Should Cops Be Allowed to Kill for Throwing Stones?

[blacken700]

Maybe, but first you need to cop to your mis-representation of facts. 

they had justification in shooting him and you say they didn't, pretty simple

[Dos Equis]

Rehabilitation has been a dismal failure. It isn't the answer. Neither is education, because the vast majority of violent criminals, are too stupid to be practically educated. Homosexuals and other mentally disabled people should be put in institutions, but violent criminals should be killed just for drill, because they can't be cured, regardless of what conservative "do gooders" and liberal "bleeding hearts," erroneously believe.

I agree rehabilitation is often a failure.  I disagree that education is not the answer.  Not a whole lot of college educated violent criminals out there.  If we reach them early enough, education can absolutely make a tremendous difference with the course of someone's life.  But most of that starts at home with good parenting. 

You have some Radical Islamic-like views about homosexuality and mentally disabled people.  Sounds like Sharia law is right up your alley. 

[OzmO]

they had justification in shooting him and you say they didn't, pretty simple

 

I am not going to back and quote your mistakes.  I pointed them out right after you made them.    If you can't cop to them, go back to ad-hom nd ridicule combined with meme's  its seems that's all you are good at.

[blacken700]

I am not going to back and quote your mistakes.  I pointed them out right after you made them.    If you can't cop to them, go back to ad-hom nd ridicule combined with meme's  its seems that's all you are good at.

brhahaha just say you don't want to bet because you know you'll wrong, again very simple bet but I guess your not willing to take it,that's okk

[Erik C]

I agree rehabilitation is often a failure.  I disagree that education is not the answer.  Not a whole lot of college educated violent criminals out there.  If we reach them early enough, education can absolutely make a tremendous difference with the course of someone's life.  But most of that starts at home with good parenting.  

You have some Radical Islamic-like views about homosexuality and mentally disabled people.  Sounds like Sharia law is right up your alley.  

First you wrongly compared me to the Nazis, saying what I want, is what the Nazis did. When in fact, I want violent criminals killed off by any means possible, while the Nazis didn't kill off the violent criminals, they recruited them into the Nazi Party (as the Democrats in the USA are doing today). Now you are comparing me, wrongly, to islamic scum, when I'm really a pragmatic Atheist, who can deal with the reality, that a significant percentage of the world population are violent subhuman criminals, and only one thing can cure that, something you are to weak to admit will work beautifully, that is killing off the violent criminal population, as soon as possible.

[OzmO]

brhahaha just say you don't want to bet because you know you'll wrong, again very simple bet but I guess your not willing to take it,that's okk

NO, I'm open to it.  But i am not going to bet with a guy who can't cop to his own BS.  No point.

[blacken700]

NO, I open to it.  But i am not going to bet with a guy who can't cop to his own BS.  No point.

yeaaaaaah ooookkkkk  well when the cops go back to work i'll make sure to let you know you were wrong

[OzmO]

yeaaaaaah ooookkkkk  well when the cops go back to work i'll make sure to let you know you were wrong

 

[Dos Equis]

First you wrongly compared be to the Nazis, saying what I want, is what the Nazis did. When in fact I want violent criminals killed off by any means possible, while the Nazis didn't kill off the violent criminals, they recruited them into the Nazi Party (as the Democrats in the USA are doing today). Now you are comparing me, wrongly, to islamic scum, when I'm really a pragmatic Atheist, who can deal with the reality, that a significant percentage of the world population are violent subhuman criminals, and only one thing can cure that, something you are to weak to admit will work beautifully, that is killing off the violent criminal population, as soon as possible.

Nazis killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race.  They even took measurements of facial structures to try and create some kind of desirable race of people.  They killed those who didn't fit the profile.  They killed mentally disabled kids.  They murdered millions of Jews (and other Europeans).  That is similar to the things you are saying about killing violent criminals by any means possible.  Not every crime warrants the death penalty.  You are literally dehumanizing people, even calling them "subhuman."  That's exactly what the Nazis did. 

Regarding Radical Islam, they execute homosexuals, including recently throwing some of them off of a building to their deaths.  You believe homosexuals should be locked up in a mental institution.  Not much of a leap (so to speak) between your ideology and Radical Islamists. 

[Erik C]

Nazis killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race.  They even took measurements of facial structures to try and create some kind of desirable race of people.  They killed those who didn't fit the profile.  They killed mentally disabled kids.  They murdered millions of Jews (and other Europeans).  That is similar to the things you are saying about killing violent criminals by any means possible.  Not every crime warrants the death penalty.  You are literally dehumanizing people, even calling them "subhuman."  That's exactly what the Nazis did. 

Regarding Radical Islam, they execute homosexuals, including recently throwing some of them off of a building to their deaths.  You believe homosexuals should be locked up in a mental institution.  Not much of a leap (so to speak) between your ideology and Radical Islamists. 

The Nazis didn't do what I'm suggesting. I pointed that out. You can't deal with reality, because you can't get over your emotions. Homosexuals have always been, correctly, considered to be sexual deviants and perverts, are mentally ill, and should be confined to institutions for the mentally ill, to protect themselves, and others, from their perverted deathstyle that they "live."

[Dos Equis]

The Nazis didn't do what I'm suggesting. I pointed that out. You can't deal with reality, because you can't get over your emotions. Homosexuals have always been, correctly, considered to be sexual deviants and perverts, are mentally ill, and should be confined to institutions for the mentally ill, to protect themselves, and others, from their perverted deathstyle that they "live."

Yes, the Nazis dehumanized people, which it made it easier to kill them.  You call people "subhuman." 

Regarding homosexuals, you might feel more comfortable living in the Middle East.  Many of them have the same mindset.  At least publicly. 

[Erik C]

Yes, the Nazis dehumanized people, which it made it easier to kill them.  You call people "subhuman." 

Regarding homosexuals, you might feel more comfortable living in the Middle East.  Many of them have the same mindset.  At least publicly. 

Violent criminals dehumanized themselves. It's their fault that they are criminals. It's the choice they made. Homosexuals like wise chose to do what they do. They made the choice to be perverts. No one else can be blamed for their bad behavior. It's not society's fault that some people chose to be violent criminals and perverts.

Atheists can never be "comfortable" living in the middle east, a hot bed of ignorant superstitions.

[Archer77]

A Gastonia police officer shot and killed a woman after responding to a domestic disturbance call late Tuesday morning. The shooting happened at a home on Union Road, near Tryon Place.
http://www.myfoxcarolinas.com/story/28129409/officer-involved-shooting-in-gastonia


A woman at the home called 911 and asked for help getting her ex-boyfriend and his friend out of her house. The unidentified woman who placed the 911 call told a dispatcher that there were weapons in the home, but no one was using a weapon at the time.

Officer LaDoniqua Neely shot Betty Diane Sexton, 43, in the chest. Sexton was taken to the hospital, but was later pronounced dead.

The State Bureau of Investigation is doing its own investigation into the shooting, which is standard for officer involved shootings.
“The investigation is in very early stages, and at this point this is all the information we have,” Chief Robert Helton said. Neely has been with the Gastonia Police Department since January 2012. She has been placed on administrative leave, which is also standard procedure.

This is the second incident this month in which a Gastonia police officer shot and killed someone while responding to a call. Earlier this month, an officer killed a 74-year-old man after responding to his home for a welfare check.

[240 is Back]

This is the second incident this month in which a Gastonia police officer shot and killed someone while responding to a call. Earlier this month, an officer killed a 74-year-old man after responding to his home for a welfare check.

Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc. 

After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

[Archer77]

Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc. 

After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

[240 is Back]

Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

I cannot believe you included that word.

Police should shoot a person if their actions at the moment - pointing a deadly weapon at people - dictate the use of such force.

If they're *thinking* about a person's criminal record, then they aren't evaluating, they're DECIDING based upon factors outside of the weapon/crime happening, it's no longer police work, it's murder.

and that's total horseshit.  Link to ANY place in writing where it says police should shoot/not shoot based upon (even partly) a dude's RECORD... ?

[Archer77]

Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc. 

After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

It's the word you used idiot

[240 is Back]

Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

I'm reading up on factors - including cognitive/evaluative factors - that influence cops when deciding to empty their gun into someone:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/policeshooting.html

Nope, nothing about their record.  Just current factors in the current situation.  To insinuate they'd shoot a guy with a record but let a dude with a lean record live.... total piece of shit police right there (although I am sure it happens all the time).

[Archer77]

After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.

I'll ask again.  Name one person who said the above? 

[240 is Back]

It's the word you used idiot

a person's criminal record should have ZERO influence on whether or not police put a hole in his belly.

shit man.  it should be based on if he has a weapon, and those factors, period.  

The thought that you'd let an 18 year old college kid with a rock live, but a 35 year old ex-con die...ANY influence with that is as stupid as is it fucking evil.  

[Archer77]

a person's criminal record should have ZERO influence on whether or not police put a hole in his belly.

shit man.  it should be based on if he has a weapon, and those factors, period.  

The thought that you'd let an 18 year old college kid with a rock live, but a 35 year old ex-con die...ANY influence with that is as stupid as is it fucking evil.  

I'm asking you to name the person who said that.  As for background, you harped on and on about Zimmerman's background.  You created one of your typical fantasy scenarios based entirely on your character profile of zimmerman.

[Skip8282]

if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free

Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force

That's along the lines that I'm thinking, but it's certainly a middle ground.  Rocks can be lethal, but I don't think a prosecutor or jury would let me off if I killed someone over it.

[Skip8282]

I think you, me, and everyone else with a brain knows the guy with a rock wasn't going to kill them.  They knew it because they got out a tazer and hit him with it.  For whatever reason, it failed. 

They felt he was so little of a threat that they used a tazer.  They didn't go for a second tazer.  They didn't go for mace or beanbags or just whipping out clubs and taking out his knee from behind for an instant KO.

No, the rock magically moved from non-deadly (hence the tazer) to deadly (hench the 4 of them shooting at once).

That's troubling.  As most would see it, dude with a rock isn't going to kill them lol.  Yes, LEGALLY, they can exaplain and justify it, but morally... and realistically... and practically... they didn't think dude was about to kill them.  If they had, then they wouldn't have taken time to get out taser initally.

IMO, they were pissed off at this little prick.  They zapped him, and it didnt dorp him.  They could have zapped him more, or used other means... but when he threw a rock, they probably reinforced each other with "hey, we can shoot, that's deadly potentially..."

Looking fwd to their reports where all 4-5 of them shed tears and whine about "i feared the rock in his hand was about to end my life" LOL and "As I chased him across the street, all I could think of was, I must shoot him in case he finds another rock..."

It's weak shit all around.  And everyone sees it.  Some people would literally bend over if they saw a cop with blueballs.  but most people know those cops didn't fear for their lives, rather, they realized legally he'd just given then the justification to cap his punk ass.  And they tossed restraint out the window and went for it!

I'm not saying you're wrong.  Just at this point we don't know what he had in his hands at the moment he was shot.

[Skip8282]

You don't shot a person for what they can do until you have reason to believe they will do it.  Such as brandishing a gun.   

Additionally where does it say they knew of the guys past? Maybe i missed it?   Did they know him personally?  Did they run his name through a data based right before this all happened? 

In some cases I think that's reasonable.  If you have a guy say shooting at cops, then decides to turn and run, I have no problem with them shooting him in the back.  He would just as easily kill any civilians and he's certainly a threat, regardless of the fact that at that moment, he's running away.

[Skip8282]

Seems to be a lot of talk about how the guy was trash, but no talk about how one of the officers involved had previously lost a 100k federal civil rights law suit, lol.

Guess shit only counts when it's the bad guy who's trash.  You really gotta wonder about this blind devotion to cops.