Does he have the right to shoot? Because he's awaiting trial right now for doing so.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Lol. You realize you're a joke, right? It's like someone took all of mike's dumbassery, stripped away the testosterone, and came up with you. A soaking wet sack of vagina dipped in stupid.

Coming from somebody who comes across in the forums like he just fell out of the clown car,

<sarcasm>
    that really hurts
</sarcasm>.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/17/2014 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Mike, I'd argue that wearing a short skirt at a bar, and talking to a man who was interested in her is essentially the same thing. She could have avoided the possibility of being raped by wearing jeans, or by refusing to talk to the man who was interested in her. Going to a bar and doing this means there's an increased chance you're raped, in the same way that reaching in a car when a cop asks for your license, when outside the car, could mean you're getting shot by a cop, even when a reasonable person could see you're simply following the cop's orders. I'd argue that it's criminal to do that, although 20 years in prison seems very harsh. 

I'd argue that dressing in an attractive way and speaking to the opposite sex in a bar(where almost everyone is trying to look good and interact with the opposite sex) is nothing like making your body/hands no longer visible when a cop detains you. 

The biggest difference is that one guy has the right to shoot you if he feels threatened while the other guy has no right to rape you if he feels aroused.

It's silly to compare the two.    But you've done it for a half dozen pages.

I'd argue it's crazy to think the cop had a right to feel threatened in this situation.  Having a gun is a big deal, shooting someone in this situation is extreme. This guy easily could have died if he shot him somewhere else, and it would have been the cop's fault.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2014 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Lol. You realize you're a joke, right? It's like someone took all of mike's dumbassery, stripped away the testosterone, and came up with you. A soaking wet sack of vagina dipped in stupid.

Coming from somebody who comes across in the forums like he just fell out of the clown car,

<sarcasm>
    that really hurts
</sarcasm>.

Says the guy who argued about an issue for several pages (where he gave his opinion multiple times) who suddenly came down with a case of the fraidy cats.

You dropped your red nose.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/17/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/17/2014 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Mike, I'd argue that wearing a short skirt at a bar, and talking to a man who was interested in her is essentially the same thing. She could have avoided the possibility of being raped by wearing jeans, or by refusing to talk to the man who was interested in her. Going to a bar and doing this means there's an increased chance you're raped, in the same way that reaching in a car when a cop asks for your license, when outside the car, could mean you're getting shot by a cop, even when a reasonable person could see you're simply following the cop's orders. I'd argue that it's criminal to do that, although 20 years in prison seems very harsh. 

I'd argue that dressing in an attractive way and speaking to the opposite sex in a bar(where almost everyone is trying to look good and interact with the opposite sex) is nothing like making your body/hands no longer visible when a cop detains you. 

The biggest difference is that one guy has the right to shoot you if he feels threatened while the other guy has no right to rape you if he feels aroused.

It's silly to compare the two.    But you've done it for a half dozen pages.

I'd argue it's crazy to think the cop had a right to feel threatened in this situation.  Having a gun is a big deal, shooting someone in this situation is extreme. This guy easily could have died if he shot him somewhere else, and it would have been the cop's fault.

Yes.   A man suddenly reaching into his car when being questioned by a cop never turns out bad for the cop.    He's a ****** cop.   I give you that.   Not a criminal.

Again, when he's not convicted, will you return and say "No crime was committed"?

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2014 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Lol. You realize you're a joke, right? It's like someone took all of mike's dumbassery, stripped away the testosterone, and came up with you. A soaking wet sack of vagina dipped in stupid.

Coming from somebody who comes across in the forums like he just fell out of the clown car,

<sarcasm>
    that really hurts
</sarcasm>.

Says the guy who argued about an issue for several pages (where he gave his opinion multiple times) who suddenly came down with a case of the fraidy cats.

You dropped your red nose.

What opinion did I offer multiple times?

I'll probably disagree with the decision that "no crime was committed" - you can't just shoot someone in this situation; shooting people is dangerous, it can lead to death. This man did not deserve to get shot. A reasonable cop, if he felt threatened, realizes what is happening and asks him (loudly, is fine, like he did), "hands up, out of the car" without firing his weapon. Run around the side to get a better view. When you're holding a gun, firing it could end someone's life. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/17/2014 3:44:00 PM (view original):
I'll probably disagree with the decision that "no crime was committed" - you can't just shoot someone in this situation; shooting people is dangerous, it can lead to death. This man did not deserve to get shot. A reasonable cop, if he felt threatened, realizes what is happening and asks him (loudly, is fine, like he did), "hands up, out of the car" without firing his weapon. Run around the side to get a better view. When you're holding a gun, firing it could end someone's life. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

He was not a reasonable cop.   He was a ****** cop.   He was fired for being a ****** cop.   There are more like him.   I'll do my best to not get shot by them by keeping my hands/body in plain sight if I'm detained again.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/16/2014 5:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2014 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/16/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):
And ****, he just said "show me your license," so he went to do that. Maybe the cop should have moved quickly towards him to see what he was doing, maybe he could yell "come back, hands up", something different.  Again, he wasn't a threat, there was no reason to shoot him. Thinking he was was very wrong, and shooting him was criminal, in my opinion.

I'm not a fan of cops shooting people.   

1.  There is the law
2.  There is the right way
3.  There is what you need to do

The law dictates that the cop can stop you and demand your license.
The right way is to sit your *** in your car with your hands on the wheel.  Not doing this is a bad idea.
What you need to do is make sure the cop is fully cognizant of what you're doing.


I assume you have crosswalks where the pedestrian has the right of way.    When you approach them do you just walk across or do you look before you cross?   If you look and a car is not stopping, do you walk on anyway?   You are responsible for your safety.   If you're in a situation where it's threatened, you have to do what you need to do to protect it. 

I can't believe you're defending the fired/on trial for charges that could result in 20 years of prison cop in this case. Jones was already out of the car when the cop pulled up.

The cop asked him to get his license.
He reached for his license.
The cop shot him.
Cop gets fired and arrested, charged with felony assault and battery.

Seems like this is the one absolutely clear case we've discussed.

"He reached for his license"

To be fair, he didn't just calmly turn around and reach into his vehicle.  He turned quickly, and went quickly into his vehicle.  Sudden movements are a bad idea when confronted with an armed law enforcement officer.

Did his actions warrant being shot?  Probably not.  Could he have used a little better judgement in how he responded to the cop's request?  Probably so.

There's one common theme in all of these cases that have been discussed in these forums over the past couple of months.  People make poor decisions when faced with an armed law enforcement officer, and they get shot or tased.  You tend to focus on "they got shot".  I tend to focus on "poor decisions.

If better decisions are made by the victims, they don't become victims.
 

This looks like an opinion.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2014 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2014 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Sudden movement into his vehicle.

The cop asked him for his license. He reached into the car to get it.

Instead of a binary, lets assign blame on a percentage scale. Let's agree that Jones could have reached into the vehicle slower. How much of the blame does he deserve for that?

I say 5%.

The cop gets the remaining 95% of the blame for shooting him and probably deserves to go to prison.

I'm not giving the cop a free pass on this one.  I already said that the shooting was likely not justified.

But I'd say that Jones gets more than 5% of the blame.  If he was a little smarter in the way he responded to the cop's request, i.e. "no sudden movements", then the likelihood of his getting shot decreases significantly.

This also looks like an opinion.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2014 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/16/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/16/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
How about this guy?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/

 

Yea, that's criminal.

IMO, the police in the Rice killing were justified because they believed Rice had a gun, and was aiming it at people. They believed him to be dangerous.

Criminal?   Not so much.    He was fired for being incompetent.  

Nonetheless, when dealing with cops, you have to let them know what you're doing while you're doing it if you'll be out of their view.   Cops don't like not being able to see what you're doing.

You're right. I lumped you in with Mike, tec. Good to know you think the cop committed a crime.

I said that the shooting was "likely not justified".

It's up to the South Carolina legal system to determine whether or not a crime was committed by the officer.

Echoing your previous opinion.

Apparently, you are expert enough on police procedure to have an opinion on whether or not a shooting is justifiable, but not expert enough to have an opinion on whether or not that same shooting is a crime.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2014 3:58:00 PM (view original):
Apparently, you are expert enough on police procedure to have an opinion on whether or not a shooting is justifiable, but not expert enough to have an opinion on whether or not that same shooting is a crime.

BL got you here tec.

Although any opinion rendered by any of us is not an expert opinion. That's why when the jury decides not to indict its stupid to get mad since we don't have all the facts, and they do. At some point you have to trust that the 2/3rds majority of 23 adults on the jury (as in the garner case) that have all the facts can make a just decision. I bring it back to the McDonalds lady that sued and won $2 million for spilling hot coffee on herself. Initially we all laugh and ridicule this lady like 'how the **** does she not know its hot".... Then you google pictures of the burns and the tune changes to "oh **** the coffee was so hot it burnt straight through to her bone? No wonder she won the lawsuit"

Saw that yesterday.  Surprised it took someone this long to post it.

40+ witnesses.   One is bound to be a nutcase.   And I guarantee more than 1 has made/thought racist things.