This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

I got it from what you posted because it is what you said. You just destroyed the argument for thousands upon thousands of brutality cases. Also, the police disagree with you.

---

the intent of using a taser is not to kill. but that doesn't mean it can't happen since it did.

if the intent of a taser and use of it by police was to kill then there would not have been a need to have taser since they have a gun that would do a better job. you failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

the intent of using a taser is not to kill. but that doesn't mean it can't happen since it did.

if the intent of a taser and use of it by police was to kill then there would not have been a need to have taser since they have a gun that would do a better job. you failed.

---

So a taser is not a deadly weapon? You are gonna need to pick a lane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

he was able to assault the police, so why couldn't he use that taser on someone else?

---

Did you see his calm demeanor when talking about getting home to his wife and 4 kids, even while taking the breathalizer? Are you thinking his being handcuffed spontaneously triggered a possible murder rampage?

He reacted to something when being handcuffed...something said, a realization they'd find something in his car, I don't know....but he was running AWAY from the situation..no reason to think TOWARDS any further altercations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

So a taser is not a deadly weapon? You are gonna need to pick a lane.

---

this isn't complicated. it's not intended for a deadly weapon. pay attention to that word intended. if it was intended to be used as a deadly weapon then it wouldn't be necessary since they already have something for that. a taser is not intended as a deadly weapon, but clearly it can result in death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Did you see his calm demeanor when talking about getting home to his wife and 4 kids, even while taking the breathalizer? Are you thinking his being handcuffed spontaneously triggered a possible murder rampage?

He reacted to something when being handcuffed...something said, a realization they'd find something in his car, I don't know....but he was running AWAY from the situation..no reason to think TOWARDS any further altercations.

---

I don't know what he or anyone would be thinking after attacking the police. sure he was calm before, and if he hadn't made a stupid decision the police wouldn't have acted how they did.

but once someone attacks the police and even runs away they could change their mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by statquo

Black trans lives matter? Aren't they just black lives?

---

Yes

But black trans get killed at an insane rate it’s scary as ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I don't know what he or anyone would be thinking after attacking the police. sure he was calm before, and if he hadn't made a stupid decision the police wouldn't have acted how they did.

but once someone attacks the police and even runs away they could change their mindset.

---

do you know that it was HIS stupid decision that triggered things? I mean, could you hear what the officers said just before he tried to get away? And he didn't attack them, they were trying to prevent him from getting away and the altercation occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

do you know that it was HIS stupid decision that triggered things? I mean, could you hear what the officers said just before he tried to get away? And he didn't attack them, they were trying to prevent him from getting away and the altercation occurred.

---

it wouldn't matter what they said. the police didn't have any actual physical move that would have caused Brooks to react. even if they called him the N word (which I haven't seen and don't agree with) that still wouldn't justify him assaulting the police.

Special apparently knows all kinds of things — until it is inconvenient for him to know things, at which point he bloviates about how we can’t know certain things (except the things he knows).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The20thK

I don't think that is what anyone wants. You cant name any policy, local, state or federal, that is explicitly racist, except Affirmative Action. So what laws or new policies are we to put into place unless they specifically help one race over another?

---

Holy **** what


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men

Holy **** what

---

Yeah, we talked about it. Unless it specifically states that it is targeting a certain race, a law simply can’t be racist in his mind.

What’s funny is, people who think like that can’t see how mind numbingly easy it would be to be racist against someone if so long as I did outright State I was being racist, I could do whatever I wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Again this shows your inability to understand what a fact is. The fact that 99% of police shootings the officer doesn’t get charged is a legitimate fact. But that does NOT mean that in those instances that the officer wasn’t charged was the correct decision or that they acted legitimately. You are assuming that the stat 99% of officers don’t get charged with a crime means that there in all those cases it was the correct decision. That is an assumption on your part. You haven’t seen the cases so you don’t actually know if them not facing charges is legit or not, you just assumed.

and it’s not about looking at one side of the equation, I’m posting cases in which the officers weren’t charged despite impropriety by the police because if even one of those stories is legitimate, it opens up the possibility there are mistakes in the 99% of cops who kill someone and don’t face charges. Essentially, it disproves you’re belief that all the cases in that 99% were adjudicated correctly.Even if we looked at all the other instances the media doesn’t cover where the officers were in the right, your belief is that 100% of those 99% of killings where the officer isn’t charged are correct, so any story that shows they aren’t disproves your point.

And yes, bringing up police unions role is not by itself partisan, but the way you did it is. You brought them up because you wanted to portray me as some liberal partisan hack who will oppose any action against a union. Your interest in the topic isn’t a legitimate attempt to try to solve an issue, because you believe all 99% of the cases were handled correctly. So if that is the case, why would you break up unions if they’re not protecting their own from charges as a result of a killing?

As for openness to considering all options, I absolutely think many of the police unions need to be broken up, dissolved or restricted. So your gotcha moment was yet another epic fail. I am very pro union but that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of realizing some unions are flawed, nor does it mean I believe unions can do no wrong. That would be a partisan take more akin to your views (as evidenced by your attempt to Portray the issue in a partisan manner). I also think there are bad teaching unions out there that need to be changed/broken up/etc. crazy right?!

But to answer your question, I don’t know the exact %, but I know it’s not 99%. The stories I posted and the general police misconduct in all other areas we are now seeing everywhere Coupled with the aforementioned blue wall of silence propensity to cover for the misdeeds of other officers and the flaws and infallibility of the justice system (especially when it comes to prosecuting police) tells me the number is flawed. So even if the number is still high like your guesses you mocked me because I believed it was anything other than the official number. Basically if I doubted that number by any amount, I was a SJW, white knight, etc.

So... do you still think that number is absolutely accurate? Did the officers behave correctly in all those cases I posted? Ready to admit your initial attack on my belief the number is flawed was an EPIC failure, and not the result of some SJW gut feeling but an actual knowledge and understanding of the totality of facts, of which you’ve already mentioned you were completely ignorant of beyond that single statistic I posted?

---

The only assumption I’m making is that most cops are just normal, non racist individuals who are simply trying to do a difficult job. That doesn’t mean all cops are innocent. Cops are human beings. We should expect anything more. As the saying goes.... innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand, you are basing you claims on your premise that cops are bad seeds. If you work backward from that premise, it’s easy to put doubts on any individual. As I said, if you want to disprove the 99% fact with any legitimacy, you must also post the vast amount of stories in which cops acted appropriately. Only posting anecdotal stories makes you seem disingenuous.

My thought process in posting about the police union is not to make this partisan. I could give a **** about partisan politics. We all see an issue with police blue wall and we see this with other unions as well. It’s time we admit unions are no longer necessary and create more harm than good. Besides creating an environment of “togetherness,” (and this may be a bit partisan) they also hurt the economy.

Obviously, cops make mistakes or flat out act illegally. That’s never going to change. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be punished or incarcerated. But I don’t hold police above any other profession. Doctors make mistakes as well and we don’t see the same outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The only assumption I’m making is that most cops are just normal, non racist individuals who are simply trying to do a difficult job. That doesn’t mean all cops are innocent. Cops are human beings. We should expect anything more. As the saying goes.... innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand, you are basing you claims on your premise that cops are bad seeds. If you work backward from that premise, it’s easy to put doubts on any individual. As I said, if you want to disprove the 99% fact with any legitimacy, you must also post the vast amount of stories in which cops acted appropriately. Only posting anecdotal stories makes you seem disingenuous.

My thought process in posting about the police union is not to make this partisan. I could give a **** about partisan politics. We all see an issue with police blue wall and we see this with other unions as well. It’s time we admit unions are no longer necessary and create more harm than good. Besides creating an environment of “togetherness,” (and this may be a bit partisan) they also hurt the economy.

Obviously, cops make mistakes or flat out act illegally. That’s never going to change. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be punished or incarcerated. But I don’t hold police above any other profession. Doctors make mistakes as well and we don’t see the same outrage .

---

First Bolded: wait, you ask me to post specifics on cases where a police officer killed someone but was t charged to prove the 99% number was incorrect, then when I do you call me disingenuous for doing so? :laugh2:

And no, if I want to prove the 99% number is incorrect, all I need to do is post instances where it’s incorrect. You only want me to post all the cases where it was correct to show that the majority of cases police handled it appropriately. But your claim was I was a SJW, White Knight for doubting the 99% number at all. Not that the majority are handled correctly, but if I thought the official % of cops who were charged was incorrect I was wrong. Now you’re trying to back track.

Do you still think the 99% is completely accurate, that all those cases were adjudicated correctly or not?

Second Bolded: See, this is what I mean about your being partisan. Now you’re trying to turn this into an argument about all unions instead of the unions that deal with this specific instance? For the record: no we shouldn’t outlaw all unions and no, they most certainly do not harm the economy. But I’m not going to get sucked into a partisan debate. If you want to talk about police unions in good faith here, feel free to do so. If you want to argue about the necessity for unions, make a thread about it.

Third Bolded: Shouldn’t we hold certain professions to a higher standard? I expect more out of my police officer than I do out of my waiter. And the reason you don’t see the same outrage is because not as many people have bad experiences with doctors as police. You seem to believe this anger at police is completely media based, but it’s a real sentiment shared by many based on personal experience. People are tired of police acting bad and getting away with it.

Which goes back to your original assertion: that I think cops are bad seeds. I don’t think most cops are bad seeds, I think we have a lot of systemic problems, from their tactics (like no knock warrants, stop and frisk, etc.), to their mindset (better them than me, shoot first to be safe than sorry, etc.), to their rules and training (shooting people in the back is Ok, immediately go for a weapon, no de-escalation techniques, etc.), to their lack of accountability (blue wall of silence, that most investigations into misconduct are done by the same department, that DAs are reluctant to prosecute cops because it strains their relationship, etc.), to their overall comportment (military style gear, grenades, body armor, tanks, etc.) all contribute to an atmosphere that makes police act more aggressive than they need to.

For instance, the cop that shoved the old man in Buffalo, he’s probably not a bad guy overall, you saw the genuine concern and fear he had when he saw what he’d done. But I think the entire culture of the police, and them being in a tough guy line with tactical gear, and having that tough guy, F you mentality, probably created a culture and atmosphere where shoving an old man seemed OK and normal. Look at how institutionalized that level of violence is in Buffalo that other police quit in protest of that officer facing consequences for that action. They are upset that anyone questioned whether that level of force was used on a situation where there were literally dozens of ways to handle it without that level of force. That the level of force used was not only considered OK, but it is the immediate reaction of the police, is a problem.

Or shooting someone in the back. Or breaking into a house without alerting anyone inside you’re police for a routine drug bust with a low probability of resistance. These procedures and techniques are contributing to the problems and creating hatred for police. And then when police quit or stand up for other police shoving, hitting or killing civilians when it probably could have been avoided only increases the anger, and shows how many police have fully bought into this culture of domination and aggression.

Despite all this you still don’t seem to think the system, the rules, the tactics, the laws, have ANYTHING to do with their behavior. It’s bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

it wouldn't matter what they said. the police didn't have any actual physical move that would have caused Brooks to react. even if they called him the N word (which I haven't seen and don't agree with) that still wouldn't justify him assaulting the police.

---

Does him stealing a taser and running AWAY justify him being shot in the back and killed by law enforcement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sick Of It All

Yes

But black trans get killed at an insane rate it’s scary as ****.

---

The knee jerk reaction to be annoyed at trans people is baffling to me. I can’t think of a less threatening group that infringes on the life of others less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk