Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The shooting of Terence Crutcher by Police

FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 12:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
http://www.cnn.com...

So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).

When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 12:44:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...


So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).


When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?

In a conceal carry class they'll teach you that if you use your firearm defensively, you should expect to be arrested (may or may not be) and you will likely have legal implications, hopefully only setting you back financially, but at least you lived. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an inherent effect due to the nature of law in many states.

This isn't meant in argument, but I haven't validated that he was reaching into the window yet. Is that true, or was the window closed? Lets put that to rest either way.

I thought he was tazed to the ground and then shot. Is that not true? Lets put that to rest.

And finally, why did the officers back away in line after she shot him?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:43:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 5:33:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:44:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...


So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).


When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?

In a conceal carry class they'll teach you that if you use your firearm defensively, you should expect to be arrested (may or may not be) and you will likely have legal implications, hopefully only setting you back financially, but at least you lived. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an inherent effect due to the nature of law in many states.

However if you are CC, and the person in question makes the effort to flee (as Crutcher did), and you follow (As police did) you are considered the aggressor. Police are allowed to issue lawful orders for their safety, and to exact compliance. Not going to your car, especially while seeming under the influence of drugs is a reasonable and lawful request.


This isn't meant in argument, but I haven't validated that he was reaching into the window yet. Is that true, or was the window closed? Lets put that to rest either way.

Open or closed, what would it matter? If the person in question appears to be attempting to gain access to their car, especially while appearing under the influence of drugs, it would be in the officer's best interest for that to not happen.

I thought he was tazed to the ground and then shot. Is that not true? Lets put that to rest.

The tazer and gun shot occurred at the same time, roughly.

And finally, why did the officers back away in line after she shot him?

I have no particular opinion on this either way. Its possible the tazing individual assumed he hit, and reflexively didn't want to be near a person with voltage coursing through their body. Its possible that after firing, the shooter believe she missed and a gun battle was about to ensue. The point was clearly, both officers believed that the person in question was up to no good, and was a defacto criminal for possession, and being under the influence.

While not the rule everywhere, in my state, if you are in commission of a crime, and some one with you (an accomplice or bystander) during the commission of said crime is killed by police or misadventure, you can held liable for their death. I fail to see how a criminal in the act of criminality that gets killed due to their criminality can be the fault of an officer present if the officer is issuing lawful orders for compliance, and the criminal in question disobeys at every turn.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:48:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 5:33:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:44:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...


So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).


When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?

In a conceal carry class they'll teach you that if you use your firearm defensively, you should expect to be arrested (may or may not be) and you will likely have legal implications, hopefully only setting you back financially, but at least you lived. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an inherent effect due to the nature of law in many states.

This isn't meant in argument, but I haven't validated that he was reaching into the window yet. Is that true, or was the window closed? Lets put that to rest either way.

I thought he was tazed to the ground and then shot. Is that not true? Lets put that to rest.

And finally, why did the officers back away in line after she shot him?

interesting points, for the record the window as down, he reached inside, I watched the video, claim was they tased him no affect he walked back to the car, but with pcp in him that's probably why.
so if they in fact tased him already, what other recourse could they have used other than a gun? for me it really hinges on if they had tried a taser first.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 5:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 5:43:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 5:33:17 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/12/2016 12:44:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...


So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).


When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?

In a conceal carry class they'll teach you that if you use your firearm defensively, you should expect to be arrested (may or may not be) and you will likely have legal implications, hopefully only setting you back financially, but at least you lived. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an inherent effect due to the nature of law in many states.

However if you are CC, and the person in question makes the effort to flee (as Crutcher did), and you follow (As police did) you are considered the aggressor. Police are allowed to issue lawful orders for their safety, and to exact compliance. Not going to your car, especially while seeming under the influence of drugs is a reasonable and lawful request.


This isn't meant in argument, but I haven't validated that he was reaching into the window yet. Is that true, or was the window closed? Lets put that to rest either way.

Open or closed, what would it matter? If the person in question appears to be attempting to gain access to their car, especially while appearing under the influence of drugs, it would be in the officer's best interest for that to not happen.

It matters because before projecting information, we should ensure that its accurate to prevent the telephone effect of compounding nonsense and rumors and to be able to reliably draw logical reasoning from it in the future....After we've validated our information.

I thought he was tazed to the ground and then shot. Is that not true? Lets put that to rest.

The tazer and gun shot occurred at the same time, roughly.

And finally, why did the officers back away in line after she shot him?

I have no particular opinion on this either way. Its possible the tazing individual assumed he hit, and reflexively didn't want to be near a person with voltage coursing through their body. Its possible that after firing, the shooter believe she missed and a gun battle was about to ensue. The point was clearly, both officers believed that the person in question was up to no good, and was a defacto criminal for possession, and being under the influence.

While not the rule everywhere, in my state, if you are in commission of a crime, and some one with you (an accomplice or bystander) during the commission of said crime is killed by police or misadventure, you can held liable for their death. I fail to see how a criminal in the act of criminality that gets killed due to their criminality can be the fault of an officer present if the officer is issuing lawful orders for compliance, and the criminal in question disobeys at every turn.

Interesting standpoint. I'll have to chew on that before I can respond intelligently
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 6:17:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
http://www.cnn.com...


So. We have an officer under arrest for the shooting of Terence Crutcher. Officer is currently out on bond.

We have one dead Terence Crutcher, a Terence Crutcher whom...

'Parked' his car in the middle of the road.
Had passing motorists call police because of the fact.
Wandered around outside his vehicle intimating that "its gonna blow up".
When police arrived, found him acting a peculiar fashion.
Refused to follow lawful commands from officers on the scene.
Proceeded back to his car, despite officers issuing orders to not do that.
Goes to his car window and proceeds to reach in, despite orders not to do that.
Was regarded as seeming high, possibly on a controlled substance.

...
and then was shot by officers for reaching into the vehicle.

Later investigation found PCP in his car.
Not surprisingly, PCP was found in his system (nailed it!).


When this dude has gone so far into the illegal territory, such to the fact he was disobeying lawful orders, acting in a fashion that was clearly not coherent, on illicit and controlled substances... and was shot reaching into his vehicle despite orders telling him to the contrary...

we arrest the responding officer.

Yay, go BLM, go.

Picked another great martyr, didn'tcha?

In a conceal carry class they'll teach you that if you use your firearm defensively, you should expect to be arrested (may or may not be) and you will likely have legal implications, hopefully only setting you back financially, but at least you lived. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just an inherent effect due to the nature of law in many states.

However if you are CC, and the person in question makes the effort to flee (as Crutcher did), and you follow (As police did) you are considered the aggressor. Police are allowed to issue lawful orders for their safety, and to exact compliance. Not going to your car, especially while seeming under the influence of drugs is a reasonable and lawful request.


This isn't meant in argument, but I haven't validated that he was reaching into the window yet. Is that true, or was the window closed? Lets put that to rest either way.

Open or closed, what would it matter? If the person in question appears to be attempting to gain access to their car, especially while appearing under the influence of drugs, it would be in the officer's best interest for that to not happen.

It matters because before projecting information, we should ensure that its accurate to prevent the telephone effect of compounding nonsense and rumors and to be able to reliably draw logical reasoning from it in the future....After we've validated our information.

My point was that if the person in question is intimating access into the car (either through the window or going for the latch, or what have not), the reaction from the officers is going to be the same, the person in question was specifically being told not to go to the car, was being told to get on the ground, etc. Those orders were denied, and the person in question (while appearing under the effect of some variety of controlled substance) proceeded. At that given instance, it becomes very reasonable that force would be involved to ensure compliance.

I thought he was tazed to the ground and then shot. Is that not true? Lets put that to rest.

The tazer and gun shot occurred at the same time, roughly.

And finally, why did the officers back away in line after she shot him?

I have no particular opinion on this either way. Its possible the tazing individual assumed he hit, and reflexively didn't want to be near a person with voltage coursing through their body. Its possible that after firing, the shooter believe she missed and a gun battle was about to ensue. The point was clearly, both officers believed that the person in question was up to no good, and was a defacto criminal for possession, and being under the influence.

While not the rule everywhere, in my state, if you are in commission of a crime, and some one with you (an accomplice or bystander) during the commission of said crime is killed by police or misadventure, you can held liable for their death. I fail to see how a criminal in the act of criminality that gets killed due to their criminality can be the fault of an officer present if the officer is issuing lawful orders for compliance, and the criminal in question disobeys at every turn.

Interesting standpoint. I'll have to chew on that before I can respond intelligently.

At your leisure.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

And I again ask, if you are intimating as though you are attempting (though any means) to gain access to a vehicle in which cops have been routinely telling you not to go toward, what possible difference would it make? Even by the most generous accounts for Mr. Crutcher, he was reaching into his pockets at the car door.

The point being is that by this time, the cops' patience for this man disregarding their safety was at wits end, and his actions could very reasonably be construed as a lead up to something drastically hostile.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:16:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

why would it matter? let's say if it was up and he couldn't reach inside and he opened the car door and then he was shot, then that's ok? do you think the outcome somehow would have been different for him? certainly if they had waited a little bit longer we probably wouldn't be talking about this, but he'd still be dead.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:56:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 7:04:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

And I again ask, if you are intimating as though you are attempting (though any means) to gain access to a vehicle in which cops have been routinely telling you not to go toward, what possible difference would it make? Even by the most generous accounts for Mr. Crutcher, he was reaching into his pockets at the car door.


And again I ask, how you can reach "in" the car, or "through" the window if the window is up? And it clearly was because there's a video shot of his body, and blood spattered all over the driver side window.

And it's not all clear that he was "intimating" that, since it looks like he tazed around that exact time. His hand lowering could be from the tazers' effect.

The point being is that by this time, the cops' patience for this man disregarding their safety was at wits end, and his actions could very reasonably be construed as a lead up to something drastically hostile.

Or, they could've tazed him before he even got to the car if they were that worried for their safety. And since there's no audio we don't know if they were telling him to go back to the car to put his hands on the top or what.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 8:16:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
That big bad dude was also on pcp:

http://mobile.nytimes.com...

And officer Shelby is awaiting trial for manslaughter

But I posted all that on the other thread... feign indignation
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 11:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
yep dude reaches in his car like he is going for a gun, natural consequence is he gets shot, which even a civilian in that situation should do. Instead of this being accurately reported as suicide by cop, the media portrays it as a racist trigger happy cop. fvcking tards
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:33:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The US isn't the only country where murder is punishable by death, but I think it is the only country that makes putting your arm in the window of your own car a capital crime.

Rapists and child molesters only get locked up. There is no way that what TC actually did warranted death.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 11:08:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 7:56:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:04:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

And I again ask, if you are intimating as though you are attempting (though any means) to gain access to a vehicle in which cops have been routinely telling you not to go toward, what possible difference would it make? Even by the most generous accounts for Mr. Crutcher, he was reaching into his pockets at the car door.


And again I ask, how you can reach "in" the car, or "through" the window if the window is up? And it clearly was because there's a video shot of his body, and blood spattered all over the driver side window.

Almost makes one wonder what Mr. Crutcher was attempting to do, because "keeping his hands in the air" and "getting on the ground" was definitely not it.

And it's not all clear that he was "intimating" that, since it looks like he tazed around that exact time. His hand lowering could be from the tazers' effect.

I don't require the police put themselves in further danger. Do you?



The point being is that by this time, the cops' patience for this man disregarding their safety was at wits end, and his actions could very reasonably be construed as a lead up to something drastically hostile.

Or, they could've tazed him before he even got to the car if they were that worried for their safety. And since there's no audio we don't know if they were telling him to go back to the car to put his hands on the top or what.

Yeah, that's perfect police procedure. "Return to your car.... no no, not the hood. Go back to the driver's side window... now, don't worry about keeping your hands in the air, go ahead and go for the door latch..."
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 1:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 11:08:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:56:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:04:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

And I again ask, if you are intimating as though you are attempting (though any means) to gain access to a vehicle in which cops have been routinely telling you not to go toward, what possible difference would it make? Even by the most generous accounts for Mr. Crutcher, he was reaching into his pockets at the car door.


And again I ask, how you can reach "in" the car, or "through" the window if the window is up? And it clearly was because there's a video shot of his body, and blood spattered all over the driver side window.

Almost makes one wonder what Mr. Crutcher was attempting to do, because "keeping his hands in the air" and "getting on the ground" was definitely not it.

And it's not all clear that he was "intimating" that, since it looks like he tazed around that exact time. His hand lowering could be from the tazers' effect.

I don't require the police put themselves in further danger. Do you?




The point being is that by this time, the cops' patience for this man disregarding their safety was at wits end, and his actions could very reasonably be construed as a lead up to something drastically hostile.

Or, they could've tazed him before he even got to the car if they were that worried for their safety. And since there's no audio we don't know if they were telling him to go back to the car to put his hands on the top or what.


Yeah, that's perfect police procedure. "Return to your car.... no no, not the hood. Go back to the driver's side window... now, don't worry about keeping your hands in the air, go ahead and go for the door latch..."

these people are truly amazing aren't they? even the media talking about how she had a taser, saying she grabbed the gun by mistake b.s. she knew the cop next to her had a taser, she drew her gun in case that didn't work and stronger force was need, it just makes sense, it's what I would have done. what good is 2 people with tasers (which aren't guaranteed to even work) if he does pull a gun and they aren't effective enough to stop him? she probably should have waited until he opened the car door then it wouldn't be this massive issue, though the end results would still be the same, I couldn't see it happening any other way.
Taser International"s own doctrine advises that an officer should anticipate failure and be supported by a colleague, with his firearm drawn, ready to shoot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
maybe they need to ramp up rubber bullet technologies, that might be the way to go, maybe.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

John Crawford shouldn't have played with a toy gun in a store where they sell toy guns.

Philando Castile shouldn't have...done what the officer told him to do.

Dude at some point you gotta think that, maybe, just maybe the police are entirely too gun crazy and need to be better trained.
#BlackLivesMatter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:22:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

If you are not familiar with my stances, Trayvon Martin should not have been sought after by Zimmerman. The kid was not seen as doing anything wrong.

John Crawford shouldn't have played with a toy gun in a store where they sell toy guns.

Again, this looks like a bad shoot. What does that have to do with a person high on PCP, behaving erratically, and ignoring police?

Philando Castile shouldn't have...done what the officer told him to do.

Again, this looks like a bad shoot. What does that have to do with a person high on PCP, behaving erratically, and ignoring police?


Dude at some point you gotta think that, maybe, just maybe the police are entirely too gun crazy and need to be better trained.

Or that people shouldn't wield guns (toy or not) in a public play ground.
Or that people shouldn't do PCP and drive.
Or that people shouldn't act like they are pulling weapons on cops.
Or that people shouldn't HAVE weapons when they are not allowed to in general.
Or that charging a police officer after committing strong arm robbery is a bad idea.

My point is that there are a LOT of people that suffer at the hands of police, a LOT. However when it comes to "black" deaths, no investigating is being done before BLM decides to take up their cause. '

You want me to have the badz feelz for a criminal driving under the influence of PCP, and then getting shot because he is to damn high to realize the situation he put himself in?

You want me to feel bad for a kid waving a replica firearm around a park and getting shot? (Fun fact, if he did that in the state of Florida, he would have wound up like Trayvon Martin, and there wouldn't even have been a trial...)

You want me to feel bad for a criminal with a firearm being shot while waiting in his car with an invisible 'book', and apparently pulling it in front of police?

You want me to feel bad for a guy pulling something from a pocket, assuming a shooter's stance and pointing at police?

How bout "no".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:24:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:45:26 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:08:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:56:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:04:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/12/2016 6:48:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I didn't know you could reach "in" to a vehicle where the windows were rolled up. Was he shadowcat?

And I again ask, if you are intimating as though you are attempting (though any means) to gain access to a vehicle in which cops have been routinely telling you not to go toward, what possible difference would it make? Even by the most generous accounts for Mr. Crutcher, he was reaching into his pockets at the car door.


And again I ask, how you can reach "in" the car, or "through" the window if the window is up? And it clearly was because there's a video shot of his body, and blood spattered all over the driver side window.

Almost makes one wonder what Mr. Crutcher was attempting to do, because "keeping his hands in the air" and "getting on the ground" was definitely not it.

And it's not all clear that he was "intimating" that, since it looks like he tazed around that exact time. His hand lowering could be from the tazers' effect.

I don't require the police put themselves in further danger. Do you?




The point being is that by this time, the cops' patience for this man disregarding their safety was at wits end, and his actions could very reasonably be construed as a lead up to something drastically hostile.

Or, they could've tazed him before he even got to the car if they were that worried for their safety. And since there's no audio we don't know if they were telling him to go back to the car to put his hands on the top or what.


Yeah, that's perfect police procedure. "Return to your car.... no no, not the hood. Go back to the driver's side window... now, don't worry about keeping your hands in the air, go ahead and go for the door latch..."

these people are truly amazing aren't they? even the media talking about how she had a taser, saying she grabbed the gun by mistake b.s. she knew the cop next to her had a taser, she drew her gun in case that didn't work and stronger force was need, it just makes sense, it's what I would have done. what good is 2 people with tasers (which aren't guaranteed to even work) if he does pull a gun and they aren't effective enough to stop him? she probably should have waited until he opened the car door then it wouldn't be this massive issue, though the end results would still be the same, I couldn't see it happening any other way.
Taser International"s own doctrine advises that an officer should anticipate failure and be supported by a colleague, with his firearm drawn, ready to shoot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
maybe they need to ramp up rubber bullet technologies, that might be the way to go, maybe.

I've been thinking about this for a while to kev.
Even tazer bullets. And a gun that fires the different bullets. Rubber to tazer to .22 , then the .50. Or maybe the 1st shoot is a stick with a flag saying bang . So the gun goes.
1st shot party popper with the flag saying bang. And if that doesn't take em down , the next shot is a blank then rubber bullet then a ball barring shot, then a shot of tequila, then the .22 then .22 again then a t-shirt , followed by a nail, then the .50
Killing people has never been funner . A fun gun of sorts. If you flick the random switch on the side , that's getting even more fun.
To far hey.
But Terence is dead because he was American. Full stop. If Terence was a aussie he'd be receiving help now for his drug use. Or it could of been a been bad policing . Wich is due to . " They don't get payed enough. ".
He did die doing what he loved but. He was tweeking hard core , and don't think for 1 second being shot or shot at when your off your tits on Pcp is not fun . It's a challenge. He should of caught the bullet or simple dodged it. Rest in peace Terence , love you.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:32:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:26:09 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Oh did I just say that out loud .

naw just set phasers to stun, drug issues like most things can't be compared between the U.S. and other countries, many have tried but there's far too many variables, but certainly more can be done, though people who aren't looking for help can't be forced to, not in this country anyway. I don't know if he ever sought treatment or not, they just kind of gloss over the fact that he had a history of drug abuse and arrests.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:35:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

John Crawford shouldn't have played with a toy gun in a store where they sell toy guns.

Philando Castile shouldn't have...done what the officer told him to do.

Dude at some point you gotta think that, maybe, just maybe the police are entirely too gun crazy and need to be better trained.

You people...???

https://youtu.be...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 2:57:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:32:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:26:09 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Oh did I just say that out loud .

naw just set phasers to stun, drug issues like most things can't be compared between the U.S. and other countries, many have tried but there's far too many variables, but certainly more can be done, though people who aren't looking for help can't be forced to, not in this country anyway. I don't know if he ever sought treatment or not, they just kind of gloss over the fact that he had a history of drug abuse and arrests.

No but seriously , when I think about the gun with different bullets. I always get shot down , pardon the pun . I start thinking of criminals becoming more brazen due to the fact, so I stop thinking about it. As bad or as good as police can be, its certainly a different to almost every thing kind of job and thing hey ? Combined with , how much a hour should it be .
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.

John Crawford shouldn't have played with a toy gun in a store where they sell toy guns.

questionable, but personally I would have dropped it and not ran

Philando Castile shouldn't have...done what the officer told him to do.

The officer still sounds distressed as he explains, "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."
http://www.cnn.com...

Dude at some point you gotta think that, maybe, just maybe the police are entirely too gun crazy and need to be better trained.

possibly and perhaps the general public should know what to do and not do when dealing with police as well?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:06:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 2:57:15 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:32:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 2:26:09 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Oh did I just say that out loud .

naw just set phasers to stun, drug issues like most things can't be compared between the U.S. and other countries, many have tried but there's far too many variables, but certainly more can be done, though people who aren't looking for help can't be forced to, not in this country anyway. I don't know if he ever sought treatment or not, they just kind of gloss over the fact that he had a history of drug abuse and arrests.

No but seriously , when I think about the gun with different bullets. I always get shot down , pardon the pun . I start thinking of criminals becoming more brazen due to the fact, so I stop thinking about it. As bad or as good as police can be, its certainly a different to almost every thing kind of job and thing hey ? Combined with , how much a hour should it be .

there's just a trend in society that devalues other people's lives, property and freedoms, respect and kindness for others is at an all time low imo so we should expect more of the same.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.

that they did, and yet some claim it was a "black thing" and that's why he was killed, how they try to link these bad decisions to race is trying to lay blame other than where it really belongs, with the individuals.
Fernyx
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:59:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.

that they did, and yet some claim it was a "black thing" and that's why he was killed, how they try to link these bad decisions to race is trying to lay blame other than where it really belongs, with the individuals.

Also Zimmerman was Hispanic
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:12:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 6:11:25 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:59:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.

that they did, and yet some claim it was a "black thing" and that's why he was killed, how they try to link these bad decisions to race is trying to lay blame other than where it really belongs, with the individuals.

Also Zimmerman was Hispanic

yes a fact they like to leave out and refuse to accept, he is actually the first white Hispanic ever, they should have put him in a zoo or something.
Fernyx
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 6:12:36 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 6:11:25 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:59:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.

that they did, and yet some claim it was a "black thing" and that's why he was killed, how they try to link these bad decisions to race is trying to lay blame other than where it really belongs, with the individuals.

Also Zimmerman was Hispanic

yes a fact they like to leave out and refuse to accept, he is actually the first white Hispanic ever, they should have put him in a zoo or something.

Just like how all Jews are white now.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,913
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 6:44:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 6:26:54 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 10/13/2016 6:12:36 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 6:11:25 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:59:11 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:25:22 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:03:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 1:55:39 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Lol you people will jump through any hoops to justify black deaths.

Trayvon Martin shouldn't have protected himself against the guy stalking him.

I see you are a bit confused here so read up on Martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, is that how you protected yourself by attacking someone when he could have ran away? I guess you deny facts, the courts have ruled.


The Trayvon/Zimmerman encounter was retarded, we expected the 16 year old to act like a mature adult, and gave the mature adult a pass.

Zimmerman was in no way threatened by this kid until he left his vehicle to go actively looking for him, and conversely, Martin was in no way harmed by Zimmerman until Zimmerman went looking for him.

Both of them were looking for trouble, and not surprisingly, they both found it.

that they did, and yet some claim it was a "black thing" and that's why he was killed, how they try to link these bad decisions to race is trying to lay blame other than where it really belongs, with the individuals.

Also Zimmerman was Hispanic

yes a fact they like to leave out and refuse to accept, he is actually the first white Hispanic ever, they should have put him in a zoo or something.

Just like how all Jews are white now.

yes like Sammy Davis Jr. it was an extremely dark white person.
http://www.theroot.com...