Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As for the posters who repeatedly assert that though 90% of blacks are decent it is the 10% criminal element among blacks that warrants the police's fear/distrust resulting in the prevalence for the use of unnecessary force...uh, the same ratio can be applied to law enforcement.
90% of cops are decent, yes, but it is the 10% that have racial biases that lead them to predominantly target blacks or primarily use unnecessary deadly force on blacks that instigates the public's fear/distrust of cops.

You really can't read, can you?

I can read quite well and I can see also. The citizens of Charlotte saw in September 2013 a former FAMU football player Jonathan Ferrell crashed his vehicle in a suburban area of Charlotte, North Carolina and went seeking help. After knocking on the door of a nearby house and the homeowner panicked and called the police. Charlotte-Mecklenberg officers said the 24-year-old advanced towards them when they arrived on the scene — that’s when one officer fired a stun gun and Officer Randall Kerrick followed up, unloaded his firearm and shot the unarmed young man 10 times. Ferrell was pronounced dead and Kerrick charged with voluntary manslaughter. In January 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict Kerrick, citing insufficient evidence to bring a case against the officer.

Does this incident sound like that of Michel Brown?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was a man with such a severe traumatic brain injury that he could not comply with simple instructions doing driving a car and open carrying a weapon?

Has the TBI been proven, through medical records, not just the word of his family?

Not only that, but the NYT reported that he worked as a security guard at a mall. Why would someone with an ex-felon with a brain injury have that type of job?

He is an ex-felon? Then his open carry wasn't legal either.

Yes. The media isn't reporting it, but he did prison time for assault with a deadly weapon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. The title and of the thread the OP's original post indicate that this a thread about the city of Charlotte and the recent unrest surrounding an officer involved shooting which means that the attitudes of citizens about the police as well as cumulative instances of officer involved shootings are not only warranted but very relevant to the discussion. People aren't up in arms because of crime they're up in arms because from their experience and observations police are using the excuse of crime to justify unnecessary use of force and even murder. If you don't want to welcome insights about both sides of the story then you're not adding anything to the discussion but deflection.

so was the charlotte incident an unnecessary use or force and even murder? do we know yet? or did they begin protesting (and some rioting) about police misconduct before we knew whether or not it was? protesters were seen with signs that said "IT WAS A BOOK"..those protesters clearly felt this was a case of police misconduct. now we know there was no book recovered from the scene, and the evidence does not point to police misconduct.

Crickets

This is Michael Brown all over again.

Everyone got all upset over that "sweet kid's" death when in reality he was a violent criminal who reached into a police car for an officer's gun. A lie started the whole "hands up don't shoot" thing yet protesters still use it. So I'm sure we'll be seeing "IT WAS A BOOK" in many protests to come.

I've made several valid points and brought up several relevant perspectives in the hopes of furthering discussion but to no avail so I'm out too.

But before I go let me say this...

Yes rioting and looting and destroying property does immeasurable damage to communities, but so does falsifying accounts and arrests and planting evidence and trumping charges and profiling citizens.

Communities are just as damaged when innocent people are arrested and jailed and in extreme cases killed. Communities are just as damaged when police perpetuate toxic environments and relationships with the communities they serve by undervaluing the concerns of law-abiding citizens who are in the majority and over-emphasizing their focus on the criminality of a much smaller segment.

Not a perfect analogy but consider...
If you have a classroom of 30 kids and 28 of them have their hands raised in response to a question the teacher presented but two students are giggling in the back is it important to stop them from disrupting the rest of the class, yes! But it shouldn't shift the teacher's entire focus away from those other 28 students who aren't acting up. The teacher still has a duty as defined by their profession to dedicate themselves towards the majority who need that teacher's instruction.

Again, not a perfect analogy but you get the point. You have an overwhelming segment of citizens who aren't in jail or under suspicion of any crime expressing their concerns about police as it relates to racial profiling, misuse of force, and police misconduct but those concerns are by and large ignored in favor of focusing on ramping up police sweeps on citizens and pulling over motorists who "look" suspicious and escalating conflicts with citizens if they fail to conform immediately - the very opposite actions of what the majority is calling for an end to.

As the once despised but now revered Dr. King once said, "A riot is the language of the unheard."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree. The title and of the thread the OP's original post indicate that this a thread about the city of Charlotte and the recent unrest surrounding an officer involved shooting which means that the attitudes of citizens about the police as well as cumulative instances of officer involved shootings are not only warranted but very relevant to the discussion. People aren't up in arms because of crime they're up in arms because from their experience and observations police are using the excuse of crime to justify unnecessary use of force and even murder. If you don't want to welcome insights about both sides of the story then you're not adding anything to the discussion but deflection.

so was the charlotte incident an unnecessary use or force and even murder? do we know yet? or did they begin protesting (and some rioting) about police misconduct before we knew whether or not it was? protesters were seen with signs that said "IT WAS A BOOK"..those protesters clearly felt this was a case of police misconduct. now we know there was no book recovered from the scene, and the evidence does not point to police misconduct.

Crickets

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was a man with such a severe traumatic brain injury that he could not comply with simple instructions doing driving a car and open carrying a weapon?

Has the TBI been proven, through medical records, not just the word of his family?

Not only that, but the NYT reported that he worked as a security guard at a mall. Why would someone with an ex-felon with a brain injury have that type of job?

He is an ex-felon? Then his open carry wasn't legal either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The hatred displayed by some of you who are bending over backwards to blame the police, and accuse them of planting evidence, is quite sad.

First, we have a man who defiantly pulls up in front of police and rolls a marihuana cigarette. Illegal, and stupid.
Second, the police are dealing with an ex-felon who was sent to prison for assault with a deadly weapon, and who appears to be holding a gun in his hand, and near a school.
Third, they yell at him to drop the gun, and he refuses to comply.
Fourth, they keep yelling to drop the gun, and he continues to defy police commands.
Fifth, they yell again to drop the weapon, and he still refuses.
Sixth, his wife is yelling "Keith, don't do it"! What was it that he was doing that had his wife so desperate for him to stop?

And yet, with all this, it's automatically the "racist" black cop's fault.

Yup. How is it "racist" when they're both the SAME race???

I hate stupid so much it makes my stomach hurt.
Yes you can be racist against your own racial group, ethnic group.
Oh my God what world, what schools did you people attend that you don't understand this????

The key is that black people must always be viewed as victims of society. If sometimes other black people must be vilified as racists in order to do this, then so be it.

Maybe it had nothing to do with race? Hmmmmm? A guy brandishing a gun refuses to drop it when ordered to by several cops, who are yelling in desperation for him to do so? His wife screaming at him "don't do it?" And he has a history of assault with a deadly weapon for which he did time? And he's near a school where kids are just about ready to get out? But no.....that black cop is a racist!

And, maybe race is entered into the equation when it shouldn't be.

This is what I don't understand. Why is no one willing to concede that in this case Scott was in the wrong? Doing so does not negate the BLM movement or the fact that in some cases police have unjustly shot someone.

But this case? Come on you have to do some serious mental gymnastics and blaming to come tot he conclusion that it was the fault of the police and not Scott.

Anonymous wrote:What was a man with such a severe traumatic brain injury that he could not comply with simple instructions doing driving a car and open carrying a weapon?

Has the TBI been proven, through medical records, not just the word of his family?

Not only that, but the NYT reported that he worked as a security guard at a mall. Why would someone with an ex-felon with a brain injury have that type of job?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The hatred displayed by some of you who are bending over backwards to blame the police, and accuse them of planting evidence, is quite sad.

First, we have a man who defiantly pulls up in front of police and rolls a marihuana cigarette. Illegal, and stupid.
Second, the police are dealing with an ex-felon who was sent to prison for assault with a deadly weapon, and who appears to be holding a gun in his hand, and near a school.
Third, they yell at him to drop the gun, and he refuses to comply.
Fourth, they keep yelling to drop the gun, and he continues to defy police commands.
Fifth, they yell again to drop the weapon, and he still refuses.
Sixth, his wife is yelling "Keith, don't do it"! What was it that he was doing that had his wife so desperate for him to stop?

And yet, with all this, it's automatically the "racist" black cop's fault.

Yup. How is it "racist" when they're both the SAME race???

I hate stupid so much it makes my stomach hurt.
Yes you can be racist against your own racial group, ethnic group.
Oh my God what world, what schools did you people attend that you don't understand this????

The key is that black people must always be viewed as victims of society. If sometimes other black people must be vilified as racists in order to do this, then so be it.

Truth.

Also that statement makes me sad.

What was a man with such a severe traumatic brain injury that he could not comply with simple instructions doing driving a car and open carrying a weapon?

Has the TBI been proven, through medical records, not just the word of his family?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if any of the people ITT are equally as upset about the death of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City. An unarmed white man shot and killed by a hispanic officer who was cleared of all wrong doing.

Personally I feel Officer Cruz should have been cleared but this shooting does fall under all the same criteria that enrages people in the BLM movement.

There is bodycam footage out there (warning - it is extremely graphic). Taylor was asked to stop walking away, he kept walking away and touching his waistband and pockets. When he turned to come back towards the officers he reaches in his waistband and so Officer Cruz shot him twice in the chest.

After cuffing him and patting him down you can hear the frustration in Cruz's voice as he repeatedly asks "Come on man what were you reaching for!?" while administering first aid and calling for medical assistance.

Now while Taylor had no weapon in his waistband or pockets should Cruz have been a mind reader? Should he have only drawn his tazer taking a chance Taylor wouldn't pull out a gun? Should he have shot him in the knee again hoping Taylor didn't have a gun in his waistband? Seriously what was the de-escalation that should have happened?

If Taylor had stopped, put his hands up and allowed officers to approach him and check for weapons he would still be alive. Who was really at fault here?

The vast majority of these cases - there are some exceptions - would have turned out differently if the civilian just obeyed police commands. Where is this defiance of authority getting them? What is so hard about doing what the cop tells you to do?

Especially if you claim to be so distrustful and afraid of cops. If you are afraid of them do you think disobeying their orders and reaching in your car/pockets/whatever is a good idea?

^ meant to say immediate threat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had a gun in a location whew kids bus comes and he was smoking pot. Of course police are concerned. He got out of car with gun. He should have dropped the gun. Also wife shouldn't let him go sit in a car and get stoned. Someone must have reported him. It's a side street. Too bad though they couldn't have just shot him in the leg to disable him. I certainly don't want anyone to die.

What about the TBI - or traumatic brain injury? any more news on that?

I agree - shoot to disable, not to kill. But I'm no cop and in s a life-threatening situation, it's hard to know exactly how anyone would react.

Shoot to disable so they can pull their weapon and kill you?

+1. and once they shoot the police officer(s), who is there to stop them from then going and shooting innocent bystanders? that is why it is shoot to kill/stop the imminent threat.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if any of the people ITT are equally as upset about the death of Dillon Taylor in Salt Lake City. An unarmed white man shot and killed by a hispanic officer who was cleared of all wrong doing.

Personally I feel Officer Cruz should have been cleared but this shooting does fall under all the same criteria that enrages people in the BLM movement.

There is bodycam footage out there (warning - it is extremely graphic). Taylor was asked to stop walking away, he kept walking away and touching his waistband and pockets. When he turned to come back towards the officers he reaches in his waistband and so Officer Cruz shot him twice in the chest.

After cuffing him and patting him down you can hear the frustration in Cruz's voice as he repeatedly asks "Come on man what were you reaching for!?" while administering first aid and calling for medical assistance.

Now while Taylor had no weapon in his waistband or pockets should Cruz have been a mind reader? Should he have only drawn his tazer taking a chance Taylor wouldn't pull out a gun? Should he have shot him in the knee again hoping Taylor didn't have a gun in his waistband? Seriously what was the de-escalation that should have happened?

If Taylor had stopped, put his hands up and allowed officers to approach him and check for weapons he would still be alive. Who was really at fault here?

The vast majority of these cases - there are some exceptions - would have turned out differently if the civilian just obeyed police commands. Where is this defiance of authority getting them? What is so hard about doing what the cop tells you to do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had a gun in a location whew kids bus comes and he was smoking pot. Of course police are concerned. He got out of car with gun. He should have dropped the gun. Also wife shouldn't let him go sit in a car and get stoned. Someone must have reported him. It's a side street. Too bad though they couldn't have just shot him in the leg to disable him. I certainly don't want anyone to die.

What about the TBI - or traumatic brain injury? any more news on that?

I agree - shoot to disable, not to kill. But I'm no cop and in s a life-threatening situation, it's hard to know exactly how anyone would react.

Shoot to disable so they can pull their weapon and kill you?