Police pepper spray 9 year-old girl, charge her with multiple felonies.

Quote :

Well, not so much less "likely" as less able I think.

Being less able is what causes them to be less likely to follow instructions.

Putz.

zeke wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:

zeke wrote:

and there is also a big connection between the mentally disabled and police brutality.

People less likely to comply with police instructions are more likely to arouse their ire?
INCONCEIVABLE!

Well, not so much less "likely" as less able I think. And the more random and ridiculous the instructions are is also part of the picture. You familiar with the John T. Williams case?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The "big picture" is that the mission assigned to the police in this case was to clear an area of a city designated by local property owners for gentrification, to clear it of people who did not fit into that plan. That involved a systemic pattern of confrontation and instructions to these people that were designed to be hard to comply with.

But less than a week before his fatal shooting by a Seattle police officer, Williams was recorded threatening to kill police officers. In 2009 prosecutors described him as having 30 criminal convictions over two decades, including lewd conduct and indecent exposure.

Howithurts wrote:

But less than a week before his fatal shooting by a Seattle police officer, Williams was recorded threatening to kill police officers. In 2009 prosecutors described him as having 30 criminal convictions over two decades, including lewd conduct and indecent exposure.

As I understand it, the official legal penalty for threatening officers, lewd conduct, etc. is not death by summary execution without trial. I believe it is a jail sentence or fine. Unless you are rich, then it's nothing. Or if you are poor. Then it is death by summary execution without trial. I guess that's how a class system works.

Ah, the age old of practice of making stuff up about a situation. As I heard it, the man was carrying a knife and told to drop it, which he didn't.

Now, consider the situation: You're a police officer. You know at any time someone could shoot you or stab you. And you have a guy with a knife. So the police officer tells him to put it down, which he doesn't do. So is the police officer supposed to subdue a guy up close when he has a knife? Or is he supposed to run away and do nothing?

*watches video in stunned horror*

*reads up on John T. Willians case*

*prepares anti-gun responce*

*remembers Prinny's comment about training trumping equipment*

*...*

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

By the way, the shooting was ruled to be unjustified by the police department's own review board. Sooo no, the answer wasn't "jump straight from warning to lethal force OR run away."

That doesn't mean I subscribe to zeke's conspiracy theory, especially since SPD's competence has been noticeably in decline for some time.

It's worth noting however, much to many people's expected horror, that the officer, Ian Birk, was not charged with anything.

He did eventually resign.

The horrific conduct of one officer and the seeming insensitivity of the department are not, however, adequate grounds for an anti-gun rant (And believe me, I want to put forward an anti-gun rant - hence Johnny 5 above). Clearly in this case the officer was poorly trained, and the department unequipped to deal with the situation... perhaps more likely reluctant to deal with the situation, if the outcome would recommend either less need of the intimidating, shiny, fancy equipment and more need of boring, expensive, hidden training and regulations.

As usual, Penguin is right on the money, again, showing me and my bleeding heart up... again.

(in b4 Mikey: Offers to take a hint are not appreciated! )

WD40 wrote:

It's worth noting however, much to many people's expected horror, that the officer, Ian Birk, was not charged with anything.

He did eventually resign.

The horrific conduct of one officer and the seeming insensitivity of the department are not, however, adequate grounds for an anti-gun rant

I do feel the need to point out that since he was not charged with anything Mr. Birk is still legally allowed to own a gun. Just something to keep in mind.

Penguin wrote:

By the way, the shooting was ruled to be unjustified by the police department's own review board.

Does not mean shit if the officer was not punished.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Penguin wrote:

By the way, the shooting was ruled to be unjustified by the police department's own review board.

Does not mean shit if the officer was not punished.

The only shit I meant for it to mean was that no, we don't have to play the "what would YOU do, armchair warrior?" game because the department of the officer in question stated that their guy was in the wrong.

WD40 wrote:

It's worth noting however, much to many people's expected horror, that the officer, Ian Birk, was not charged with anything.

He did eventually resign.

The horrific conduct of one officer and the seeming insensitivity of the department are not, however, adequate grounds for an anti-gun rant (And believe me, I want to put forward an anti-gun rant - hence Johnny 5 above). Clearly in this case the officer was poorly trained, and the department unequipped to deal with the situation... perhaps more likely reluctant to deal with the situation, if the outcome would recommend either less need of the intimidating, shiny, fancy equipment and more need of boring, expensive, hidden training and regulations.

As usual, Penguin is right on the money, again, showing me and my bleeding heart up... again.

(in b4 Mikey: Offers to take a hint are not appreciated! )

wtf r u talkin bout?

No, seriously, I'm not comprehending that last bit in the parenthesis.

Reepy wrote:

Does not mean shit if the officer was not punished.

Well, he would likely have been fired had he not resigned. And the police review board saying it was unjustified doesn't mean a criminal court wouldn't consider it in self defense. I imagine there's a difference in the two standards of guilt.

Now go get that sand out of your vagina.

Penguin wrote:

The only shit I meant for it to mean was that no, we don't have to play the "what would YOU do, armchair warrior?" game because the department of the officer in question stated that their guy was in the wrong.

Sorry, I did not mean for that comment to be an attack on you/ what you posted. I was just furthering my own point: a guy the court determined shot and killed someone for a less-than-adequate reason is still allowed to carry a gun if he wants to.

For the record; I am not even arguing with anyone here. I just found the whole thing very distastful (to say the least) and I wanted everyone to know why.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

WD40 wrote:

As usual, Penguin is right on the money, again, showing me and my bleeding heart up... again.

(in b4 Mikey: Offers to take a hint are not appreciated! )

wtf r u talkin bout?

No, seriously, I'm not comprehending that last bit in the parenthesis.

I figured you'd be quick to pounce on the soft lefty as soon as he showed any sign of bowing to a non-lefty veiwpoint.

You know: Me admitting that Penguin is clearly in the right here = WD40 in the wrong... And Penguin constantly having the ability to put WD40 in his place = WD40's overall standpoint needing correcting.


Does this mean I was half a gag ahead of you? Not sure if that makes me happy or dissapoint...




In other news:

Throwing in my hat with Reep. That fellow showed clear irresponsibility with a firearm, while in a position of responsibility... And now, as a civilian, he still has the ability to own a firearm.

Yes, the department found his conduct incorrect... No, this does not impact on him at all.

In fact, were it not for external pressure, he'd still have his original fucking job... The one he was found to be incompetent in doing.

Penguin wrote:

By the way, the shooting was ruled to be unjustified by the police department's own review board. Sooo no, the answer wasn't "jump straight from warning to lethal force OR run away."

That doesn't mean I subscribe to zeke's conspiracy theory, especially since SPD's competence has been noticeably in decline for some time.

I don't believe the problem is a conspiracy. I believe the problem is a system. Called capitalism. Big difference. Now, within this system sure there are "conspiracies". Like the conspiracy to get the cops off. But they are in service of the system. I think the usual conspiracy stuff is generated to distract people from the real problem. Which is a system. Called capitalism.

Now here's some good stuff about an actual conspiracy in service of the system, to get he cops off: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

zeke wrote:

I don't believe the problem is a conspiracy. I believe the problem is a system. Called capitalism. Big difference. Now, within this system sure there are "conspiracies". Like the conspiracy to get the cops off. But they are in service of the system. I think the usual conspiracy stuff is generated to distract people from the real problem. Which is a system. Called capitalism.

Because Communist countries Never Never, Never Never never Never Never Never Never Never ever were behind "conspiracies" to keep people down through the forces of the law killing those who act out.

William Shakespeare wrote:

zeke wrote:

I don't believe the problem is a conspiracy. I believe the problem is a system. Called capitalism. Big difference. Now, within this system sure there are "conspiracies". Like the conspiracy to get the cops off. But they are in service of the system. I think the usual conspiracy stuff is generated to distract people from the real problem. Which is a system. Called capitalism.

Because Communist countries Never Never, Never Never never Never Never Never Never Never ever were behind "conspiracies" to keep people down through the forces of the law killing those who act out.

I would have to disagree with you there. There actually was a lot of violence. Some from them having to defend from attack from within and without, but also there was repression that wasn't justified or legal or right. The magnitude of these is lied about, and was never anything like what capitalism wreaked on the world, however they were tragedies none the less and must be learned from next time around.

Can we stop feeding the one-note troll already?

Quijotesca wrote:

Can we stop feeding the one-note troll already?

Good point, I do seem to be answering the same questions over and over. But people keep asking! And I think its good discussion about important stuff. But I agree I'm getting repetative, and my fingers tired, so I will sign off for now.

Quijotesca wrote:

Can we stop feeding the one-note troll already?

But where's the fun in that?

Ugh. Come on, people, zeke is just the Greek-hating troll with a slightly less annoying schtick.

:< Knoooooorg, find us better trolls plz.

Why do you assume he's a troll?

WD40 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

WD40 wrote:

As usual, Penguin is right on the money, again, showing me and my bleeding heart up... again.

(in b4 Mikey: Offers to take a hint are not appreciated! )

wtf r u talkin bout?

No, seriously, I'm not comprehending that last bit in the parenthesis.

I figured you'd be quick to pounce on the soft lefty as soon as he showed any sign of bowing to a non-lefty veiwpoint.

You know: Me admitting that Penguin is clearly in the right here = WD40 in the wrong... And Penguin constantly having the ability to put WD40 in his place = WD40's overall standpoint needing correcting.


Does this mean I was half a gag ahead of you? Not sure if that makes me happy or dissapoint...

Oh. Well, if some bleeding heart liberal doyouevenlift.jpg sissy boy begins to realize the unadulterated stupidity of his ways, I'm all for it. Like fat people in the gym.

What I don't like are the hippy sissies who stubbornly cling to idiot ideas like wealth redistribution, firearm control, etc, that have either been proven or strong implied by evidence to be retarded. You know, like fat people at a goddamn buffet.

rae wrote:

Ugh. Come on, people, zeke is just the Greek-hating troll with a slightly less annoying schtick.

:< Knoooooorg, find us better trolls plz.

>Implying they aren't all Knorg to begin with
>Knorg's face when

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Penguin wrote:

The only shit I meant for it to mean was that no, we don't have to play the "what would YOU do, armchair warrior?" game because the department of the officer in question stated that their guy was in the wrong.

Sorry, I did not mean for that comment to be an attack on you/ what you posted. I was just furthering my own point: a guy the court determined shot and killed someone for a less-than-adequate reason is still allowed to carry a gun if he wants to.

For the record; I am not even arguing with anyone here. I just found the whole thing very distastful (to say the least) and I wanted everyone to know why.

Fair enough. However, I don't really think the problem is that he got out of this without a felony conviction. One way or another he did lose his job from it, and if he chooses to carry a gun privately, he will not have the badge and authority to go with it. Getting into confrontations isn't his job anymore. Not only have the stakes significantly increased for him, if he'll so much as draw in anger -even if he carries every day- odds are stacked against him. For one thing, he's got a history of being trigger-happy. For another, anyone who isn't a cop who shoots someone without proving deadly force was necessary* is almost certainly facing jail time.

*The criteria for proving this can be mind-blowing.

Getting a conviction out of this would be tricky, too. But he should've at least been charged with manslaughter. It's not uncommon for people to be charged and held in jail in self-defense shootings for awhile before the truth comes out; same should apply to cops.

WD40 wrote:

Throwing in my hat with Reep. That fellow showed clear irresponsibility with a firearm, while in a position of responsibility... And now, as a civilian, he still has the ability to own a firearm.

He always was a civilian. Even when wearing a uniform and gunning down a suspect.

A major part of the problem is a distinction being made that simply isn't there. Cops are civilians. Civilians we've delegated enforcement of the law to, but civilians nonetheless. When we pretend they're not, stuff like this happens.

I know I've probably bitched about this before, but among all the other issues with police militarization, this is one of the most bothersome to me simply because how the distinction is not true, yet so casually and widely engrained in our society. I know this is probably going to be a point of contention for some people, but I honestly believe that if you don't think your neighbors should be allowed to have something, that shouldn't change because of a badge.

There's a really good line from Battlestar Galactica that sums it up perfectly, I think:

Quote :

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

EileenK98 wrote:

Quote :

Sullivan was able to subdue the 5-foot-130-pound Anber

She's nine years old and she's the same size as me? What the hell are they feeding her?

Nine years old and she's bigger than me. >.< Clearly from the psychoactive drugs they're stuffing into her, which tend to cause huge weight gain (among other physical problems). Yet another reason they should never be given to children.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Why do you assume he's a troll?

Trolls trolling trolls, is how I'm reading this whole fucking thread...

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Why do you assume he's a troll?

Because he derailed another thread with this "Communism Will Solve Everything!!!" bullshit. At least that thread was about China while thread has nothing to do with that tangent. Even if zeke isn't a troll, interacting with him on those grounds is pretty pointless.