We all know if he had complied he would still be able to walk. There is no excuse when you are approached you put your hands up and say yes sir no sir. That's you only job if outside of the car.

We also know that if he wasn't shot in the back by police he would still be able to walk.

23 hours ago, Bender Rodriguez said:

if a person does not respond to police and police fear he might take a gun out of his car...

and maybe there were aliens in the car, of a big bag of Covid virus.  They were the actions of cowards with guns.   They didn't even have the balls, the training or the competence  to bring him down before he ever got to the car. If resorting to shooting is your only method of bringing to heel an unarmed man then that is pathetic. How do they think that the UK Police deals with people like this an a daily basis, without firearms? 

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Pilotman

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

We also know that if he wasn't shot in the back by police he would still be able to walk.

I cant say why the officer shot him 7 times ,but i can say if he had not fought the police and did not do as he was told as any law abiding citizen should then he was in the wrong to start with ,as were the people who burned down and looted shops . two wrongs do not make a right .

the usual sad face, so what they did was right ?

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by bert bloggs

1 hour ago, watso63 said:

Yet another thug with a long criminal history getting the martyr tag. It's not really that hard to do what an armed police officer instructs you to do during an arrest.

There is many reasons people are not able to act or hear a police officer saying! One reason can be Mental sick people react with a fight or flight mode, and thats when police officers fail to protect. Dont even need to be mental sick to react so in a high pressured situation, could also be diabetic early case, where you can act abnormal

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Tagged

On 8/25/2020 at 10:36 AM, sungod said:

Yep, better to shoot him in front of the kids eh?

 

Sorry, seems the US Police only know how to stop a suspect by deadly force, they really need to do better.

Well consider the training they get .. maybe this is 'as good as it gets' ?  Compare police training in US with police training in UK or in Scandinavia ...  https://www.wbtv.com/2020/06/13/some-us-police-train-just-few-weeks-some-countries-they-train-years/

 

One would have thought that since Policing in the US .. is so 'dangerous' they should have the best training ?

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

I cant say why the officer shot him 7 times ,but i can say if he had not fought the police and did not do as he was told as any law abiding citizen should then he was in the wrong to start with ,as were the people who burned down and looted shops . two wrongs do not make a right .

the usual sad face, so what they did was right ?

You're responding with the same post I responded to. Not very constructive, and does not address the point at all.

On 8/25/2020 at 7:51 AM, BritManToo said:

The video clearly shows he was unarmed and shot in the back 7x from an arms length.

There's no excuse in the world anyone can make to justify this crime.

The policeman needs to go to jail for the rest of his life.

 

I read reports in which it says he was waving a knife about prior to going to his vehicle. The police were ordering him to stop and tried to taser him ( the taser failed which apparently they do regularly). He was reaching in his vehicle when shot.

 

Police officers attending had been told there was a warrant for sexual assault and domestic violence outstanding and that he had previous firearms convictions including threatening people in a bar. He also had convictions for assaulting police.

 

The officers would have treated him as a dangerous person. He would have heightened that by not following their commands. They could be faced with him pulling a gun out from his vehicle.

 

However, that doesn't explain why an office felt the need to shoot him 7 times from very close range. 

 

This needs much more investigation but isn't just someone being innocent just because the color of their skin; or a police office r acting reasonably.  But the media hype to fuel the fires for their own agendas don't help.

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

This needs much more investigation but isn't just someone being innocent just because the color of their skin; or a police office r acting reasonably.  But the media hype to fuel the fires for their own agendas don't help.

There are no excuses for 7 bullets in the back.

There are no excuses for shooting him in front of his 3 children who were also in the car.

It doesn't matter how bad a man he was, or how many warrants were out for his arrest.

 

The policeman needs to spend the rest of his life in jail, end of.

If the policeman doesn't go to jail, not only will America burn, but it will deserve to burn.

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by BritManToo

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

There are no excuses for 7 bullets in the back.

There are no excuses for shooting him in front of his 3 children who were also in the car.

It doesn't matter how bad a man he was, or how many warrants were out for his arrest.

 

The policeman needs to spend the rest of his life in jail, end of.

If the policeman doesn't go to jail, not only will America burn, but it will deserve to burn.

 

So, if he was reaching for a gun, as the officers had information he previously was armed, you still wouldn't think it right for the police to shoot him, children present or not.

 

Clearly, 7 shots in the back seems inexcusable and mad. And the officer must be processed properly, transparently, in accordance with the law.

 

But is acting in such way, in front of your children, defying lawful police commands, acceptable behavior.

 

The officer will probably be charged and a court will decide. The shot person could also face charges. His behavior and actions aren't excused by the actions of the policeman. Just as his actions don't excuse the policeman. 

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I read reports in which it says he was waving a knife about prior to going to his vehicle. The police were ordering him to stop and tried to taser him ( the taser failed which apparently they do regularly). He was reaching in his vehicle when shot.

 

Police officers attending had been told there was a warrant for sexual assault and domestic violence outstanding and that he had previous firearms convictions including threatening people in a bar. He also had convictions for assaulting police.

 

The officers would have treated him as a dangerous person. He would have heightened that by not following their commands. They could be faced with him pulling a gun out from his vehicle.

 

However, that doesn't explain why an office felt the need to shoot him 7 times from very close range. 

 

This needs much more investigation but isn't just someone being innocent just because the color of their skin; or a police office r acting reasonably.  But the media hype to fuel the fires for their own agendas don't help.

"Police officers attending had been told there was a warrant for sexual assault and domestic violence outstanding and that he had previous firearms convictions including threatening people in a bar. He also had convictions for assaulting police."

So he had identified himself, they knew who he was? This is the first time someone has claimed this, I have asked this question quite a few times now. So: source please.

38 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I read reports in which it says he was waving a knife about prior to going to his vehicle. The police were ordering him to stop and tried to taser him ( the taser failed which apparently they do regularly). He was reaching in his vehicle when shot.

 

Police officers attending had been told there was a warrant for sexual assault and domestic violence outstanding and that he had previous firearms convictions including threatening people in a bar. He also had convictions for assaulting police.

 

The officers would have treated him as a dangerous person. He would have heightened that by not following their commands. They could be faced with him pulling a gun out from his vehicle.

 

However, that doesn't explain why an office felt the need to shoot him 7 times from very close range. 

 

This needs much more investigation but isn't just someone being innocent just because the color of their skin; or a police office r acting reasonably.  But the media hype to fuel the fires for their own agendas don't help.

If all above is true, an bullit in his leg, is what normal cops do where I come from. One bullit to the leg is enough to nautralize any person

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

There are no excuses for 7 bullets in the back.

There are no excuses for shooting him in front of his 3 children who were also in the car.

It doesn't matter how bad a man he was, or how many warrants were out for his arrest.

 

The policeman needs to spend the rest of his life in jail, end of.

If the policeman doesn't go to jail, not only will America burn, but it will deserve to burn.

Take a few hits and turn it down, ahahaa

Isn't it funny it is always the Trump supporters who agree with violence

Edited August 26, 20205 yr by Meat Pie 47

51 minutes ago, Tagged said:

If all above is true, an bullit in his leg, is what normal cops do where I come from. One bullit to the leg is enough to nautralize any person

Please stop with the ridiculous stories of leg shots, it's a lie. Any shot to the leg was one meant for the mid section. 

6 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I am also not stupid. I was taught from an early age not to play games when stopped by the cops.

But if you are black you are more likely to be stopped.

 

There was no reason for police to even go near the guy. It was 2 women arguing. But being a black guy he was immediately under suspicion.

55 minutes ago, Tagged said:

If all above is true, an bullit in his leg, is what normal cops do where I come from. One bullit to the leg is enough to nautralize any person

He was too far away for that. 1 inch rule.

Time to figure out which stores has the best selection on TV's.

6 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

You can understand the Police not wanting him to get in his car with Children inside , if he was agitated and carrying a knife 

Please quote correctly. I quoted someone else, you only mention his quote, not my response, under my name.

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He was too far away for that. 1 inch rule.

They all shoot Many shots, since they can not hit a <deleted> moving target, even bent over the car seat, It is to hard To hit a person, and need 7 shots while the kids watching. 

 

Who is The mental here? The one who trying to escape an potential killing machine out of controll, or the one who manage to pull his trigger 7 times? Deleted hillarious. 7 shots in the back. Proffesional police man?