US: Black man shot dead in San Diego just after police arrived

[tomwct]

You don't have to be Black to get shot, just be a Criminal!

[NanLaew]

5 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

800,000 Sworn Law Enforcement Officers on Actice Duty right now.

 

"Trigger happy" would require exponentially more police invilved shootings.

 

Please try and be rational.

 

Agree that "trigger happy" is the last attribute a cop should be labeled with. However, a sworn peace officer is ultimately just another human being with all the foibles, misgivings, abilities, opinions, biases, affiliations, loves, hates, stresses and strains of being just another human being. Accordingly, some may have other things on their mind when sh!t hits the fan. Nobody is perfect and holding the average cop to a higher standard than you would expect from the average Joe is on a hiding for nothing.

[ClutchClark]

7 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

Let me clarify my earlier statement so it is not misunderstood

 

You are not misunderstood Clutch. You are a Law 'n Order Guy. We over here understand you perfectly.

 

Do try to deal with 2% of the 800,000 cops who, as Chief Beary says as president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police are the screwups. 

 

I reiterate Chief Beary has said for years that 98% of police do the right thing 98% of the time. It's the two percenters that the 100% of the rightwhinge ignore and pretend do not exist. The first step of a cure is to acknowledge the illness or disease. The right cannot do this so it is stuck in the mire indefinitely.

 

Hardly ignored...there are procedures to dismiss problem employees within the Law Enforcement community just like in any other employment. "Us" conservstive "Law & Order" types support Police Departments identifying such employee issues and making efforts to remove such individuals.

 

However, there is no indication that any of the officers involved in these justified police shootings have an employmwnt record that indicates they are part of that 2% so your premise is not only wrong but misplaced on this thread. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DM07]

4 hours ago, chuckd said:

Just in case some of you news hawks might have missed this, but the victim was an illegal alien that they had tried to deport two times previously.

 

His native Uganda refused to issue travel documents.  They didn't want him either.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Man shot by El Cajon police was illegal alien ordered deported twice
Associated Press September 29, 2016 at 11:55 am 52 Lead Stories, News

U.S. authorities tried twice to deport the unarmed black man fatally shot by police in El Cajon, California, but his native Uganda refused to take him.

 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Thursday in a statement to The Associated Press that Alfred Olango stopped reporting to officers in February 2015. Spokeswoman Virginia Kice didn’t know if officers tried to find him after that.

 

Olango arrived as a refugee in 1991 and was ordered deported in 2002 after being convicted on drug charges. He was released under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring detention of foreign nationals if deportation is unlikely.

Immigration authorities took Olango into custody in 2009 after a firearms conviction but were again unable to obtain travel documents.

 

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=15426?omhide=true

Sooooo...you are saying,he somehow deserved to be shot?

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Agree that "trigger happy" is the last attribute a cop should be labeled with. However, a sworn peace officer is ultimately just another human being with all the foibles, misgivings, abilities, opinions, biases, affiliations, loves, hates, stresses and strains of being just another human being. Accordingly, some may have other things on their mind when sh!t hits the fan. Nobody is perfect and holding the average cop to a higher standard than you would expect from the average Joe is on a hiding for nothing.

 

"Is on a hiding for nothing" ??

 

I don't understand what this means. 

 

I don't disagree with most of your post but I would like to point out that the screening process for applicants to the occupation of Law Enforcement is more stringent than most occupations and filters out many "average Joes" through background checks and Psychological Evaluations. A cross-section of employees in Law Enforcement is not a cross-section of society on the whole. 

 

How many Americans have to worry that the decisions they are required to make as part of the job can result in their being sent to prison? How many occupations are video'd by persons on the street and under the scrutiny that a police officer is every time they perform their duties in public? These are just a couple of examples of the stressors unique to police officers. Another would be the high incidence of coming into contact with persons carrying a firearm.

 

how many times each day/week/month/year does the average person come into contact with violent situations? Drug dealers? Wife & children beaters? Felons? Persons suffering mentsl illness? Etc? 

 

Police are tasked with responding and interacting with the very people you & I intentionally avoid in our daily lives. 

 

 

[ClutchClark]

6 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Sooooo...you are saying,he somehow deserved to be shot?

 

The detsils of chuckd's post indicate this person had a history that included drug use and illegal use of a firearm. 

 

When a person has a record that includes drug & firearm convictions then they are at a greater likelihood of having a future conflict with law enforcement. Should that happen then their drug use would contribute to the likelihood they will behave irrationally during that conflict.

 

I would have thought this obvious. 

 

It is what played out here both before the police arrived and after. Irrational and menacing behavior.

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

And you gained that detailed play-by-play from the same herky-jerky smartphone and bodycam video that's widely available.

 

...or is it some detailed knowledge from the San Diego PD's own training manual on when to tazer and when to shoot?

 

PS. I hear the Tulsa PD are re-writing theirs.

 

if you have found an error in the detsils of my above post then you are free to point them out--but attempting to dicredit them simply because it deflates your argument is not how this works.

[DM07]

14 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

The detsils of chuckd's post indicate this person had a history that included drug use and illegal use of a firearm. 

 

When a person has a record that includes drug & firearm convictions then they are at a greater likelihood of having a future conflict with law enforcement. Should that happen then their drug use would contribute to the likelihood they will behave irrationally during that conflict.

 

I would have thought this obvious. 

 

It is what played out here both before the police arrived and after. Irrational and menacing behavior.

What the....?!

Only the cops where not there to arrest him for any of these horrific crimes.  They were there, because the sister of the guy called them for help!  I don't know about you and we may be thinking differently here, but I am not aware, how a bullet to the head could have helped anyone!

 

You racists and defenders of anything police are really clutching at straws!  I bet, none of the cops knew about neither his "possession of a firearm" nor the "drugs" he once took or that he might have been illegal!  And one cop got the taser out, while another just shot him- care to explain that away?

So one cop was okay, with just disabling the "bad guy", while the other just gunned him down... because he once smoked pot and was a illegal in the country?

Pathetic!  

[ClutchClark]

23 minutes ago, DM07 said:

What the....?!

Only the cops where not there to arrest him for any of these horrific crimes.

They were there, because the sister of the guy called them for help!

I don't know about you and we may be thinking differently here, but I am not aware, how a bullet to the head could have helped anyone!

You racists and defenders of anything police are really clutching at straws!

I bet, none of the cops knew about neither his "possession of a firearm" nor the "drugs" he once took or that he maight have been illegal!

And one cop got the taser out, while another just shot him- care to explain that away?

So one cop was okay, with just disabling the "bad guy", while the other just gunned him down...because he once smoked pott and was a illegal in the country?

Pathetic!  

 

Try to relax because you are not reading things correctly and you are jumping to wild conclusions. 

 

The prior arrest history for drugs and weapons increases his likelihood of future contact with police because these are anti-social and illegsl behaviors and persons who partske in them are more likely to run afoul of the law. The police did not have to be aware of his past conviction history...they did not create this scene the dead guy did by his irrational and menacing behaviors. These behaviors were concerning enough that his sister contacted police. 

 

The reason one officer fired a taser and the other a firearm was already detailed earlier. The police had attempted to communicate with the individual and de-escalate the sitiuation but the dead guy ESCALATED the situation by his actions. Apparently you cannot undersand this.

 

So the drug offense was for marijuana? Can you provide those details again please?

 

Its your own business but it is not healthy to get so worked up about a topic.

 

 

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

"Is on a hiding for nothing" ??

 

I don't understand what this means. 

 

I don't disagree with most of your post but I would like to point out that the screening process for applicants to the occupation of Law Enforcement is more stringent than most occupations and filters out many "average Joes" through background checks and Psychological Evaluations. A cross-section of employees in Law Enforcement is not a cross-section of society on the whole. 

 

How many Americans have to worry that the decisions they are required to make as part of the job can result in their being sent to prison? How many occupations are video'd by persons on the street and under the scrutiny that a police officer is every time they perform their duties in public? These are just a couple of examples of the stressors unique to police officers. Another would be the high incidence of coming into contact with persons carrying a firearm.

 

how many times each day/week/month/year does the average person come into contact with violent situations? Drug dealers? Wife & children beaters? Felons? Persons suffering mentsl illness? Etc? 

 

Police are tasked with responding and interacting with the very people you & I intentionally avoid in our daily lives. 

 

 

Somewhere in this discourse, someone stated that 2% of cops are aberrant. That's impressive and does indicate that the vetting process is mostly working especially when you consider the 5-8% of the general public that are not 'law abiding'.

 

But it only takes one of those 2 percenters to make the headlines. the other 98% doing good work don't get much of a mention.

 

Having lived and worked in a major US city and having first-hand experience of law enforcement when I screwed up, I would agree that most of the officers that were involved with my arrest and weekend incarceration were decent types. But there was at least a couple of them on the totally unnecessary power trip. I guess it's possible to fake stuff on the psych eval as well as benefiting from a less than thorough background check. Some podunk, backwoods PD's may not have the same budget or resources. Plenty instances of big city cops being kicked out for being a liability who weasel their way back in via a smaller, less resourceful PD. BTW, serious question, do US PD's generally have a system of ongoing evaluations and tests to catch the fakers, aberrants and the ones that may have just 'gone bad'?

 

Anyway, coming from a family with 2 generations in law enforcement, I knew the good guys when I saw them. Of course that was from my British perspective that didn't have the additional stresses of a society that enables everyone with a pulse to own and carry a gun.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

if you have found an error in the detsils of my above post then you are free to point them out--but attempting to dicredit them simply because it deflates your argument is not how this works.

No. I just wondered where you got such an accurate account of what actually happened. Pretty sure the San Diego PD are still working on their investigation.

 

Is this good cop, bad cop scenario where one tazers while the other one shoots scenario something new? Never heard of it before Tulsa and San Diego.

 

[ClutchClark]

26 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

No. I just wondered where you got such an accurate account of what actually happened. Pretty sure the San Diego PD are still working on their investigation.

 

Is this good cop, bad cop scenario where one tazers while the other one shoots scenario something new? Never heard of it before Tulsa and San Diego.

 

 

It is nothing new.

 

It is simply a desire of law enforcement to use LTL (less than lethal) force whenever possible.

 

You may already be aware of "Escalation of Force" policies here in the US but if not its worth reviewing.

 

However, at the moment an apparently unarmed individual escalates the situation and becomes a threat to life then the LTL also escalates to justified use of deadly force.

 

The white officer in a protected position behind the pickup truck was LTL. 

 

The suspect was 2-meters from the black officer who was questioning him and was the first officer on scene.

 

It is not a new technique of good cop--bad cop. It was a rapid escalation of circumstances.

 

Had the white officer had the option of more time to react he would have chosen a firearm with multiple rounds of ammunition to better protect his fellow officer and himself against a suspect who by all appearances had a firearm.

 

 

[Gary A]

Without a doubt there are some bad police. That said the number of absolute moron politicians vastly outnumber those bad policemen. When you have moron liberals teaching hate and contempt, they are to blame for the few bad shootings. That thin blue line protects us from lunatics and they have a VERY difficult job. I would probably make a very bad policeman because if someone spit in my face, I don't know if I could handle that or not. I know that I would be looking to retaliate. 

[GinBoy2]

One of the things to think about is this.

 

We have collectively as a society, decided to 'outsource' mental health treatment to law enforcement and the prison system

 

Approximately 20% of inmates in jails, and 15% in State prisons are diagnosed with serious mental illness, which equates to around 350,00 people.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if we decided to actually fund adequately, and treat the mentally ill, the cops wouldn't even be in the equation.

 

But preventative solutions don't seem to be our way unfortunately

 

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/backgrounders/how many individuals with serious mental illness are in jails and prisons final.pdf

Edited October 1, 2016 by GinBoy2

[DM07]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM, ClutchClark said:

 

Try to relax because you are not reading things correctly and you are jumping to wild conclusions. 

 

The prior arrest history for drugs and weapons increases his likelihood of future contact with police because these are anti-social and illegsl behaviors and persons who partske in them are more likely to run afoul of the law. The police did not have to be aware of his past conviction history...they did not create this scene the dead guy did by his irrational and menacing behaviors. These behaviors were concerning enough that his sister contacted police. 

 

The reason one officer fired a taser and the other a firearm was already detailed earlier. The police had attempted to communicate with the individual and de-escalate the sitiuation but the dead guy ESCALATED the situation by his actions. Apparently you cannot undersand this.

 

So the drug offense was for marijuana? Can you provide those details again please?

 

Its your own business but it is not healthy to get so worked up about a topic.

 

 

First of all: stop your condescending BS!

I don't need to relax and I understand full well!

 

You are just trying to distract from the fact, that a bunch of policemen/women are so on the edge, that they have every right to shoot and kill everybody, who behaves "irrational"!

 

So people should better not call them for help, because a man, a child, a kitten in a tree...may end up dead!

 

You are trying to justify this brutal and senseless killing, by mentioning the deceased run ins with the law, because sooner or later...

How do you know that?

That is pure speculation!

 

 

[Scott]

Relax with some members means to stop arguing and agree with them.

 

Please stay on topic.  

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

First of all: stop your condescending BS!

I don't need to relax and I understand full well!

 

You are just trying to distract from the fact, that a bunch of policemen/women are so on the edge, that they have every right to shoot and kill everybody, who behaves "irrational"!

 

So people should better not call them for help, because a man, a child, a kitten in a tree...may end up dead!

 

You are trying to justify this brutal and senseless killing, by mentioning the deceased run ins with the law, because sooner or later...

How do you know that?

That is pure speculation!

 

 

 

You still seem to be very worked up and its making you show must disrespect but I will let it go.

 

The reason the suspects past criminal behavior is important is that it indicates behavioral issues and these types of behavioral issues of drug use and weapons violations are red flags that his thought processes will likely lead to further encounters with law enforcement. 

 

It is not very surprising that his behaviors continued and  resurfaced in this incident. His actions on this day were simply more of the same. 

 

These are red flag behaviors which the suspect brought to the scene--not the police. 

 

The video clearly shows the first officer on scene attempting to communicate with the man but he was very agitated and behaving irrational. You do understand what that means? It means he was behaving in a manner that is unexpected and unpredictable and an individual behaving irrationally can flip out in a fractuon of a second...which is exactly what he did. The officer had not been able to search the suspect and even those who want to pretend otherwise cannot deny the suspect intentionally mimicked that he had a weapon in his pocket and took a stance that anyone can see is that of someone with a gun. 

 

Had someone done this to you, you would have no doubt dove for cover as would any reasonable person who wished to avoid getting shot. 

 

Why the suspect did this only he knows. Its not important. All that is important is that he did make the decision to respond this way. 

 

At what point do you find disagreement with what I have written? I will try and walk you through it. 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by ClutchClark

[DM07]

3 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

You still seem to be very worked up and its making you show must disrespect but I will let it go.

 

The reason the suspects past criminal behavior is important is that it indicates behavioral issues and these types of behavioral issues of drug use and weapons violations are red flags that his thought processes will likely lead to further encounters with law enforcement. 

 

It is not very surprising that his behaviors continued and  resurfaced in this incident. His actions on this day were simply more of the same. 

 

These are red flag behaviors which the suspect brought to the scene--not the police. 

 

The video clearly shows the first officer on scene attempting to communicate with the man but he was very agitated and behaving irrational. You do understand what that means? It means he was behaving in a manner that is unexpected and unpredictable and an individual behaving irrationally can flip out in a fractuon of a second...which is exactly what he did. The officer had not been able to search the suspect and even those who want to pretend otherwise cannot deny the suspect intentionally mimicked that he had a weapon in his pocket and took a stance that anyone can see is that of someone with a gun. 

 

Had someone done this to you, you would have no doubt dove for cover as would any reasonable person who wished to avoid getting shot. 

 

Why the suspect did this only he knows. Its not important. All that is important is that he did make the decision to respond this way. 

 

 

What part of "mental health issues" and "called by the sister for help" don't you understand?

Again: many, MANY people had run in's with the law and that shows...nothing, except that at one point, something they did, was not in accordance with the law!

There were 2 officers and one man and they were quiet close to him.

If you are telling me, the only thing they could possibly do, was to put 4 bullets into him, you are a worse person, than I already think!

Don't bother to answer- I rather have enough of your deflections and derailment- tactics.

 

[Gary A]

Mental illness ?? A threat to society is just that. I don't view that as a get out of jail free ticket. Drugs are in the same category. I have no sympathy for dopers who get shot because of their stupidity.

[ClutchClark]

29 minutes ago, DM07 said:

What part of "mental health issues" and "called by the sister for help" don't you understand?

Again: many, MANY people had run in's with the law and that shows...nothing, except that at one point, something they did, was not in accordance with the law!

There were 2 officers and one man and they were quiet close to him.

If you are telling me, the only thing they could possibly do, was to put 4 bullets into him, you are a worse person, than I already think!

Don't bother to answer- I rather have enough of your deflections and derailment- tactics.

 

 

I find it so sad that all of you naysayers have to make personal attacks like you do. It further weakens your already limited arguments. 

 

If you are killed by a person suffering mental health issues are you any less dead ?

[DM07]

12 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I find it so sad that all of you naysayers have to make personal attacks like you do. It further weakens your already limited arguments. 

 

If you are killed by a person suffering mental health issues are you any less dead ?

The FACTS are, that he had NO WEAPON!

So IF he had a weapon and IF he had gotten to it before anyone COULD have stopped him and IF he then would have shot at the policeman and WOULD have killed him...the policeman would be dead!

NONE of which happened!

So....

[Acharn]

On 9/29/2016 at 6:48 PM, ClutchClark said:

 

police respond to 100's of these calls every day around the country. Multiply that by 365.

 

This is not the "usual result" or we would read about it 100's of times a day.

 

Try to calm down and use logic and reason.

Well, actually, if it happened hundreds of times a day we wouldn't read about it at all, because it wouldn't be news any more. Your point is good, though, and I realize now I was over the top. Thanks for restoring my perspective. It still happens far too often, though.

[ClutchClark]

5 hours ago, DM07 said:

The FACTS are, that he had NO WEAPON!

So IF he had a weapon and IF he had gotten to it before anyone COULD have stopped him and IF he then would have shot at the policeman and WOULD have killed him...the policeman would be dead!

NONE of which happened!

So....

 

Your joking, right? 

 

It sounds like you actually want these officers to be killed. 

 

BTW, you once again failed to respond to my question. This is always the way it is with you. When you are killed by a person with "mental health" issues are you any less dead ?

[Gary A]

10 hours ago, DM07 said:

The FACTS are, that he had NO WEAPON!

So IF he had a weapon and IF he had gotten to it before anyone COULD have stopped him and IF he then would have shot at the policeman and WOULD have killed him...the policeman would be dead!

NONE of which happened!

So....

 

No weapon ?? How did the cop know that? If the zip gun looking thing happened to be a zip gun, would you have given him the first shot? Why did the guy go into a shooting stance? Was it suicide by cop?

Edited October 2, 2016 by Gary A

[DM07]

18 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Your joking, right? 

 

It sounds like you actually want these officers to be killed. 

 

BTW, you once again failed to respond to my question. This is always the way it is with you. When you are killed by a person with "mental health" issues are you any less dead ?

...and you sound, like you enjoy the news of dead black folk!

 

I will answer your question: When you are killed by a person with "mental health" issues are you any less dead ?

Yep...you are dead!

Just like when a piano hits you, falling from the 5th floor!

None of which happened!

So...your point is?

[Publicus]

On 9/30/2016 at 4:43 PM, ClutchClark said:

 

Hardly ignored...there are procedures to dismiss problem employees within the Law Enforcement community just like in any other employment. "Us" conservstive "Law & Order" types support Police Departments identifying such employee issues and making efforts to remove such individuals.

 

However, there is no indication that any of the officers involved in these justified police shootings have an employmwnt record that indicates they are part of that 2% so your premise is not only wrong but misplaced on this thread. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your premise is not only wrong

 

The premise under attack is from Chief Richard Beary who is president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police who has for years been saying 98 percent of police do the right thing 98 percent of the time. This is the premise you deny, dismiss and say is misplaced.

 

First, the premise is from Chief Beary. Second, is it neither misplaced nor is it wrong. No one knows what is going to become of the police officers involved so no one can say that the police department involved is right or wrong, or might be some combination of each.

 

There are 17 local police departments currently under consent decrees by U.S. District Courts for a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. Another 16 had been under FBI supervision by order of U.S. District Courts consent decrees for racial discrimination until they had been shaped up by the feds. Ferguson Missouri is currently under such a situation and circumstance.

 

This instance may or may not come down to that, or the police officers involved may yet find themselves as recipients of the correctional services of the U.S. Justice Department and the United States courts.

 

Right whingers need to learn they are not the only moral upstanding and respectable members of the society or contributors to the economy. Conservative right whingers are entitled to no more than the rest of us are as the vast majority of American society. Which is to say conservative Republican self-righteousness posturing and indignation along with $20 bucks will get one a coffee of his choosing at at a Starbucks in New York. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Publicus
Text edit & revision

[ClutchClark]

30 minutes ago, Publicus said:

your premise is not only wrong

 

The premise under attack is from Chief Richard Beary who is president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police who has for years been saying 98 percent of police do the right thing 98 percent of the time. This is the premise you deny, dismiss and say is misplaced.

 

First, the premise is from Chief Beary. Second, is it neither misplaced nor is it wrong. No one knows what is going to become of the police officers involved so no one can say that the police department involved is right or wrong, or might be some combination of each.

 

There are 17 local police departments currently under consent decrees by U.S. District Courts for a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. Another 16 had been under FBI supervision by order of U.S. District Courts consent decrees for racial discrimination until they had been shaped up by the feds. Ferguson Missouri is currently under such a situation and circumstance.

 

This instance may or may not come down to that, or the police officers involved may yet find themselves as recipients of the correctional services of the U.S. Justice Department and the United States courts.

 

Right whingers need to learn they are not the only moral upstanding and respectable members of the society or contributors to the economy. Conservative right whingers are entitled to no more than the rest of us are as the vast majority of American society. Which is to say conservative Republican self-righteousness posturing and indignation along with $20 bucks will get one a coffee of his choosing at at a Starbucks in New York. 

 

Why do you continue to politicize this topic ?

 

Again, your argument is misplaced UNTIL you can tell me that the officers involved in this and other police shootings were officers facing disciplinary issues as described in the article you attached.

 

As I have already indicated, I agree with the CoP that there are a small percentage of officers who have HR issues just like one would expect at any Organization...but you are attempting to connect this minute group directly to these officer involved shootings without any justfication.

[ClutchClark]

12 hours ago, DM07 said:

...and you sound, like you enjoy the news of dead black folk!

 

I will answer your question: When you are killed by a person with "mental health" issues are you any less dead ?

Yep...you are dead!

Just like when a piano hits you, falling from the 5th floor!

None of which happened!

So...your point is?

You continue to suggest that this suspects mental illness should be taken into account before an officer has a right to defend himself against deadly force.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Publicus]

12 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Why do you continue to politicize this topic ?

 

Again, your argument is misplaced UNTIL you can tell me that the officers involved in this and other police shootings were officers facing disciplinary issues as described in the article you attached.

 

As I have already indicated, I agree with the CoP that there are a small percentage of officers who have HR issues just like one would expect at any Organization...but you are attempting to connect this minute group directly to these officer involved shootings without any justfication.

 

Comprehension problems again Clutch. Rooted in an entirely political approach to the issue of the national police crime wave against certain black Americans, specifically, those confined by society to ghetto neighborhoods or entire sections of cities.

 

My post said one cannot automatically or necessarily disassociate the officers or the department from violations of law. You are attempting to do exactly that. Again, you are saying they are necessarily a priori disassociated from violations of local, state or federal law. Your position is based on politics, politics, politics.

 

It is also necessary to again iterate that the right has no more entitlement of a safe and secure society right on down to the neighborhood and -- especially -- into one's home. Whether one is shot in the back in a park or in one's own living room is a matter of sensationalism but not of result. The right does not own any moral or social high ground or entitlement in these instances or in the racial conflicts that exist between certain police and certain black Americans in certain areas of the United States. 

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

Comprehension problems again Clutch. Rooted in an entirely political approach to the issue of the national police crime wave against certain black Americans, specifically, those confined by society to ghetto neighborhoods or entire sections of cities.

 

My post said one cannot automatically or necessarily disassociate the officers or the department from violations of law. You are attempting to do exactly that. Again, you are saying they are necessarily a priori disassociated from violations of local, state or federal law. Your position is based on politics, politics, politics.

 

It is also necessary to again iterate that the right has no more entitlement of a safe and secure society right on down to the neighborhood and -- especially -- into one's home. Whether one is shot in the back in a park or in one's own living room is a matter of sensationalism but not of result. The right does not own any moral or social high ground or entitlement in these instances or in the racial conflicts that exist between certain police and certain black Americans in certain areas of the United States. 

 

When you can drop your condescending disrespectful tone then I will converse with you. I remeber back when you were a decent sort but I have watched you melt down over the past year--it appears you are failing to adapt to Thailand and its making you a very unhappy camper.

 

Cheers