Police shootings - Alton Sterling

[echo88 74]

We only see the cases where there are videos most of the time. Who knows what else is going on out there. Fact is this guy is on admin leave at home and the other guy is in the hospital. The guy in the hospital is not the criminal the police officer is. That's why people are pissed, there's no justice. I assume he will be tried and sentenced to a very small penalty, I could be wrong. But there is no reason he should be allowed to be at home right now. What if he runs or kills someone, we don't know if this cop is a danger to society.

 

Says who? Of course he will be tried and convicted. That video shows obvious dereliction of duty.

 

You're comparing circumstances of a civilian who is arrested under suspicion of murder to someone who kills in the course of their duties. The duties set forth by the county, city, state, etc. It's not the same. Cops who kill someone in the line of duty should never be immediately placed under arrest until an investigation determines that they broke the law. The public expects them to use deadly force in certain situations. A citizen who kills a person that has broken into their home isnt arrested immediately after the fact. Nor is a person who is a victim of a crime who uses deadly force to protect themselves. Correct? There is a reason for that.

 

As for the "who knows" aspect, do you really believe that officers are willing to go through the rigmarole of being suspended while having to endure an investigation (risking their career) just to kill some black people? Seriously. That is the belief of the BLM movement and it is absurd. That movement just harbors the notion that police shootings that end in death are swept under the rug and that it's a good ole boy network. It's insane.

Edited July 21, 2016 by echo88

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Says who? Of course he will be tried and convicted. That video shows obvious dereliction of duty.

 

You're comparing circumstances of a civilian who is arrested under suspicion of murder to someone who kills in the course of their duties. The duties set forth by the county, city, state, etc. It's not the same. Cops who kill someone in the line of duty should never be immediately placed under arrest until an investigation determines that they broke the law. The public expects them to use deadly force in certain situations. A citizen who kills a person that has broken into their home isnt arrested immediately after the fact. Or a person who is a victim of a crime who uses deadly force to protect themselves. Correct? There is a reason for that.

 

As for the "who knows" aspect, do you really believe that officers are willing to go through the rigmarole of being suspended while having to endure an investigation (risking their career) just to kill some black people? Seriously. That is the belief of the BLM movement and it is absurd. That movement just harbors the notion that police shootings that end in death are swept under the rug and that it's a good ole boy network. It's insane.

 

 

No that's not what I said at all to your last paragraph nice rant though. People that shoot an intruder and don't get arrested are on the right side of the law and are protecting themselves. They have more reason to not go to jail than this police officer who clearly shot someone for no reason. That's the difference. Furthermore, this is a trained professional, I would be more willing to accept a citizen shooting another citizen out of fear and regretted the decision than someone who is supposed to be trained. But we don't even know if this was an accident, I am making the assumption based on looking at people good intentions, especially those that are supposed to be protecting us.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Jim2Dokes

[echo88 74]

No that's not what I said at all to your last paragraph nice rant though. People that shoot an intruder and don't get arrested are on the right side of the law and are protecting themselves. They have more reason to not go to jail than this police officer who clearly shot someone for no reason. That's the difference. Furthermore, this is a trained professional, I would be more willing to accept a citizen shooting another citizen out of fear and regretted the decision than someone who is supposed to be trained. But we don't even know if this was an accident, I am making the assumption based on looking at people good intentions, especially those that are supposed to be protecting us.

 

And so my last paragraph stands. You are of the opinion that some officers shoot black people for recreation, despite the long and painful process that follows it? And that follows their career? Accident or not, that officer is going to jail just like the SC cop who shot the guy running away from him. They are clear violations of the law, but because they were committed in the line of duty, there must be an investigation before arresting an officer for something he did while working.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

And so my last paragraph stands. You are of the opinion that some officers shoot black people for recreation, despite the long and painful process that follows it? And that follows their career? Accident or not, that officer is going to jail just like the SC cop who shot the guy running away from him. They are clear violations of the law, but because they were committed in the line of duty, there must be an investigation before arresting an officer for something he did while working.

 

That's bs man stop putting words in my mouth and I don't believe that. The other cases where the people had guns I agree should be an investigation before the officer is placed under arrest, that is a diff situation. In this case, this officer needs to be placed under arrest, as you put it clear violations of the law.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Good point. Hmm now I am seeing 0 were convicted in 2015. Sorry the number is since 2005, 43 cops were sent to trials and 23 percent convicted. So now I see 0 convictions. Which is much worse if true.

 

But again, perhaps you could share the source of your information?

0 convictions out of 2 trials is much different than 0 convictions out of 43 trials. However, none of the rest of us has the information you have, so perhaps you could let us know how many trials actually took place in 2015, and perhaps you could provide a link to the article/study you are referencing.

[echo88 74]

That's bs man stop putting words in my mouth and I don't believe that. The other cases where the people had guns I agree should be an investigation before the officer is placed under arrest, that is a diff situation. In this case, this officer needs to be placed under arrest, as you put it clear violations of the law.

 

What are you talking about? You're saying they should watch the video and basically convict this guy/punish him before an investigation occurs? That doesn't happen when the government grants someone the authority to use a weapon in the course of his duties, bruh...

 

He's going to eventually get arrested and either lose his job or worse when this all shakes out, so relax.....

[echo88 74]

But again, perhaps you could share the source of your information?

0 convictions out of 2 trials is much different than 0 convictions out of 43 trials. However, none of the rest of us has the information you have, so perhaps you could let us know how many trials actually took place in 2015, and perhaps you could provide a link to the article/study you are referencing.

 

Probably mining a BLM website for that data....

[Jim2Dokes 3]

What are you talking about? You're saying they should watch the video and basically convict this guy/punish him before an investigation occurs? That doesn't happen when the government grants someone the authority to use a weapon in the course of his duties, bruh...

 

He's going to eventually get arrested and either lose his job or worse when this all shakes out, so relax.....

 

What are you talking about? I said arrested not convicted bruh.

[echo88 74]

What are you talking about? I said arrested not convicted bruh.

 

Replace "convict" with "arrest" and the point remains valid. You dont arrest someone for doing their job until you're sure. And a police chief watching that video doesn't do the trick.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Replace "convict" with "arrest" and the point remains valid. You dont arrest someone for doing their job until you're sure. And a police chief watching that video doesn't do the trick.

 

K but there are officers before that have been arrested and then placed on admin leave for sexually assaulting people, duis ect ect. But whatever you can continue to believe what you will. Don't bother responding tho, I'm done arguing as is always the case with you. In fact, calling me bruh was probably the last straw and explains a lot. Gonna go ahead and ignore everything you have to say from here out with that.

[echo88 74]

K but there are officers before that have been arrested and then placed on admin leave for sexually assaulting people, duis ect ect. But whatever you can continue to believe what you will. Don't bother responding tho, I'm done arguing as is always the case with you. In fact, calling me bruh was probably the last straw and explains a lot. Gonna go ahead and ignore everything you have to say from here out with that.

 

During the course of duty? Did it ever occur to you that females accused of a crime would try to claim sexual assault to divert attention from their arrest? Thank God for body cameras .

 

You believe what you will. The point that BLM ignores the fact that convicted criminals are treated in accordance with their history is undisputed. It's fair and it will never change.

[jessemoore97 1,287]

K but there are officers before that have been arrested and then placed on admin leave for sexually assaulting people, duis ect ect. But whatever you can continue to believe what you will. Don't bother responding tho, I'm done arguing as is always the case with you. In fact, calling me bruh was probably the last straw and explains a lot. Gonna go ahead and ignore everything you have to say from here out with that.

 

If I recall, and the investigation will have to verify this, the officers were called by a citizen for a subject in the street with a gun. Even before the recent police shootings, I can tell you these are very tense calls. Remember this is a similar scenario that occurred right before the Baton Rouge officers were ambushed and following Dallas. Officers have had this at the forefront of their minds going to every call lately. I'm not saying the officer was justified in any way or not, just offering some context and perspective. The investigation into officer shooting has to be thorough for all involved.

 

One of the reasons Mosby's case against the Baltimore officers was/is so bad is because she overcharged and the investigation was not complete when she filed the charges because emotion and political pressure took over.

[echo88 74]

If I recall, and the investigation will have to verify this, the officers were called by a citizen for a subject in the street with a gun. Even before the recent police shootings, I can tell you these are very tense calls. Remember this is a similar scenario that occurred right before the Baton Rouge officers were ambushed and following Dallas. Officers have had this at the forefront of their minds going to every call lately. I'm not saying the officer was justified in any way or not, just offering some context and perspective. The investigation into officer shooting has to be thorough for all involved.

 

One of the reasons Mosby's case against the Baltimore officers was/is so bad is because she overcharged and the investigation was not complete when she filed the charges because emotion and political pressure took over.

 

Well according to Hillary Dokes, he shouldve been summarily placed in handcuffs and offered as a sacrifice to the BLM terrorist group....

[echo88 74]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz

 

So here is the story and it is riddled with questionable content. The office who shot Kinsey says he was aiming for the autistic man after being told he was loading a weapon.

 

Here is the problem---the officer was also a member of the SWAT team. The marksmanship qualifications for SWAT simply would not permit an officer who fires from 50 yards away with an assault rifle to hit the wrong target. And especially would not permit him to miss twice beforehand. You hand me an AR and I will hit my intended target 10/10 times from that distance. Hell, I would hit my target 10/10 times with a pistol.

 

Clear negligence on the officer's behalf and he should be suspended/demoted/fired for it. In my opinion, this instance still has nothing to do with racism.

[jessemoore97 1,287]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz

 

So here is the story and it is riddled with questionable content. The office who shot Kinsey says he was aiming for the autistic man after being told he was loading a weapon.

 

Here is the problem---the officer was also a member of the SWAT team. The marksmanship qualifications for SWAT simply would not permit an officer who fires from 50 yards away with an assault rifle to hit the wrong target. And especially would not permit him to miss twice beforehand. You hand me an AR and I will hit my intended target 10/10 times from that distance. Hell, I would hit my target 10/10 times with a pistol.

 

Clear negligence on the officer's behalf and he should be suspended/demoted/fired for it. In my opinion, this instance still has nothing to do with racism.

 

Agreed on the marksmanship from that distance with a rifle. Still wondering if the guy caught a ricochet in the leg or not.

[PursuitAce 0]

Ahhh, but maybe he was trying to shoot the (gun) car out of the hand of the autistic man. In so doing he missed and hit the other individual. I know what you're thinking though. If the autistic man were actually darker in color, the cop would have just fired center of mass. So there you have it. Racism again is all over this story. Another case closed on racist Merica.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Agreed on the marksmanship from that distance with a rifle. Still wondering if the guy caught a ricochet in the leg or not.

 

At this point whatever the situation was you would make an excuse. This is why people have no trust in the process. Look at you digging for every angle to justify the police officers actions. According to the person that got shot, he explained the situation to the police officer that the other guy had a toy gun. If the cop would have shot the DD man he should still be charged if that is the case. i don't see any evidence this was racially motivated however I do see a police officer that should be arrested and charged with attempted murder based on the current evidence that is available. There is no reason not to trust the victims statements.

“All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Charles Kinsey, the man lying on his back, yells at two police officers standing behind telephone poles just a few dozen feet away on Northeast 14th Avenue. “That’s all it is. There is no need for guns.”

Not to mention the second officer got placed on admin leave for making conflicting statements, so it seemed they can't even get their story straight.

Okay so next excuse they didn't hear him. Whatever. But then they proceeded to place both victims in handcuffs and the man shot had to wait 20 mins while potentially bleeding to death for ems. The autistic adult has enough issues now is going to have to try to manage and deal with the trauma of that experience.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Jim2Dokes

[jessemoore97 1,287]

At this point whatever the situation was you would make an excuse. This is why people have no trust in the process. Look at you digging for every angle to justify the police officers actions. According to the person that got shot, he explained the situation to the police officer that the other guy had a toy gun. If the cop would have shot the DD man he should still be charged if that is the case. i don't see any evidence this was racially motivated however I do see a police officer that should be arrested and charged with attempted murder based on the current evidence that is available. There is no reason not to trust the victims statements.

“All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Charles Kinsey, the man lying on his back, yells at two police officers standing behind telephone poles just a few dozen feet away on Northeast 14th Avenue. “That’s all it is. There is no need for guns.”

Not to mention the second officer got placed on admin leave for making conflicting statements, so it seemed they can't even get their story straight.

Okay so next excuse they didn't hear him. Whatever. But then they proceeded to place both victims in handcuffs and the man shot had to wait 20 mins while potentially bleeding to death for ems. The autistic adult has enough issues now is going to have to try to manage and deal with the trauma of that experience.

 

I don't recall digging for any angle. I said in my earlier post about this OIS, that it was reported by at least one news outlet, as a man with a gun in the street. I also said that needed to be confirmed with the investigation. I also framed it with the context that this was the exact type of call the BRPD officers responded to and were ambushed. Therefore I can understand the level of anxiety the officers were dealing with going into this call, just like any weapons call, with the Baton Rouge incident fresh in their mind.

 

I haven't excused anything about this case because I don't know everything that happened with it. It has zero effect on me personally and how I do my job. Eighteen years and still haven't shot or shot at a single person, and pray each and every day that I'll never have to. If the officer f'ed up then he'll at the very least lose his job, get sued, and possibly get charged with something. Even if he is charged he still has the right to due process through the court of law. He may be found guilty. He may not, and the boo birds come out and say they don't trust the process. Well guess what it's not perfect, as I've seen way more than my share of criminals get found not guilty too.

 

I also alluded to the Baltimore officer's getting thrown under the bus to "apease" the masses and because an overzealous DA wanted to make a name for herself. Our rights guarantee the minority protection of their rights from the majority. The angry voice of public opinion fed by inaccurate media accounts is not the way we do things in this country. Mob rule does not rule the day.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I don't recall digging for any angle. I said in my earlier post about this OIS, that it was reported by at least one news outlet, as a man with a gun in the street. I also said that needed to be confirmed with the investigation. I also framed it with the context that this was the exact type of call the BRPD officers responded to and were ambushed. Therefore I can understand the level of anxiety the officers were dealing with going into this call, just like any weapons call, with the Baton Rouge incident fresh in their mind.

 

I haven't excused anything about this case because I don't know everything that happened with it. It has zero effect on me personally and how I do my job. Eighteen years and still haven't shot or shot at a single person, and pray each and every day that I'll never have to. If the officer f'ed up then he'll at the very least lose his job, get sued, and possibly get charged with something. Even if he is charged he still has the right to due process through the court of law. He may be found guilty. He may not, and the boo birds come out and say they don't trust the process. Well guess what it's not perfect, as I've seen way more than my share of criminals get found not guilty too.

 

I also alluded to the Baltimore officer's getting thrown under the bus to "apease" the masses and because an overzealous DA wanted to make a name for herself. Our rights guarantee the minority protection of their rights from the majority. The angry voice of public opinion fed by inaccurate media accounts is not the way we do things in this country. Mob rule does not rule the day.

 

First off you stated the excuse of the anxiety related to the Dallas shooting. Second, you Illuded to the excuse of it must have been a ricochet, related to the union excuse that the officer was trying to save the victim from the DD adult. There is more evidence in the case at this point to at least create an arrest. that has not happened. That is the point. you keep brining up the the Baltimore case, I have never brought that up and it is separate.

[Soko 128]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bullet-that-struck-caregiver-was-meant-to-protect-him-police-union-president-says/ar-BBuCQMF?li=BBnb7Kz

 

So here is the story and it is riddled with questionable content. The office who shot Kinsey says he was aiming for the autistic man after being told he was loading a weapon.

 

Here is the problem---the officer was also a member of the SWAT team. The marksmanship qualifications for SWAT simply would not permit an officer who fires from 50 yards away with an assault rifle to hit the wrong target. And especially would not permit him to miss twice beforehand. You hand me an AR and I will hit my intended target 10/10 times from that distance. Hell, I would hit my target 10/10 times with a pistol.

 

Clear negligence on the officer's behalf and he should be suspended/demoted/fired for it. In my opinion, this instance still has nothing to do with racism.

 

And herein lies America's obsession with guns. Are these guys blind? They have a clearly mentally young man surrounded and he's playing with toy truck. Who the hell relays to the cops he is loading a gun?

 

I personally think the racism angle is overblown and the issue with police shootings is an issue with trigger happy police. There are a lot of dead white guys who have been on the wrong end of incompetent cops as well. The fact they couldn't deal with this situation without firing a gun is thoroughly depressing.