The fact that the man was stopped in the first place has never been called into question. The way that the officer handled it has. It WAS chickenshit to shoot an unarmed man in the head who showed no signs of aggression.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
No calling the stop chicken shit is calling it into question. AND AT NO TIME DID I SAY THAT HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN SHOOTING THE MAN FLEEING THE SCENE. I said he should have pursued the suspect and make a physical arrest.
It was the prosecutor calling it chickenshit. As in the official position of the State. In other words, the cop had nothing but his own overinflated sense of importance.
Oh, it is.
Also, finally watched the video. Not sure what to say, the mandatory blurring does kinda obscure what's going on. The officer's actions did effectively prevent him from fleeing, but I have to think there must've been a less fatal way for him to do so.
--Patrick
I am telling you guys what is happening in the video.
at 0:35 to 0:39 when the murderer holds up the gin you can see the bottle still is sealed and full, the killer didn't do a field test or breathalyzer so any assumption of impairment is purely supposition
at 0:35 to 0:39 when the murderer holds up the gin you can see the bottle still is sealed and full, the killer didn't do a field test or breathalyzer so any assumption of impairment is purely supposition
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-s-man-cops-beat-home-video-article-1.2310298
Edit: new link
A gay Staten Island caterer says cops who were captured on video taking him down in his front yard, beat him while shouting homophobic slurs, the Daily News has learned.
Louis Falcone, 31, wasn’t charged as a result of the June 19 takedown, and now plans to sue in federal court for civil rights violations, lawyer Eric Subin said.
I wonder how sixpack will defend the police actions here.
Edit: new link
A gay Staten Island caterer says cops who were captured on video taking him down in his front yard, beat him while shouting homophobic slurs, the Daily News has learned.
Louis Falcone, 31, wasn’t charged as a result of the June 19 takedown, and now plans to sue in federal court for civil rights violations, lawyer Eric Subin said.
I wonder how sixpack will defend the police actions here.
Last edited:
The auto filter messes up the link due to the homophobic slur from the title.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...51e4b0af35367aaa16?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
Autopsy reports clearly disprove the police's claim that a South Carolina officer fatally shot 19-year-old Zachary Hammond in self-defense, Hammond's attorneys and parents say.
A Seneca police officer shot the teen twice on Sunday during an arrest for suspected drugs, according to Greenville Online.
Unlike most of the victims in this thread, the police murdered a white kid in this story.
Autopsy reports clearly disprove the police's claim that a South Carolina officer fatally shot 19-year-old Zachary Hammond in self-defense, Hammond's attorneys and parents say.
A Seneca police officer shot the teen twice on Sunday during an arrest for suspected drugs, according to Greenville Online.
Unlike most of the victims in this thread, the police murdered a white kid in this story.
Expect it to get a lot of play and then to hear a lot of complaints about it getting play... then complaints about the complaints about it getting play.
Personally? Every time something like this is posted, he's constantly defending the police involved, or trying to make the victims look like they deserved what they got. I'm tired of it.
I don't know if this is true or not (I've never made a note of this behavior?) but:
...as he states, this is exactly what I see him doing, and nothing more.
What I do see is a lot of people getting very emotional about this video, which is completely okay and understandable.
--Patrick
To be fair, it's more the fact he brings up a lot of facts that don't really feel relevant to the action here. It's the same type of points a lot of "rape apologists" would bring up in a sexual assault discussion, and can be taken as victim blaming.
"I didn't agree with the fact she was raped, but I just wanted to point out she was wearing skimpy clothing, had spoken with him in a flirtatious manner, and allowed him into her house for a drink."
I don't think this was sixpackshakers intention, but much like him, I just felt like I should point out what is happening here. Pointing out facts like that can be perceived as trying to shuffle guilt to the guy that was murdered, which is why others have taken it rather negatively.
The same thing occurs on the other side. The language is usually emotionally charged, and can often turn violent against the aggressor. You see this in the form of the 'vengeance' attitude against suspects in various cases, or in this case language like calling the stop chickenshit (The stop itself isn't the problem, it's what happens after the stop. Also, chicken shit isn't exactly a technical term, and it also came from the prosecutor, whose entire job is to cast guilt and not the official stance of the state) or constantly referring to the officer as "the murderer," which is never really done when talking about other homicide or wrongful death cases. It creates a very confrontational atmosphere around portions of the event that really have no baring on the case at hand (no one should really care if there was a bottle of gin, opened or unopened, in the car) and creates arguments like these. It's like when Charlie would say things that you would probably agree with, but was so toxic in saying them that you really didn't want to.
Basically, guys, don't be Charlies.
Whether or not these tidbits are relevant to the case, they may all be relevant in trying to figure out why events unfolded as they did.
--Patrick
So while they aren't relevant to the officer shooting the guy in the face, they might be relevant to the officer shooting the guy in the face?
While they may not be legally relevant, they may be journalistically relevant.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
Turned the censor completely off.
I've been asking for that forever!
GasBandit
Staff member
What I see is people here getting emotional and, therefor, reducing a troubling issue to black and white; possibly shades of grey. Someone - such as Null in this case - may be arguing a completely different point from what you're seeing or reading. I've been, indeed, called a rape apologizer before for similar reasons.
Someone - and it doesn't really matter who - said the stop was crap, and the cop was pretty much out hunting. All Null's argued is that there may have been merit for a stop. Missing front plates are, to me, a perfectly reasonable reason to pull someone over (assuming they're legally required in that state). Nowhere did he say, imply or hint at the idea the cop was in any way in the right for shooting him.
To give a similar example, a while ago there was a big issue here about a kid who killed 2 people with his car. It was titled "drunk driver kills two toddlers". Fine and dandy, except that tests confirmed he wasn't drunk. He'd drank, but he was under the legal limit. He was 17 and not allowed to drive a car, and it was definitely his fault, and he was a dipshit who shouldn't have been driving - but he wasn't "yet another example of youngsters driving drunk". Saying so still got me heavily attacked for "defending him" though. I wasn't defending his right to drive, or saying it wasn't his fault - I was merely pointing out that one of the (minor) offenses he was being accused of was not true. Even in heated cases it's valuable to try and figure out what is and isn't true and what allegations are justified and which aren't - something that's very often missing in political debate as well.
Someone - and it doesn't really matter who - said the stop was crap, and the cop was pretty much out hunting. All Null's argued is that there may have been merit for a stop. Missing front plates are, to me, a perfectly reasonable reason to pull someone over (assuming they're legally required in that state). Nowhere did he say, imply or hint at the idea the cop was in any way in the right for shooting him.
To give a similar example, a while ago there was a big issue here about a kid who killed 2 people with his car. It was titled "drunk driver kills two toddlers". Fine and dandy, except that tests confirmed he wasn't drunk. He'd drank, but he was under the legal limit. He was 17 and not allowed to drive a car, and it was definitely his fault, and he was a dipshit who shouldn't have been driving - but he wasn't "yet another example of youngsters driving drunk". Saying so still got me heavily attacked for "defending him" though. I wasn't defending his right to drive, or saying it wasn't his fault - I was merely pointing out that one of the (minor) offenses he was being accused of was not true. Even in heated cases it's valuable to try and figure out what is and isn't true and what allegations are justified and which aren't - something that's very often missing in political debate as well.
Sixpackshaker was arguing that it was a good stop. I took issue with that, since some of the things he listed weren't true (according to the video) - we can see that the "open gin bottle" is not only closed, but appears to be full and unopened, for example - some were pure assumption (saying the guy was probably drunk, without doing a breathalyzer or field sobriety test), and some, the cop couldn't have possibly known before stopping the guy (not having a license).
But, I have been over-engaging in emotional language and getting too involved in reporting what I consider to be grievous abuses of police power.
But, I have been over-engaging in emotional language and getting too involved in reporting what I consider to be grievous abuses of police power.
And hypocrisy.
"If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear," eh?
Yeah, right.
--Patrick
Alabama Cop discusses on tape how he'd cover up the murder of a black man the police had been harassing.
Quoth:
“Something’s going on with that fucking lawyer he knows, and that fucking judge or something,” Middlebrooks can be heard saying on a secret recording of the conversation made by the brother-in-law. If Middlebrooks had his druthers, he would “fucking kill that motherfucker with whatever I had in the fucking house.”
More significantly, Middlebrooks said that “before the police got here, I’d fucking put marks all over my shit and make it look like he was trying to fucking kill me. I god damn guarantee you. What would it look like? Self fucking defence. Fuck that piece of shit. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll fucking tell you what’s on my fucking mind.”
Quoth:
“Something’s going on with that fucking lawyer he knows, and that fucking judge or something,” Middlebrooks can be heard saying on a secret recording of the conversation made by the brother-in-law. If Middlebrooks had his druthers, he would “fucking kill that motherfucker with whatever I had in the fucking house.”
More significantly, Middlebrooks said that “before the police got here, I’d fucking put marks all over my shit and make it look like he was trying to fucking kill me. I god damn guarantee you. What would it look like? Self fucking defence. Fuck that piece of shit. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll fucking tell you what’s on my fucking mind.”
When do the police ever help anyone? The instances of police actually doing anything to ''serve'' or ''protect'' are few and far between, unless you count writing speeding tickets or harassing minorities and hippies as serving and protecting. They exist to generate revenue and that is all, take a look at the civil asset forfeiture laws for evidence of this type of mindless statist policy.
On another note, when driverless cars hit the street and (I'm assuming) the pigs can't extort citizens on the roads anymore, what effect will it have on their revenue generation tactics? I would like to think that many police stations would just shut down as they have in many cities like Waldo, FL after their gestapo tactics come to light and they lose the ability to cite drivers (true story, google waldo police etc etc I'm too lazy).
Does anybody really think they will go quietly into the deep, dark night? Or will they come up with something even worse?
As for those who defend police actions to the nth degree, you are part of the problem and you need to ask yourself at what point do you think it is okay to murder an unarmed or even fleeing suspect? I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt the first thousand times or so, but after they kill 1100 people annually in the US, I just have to draw the line; These people are evil, pure and simple. They might not start out that way, but if you check out the Stanford Prison Experiment, you can see how they get sadistic really damn quick.
Oh, one more thing. I grew up in an all black neighborhood and I am here to tell you, yes, the cops are definitely quick to go apeshit on black people and, to a lesser extent, the poor in general. It isn't even really racist, they just know that these types of people can't afford lawyers and half the time don't even know their rights to begin with, making them easy targets for the man. They rarely fight tickets and generally go straight to jail without even a chance at a reasonable legal defense.
Anyone who argues against these points is just flat out willfully ignorant and, as I said, a part of the problem.
On another note, when driverless cars hit the street and (I'm assuming) the pigs can't extort citizens on the roads anymore, what effect will it have on their revenue generation tactics? I would like to think that many police stations would just shut down as they have in many cities like Waldo, FL after their gestapo tactics come to light and they lose the ability to cite drivers (true story, google waldo police etc etc I'm too lazy).
Does anybody really think they will go quietly into the deep, dark night? Or will they come up with something even worse?
As for those who defend police actions to the nth degree, you are part of the problem and you need to ask yourself at what point do you think it is okay to murder an unarmed or even fleeing suspect? I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt the first thousand times or so, but after they kill 1100 people annually in the US, I just have to draw the line; These people are evil, pure and simple. They might not start out that way, but if you check out the Stanford Prison Experiment, you can see how they get sadistic really damn quick.
Oh, one more thing. I grew up in an all black neighborhood and I am here to tell you, yes, the cops are definitely quick to go apeshit on black people and, to a lesser extent, the poor in general. It isn't even really racist, they just know that these types of people can't afford lawyers and half the time don't even know their rights to begin with, making them easy targets for the man. They rarely fight tickets and generally go straight to jail without even a chance at a reasonable legal defense.
Anyone who argues against these points is just flat out willfully ignorant and, as I said, a part of the problem.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
I dunno, the police who came to help when my place was broken into were pretty helpful. They caught the guys who did it, too.
Seriously, are you actually saying we'd be better off without police?
Charlie's back after his identity change.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, no, I remember MisterSteve. He predates Charlie.