Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 167: Can't spell corrupttion without Pruitt

(+) Yeah! (+)

redrocket posted...

The 6th Amendment of the Constitution literally says "yes, even a person pointing a gun is entitled to a fair trial".

No, it does not "literally" say that.

Otherwise I will argue the Constitution literally says that I can shout fire in a crowded theater.

Or that I can literally file false reports to the police and say, "lol, just kidding."

Or that I can literally sacrifice live goats and say it's a religious practice.

Or that I can literally own a fully functional and armed attack helicopter.

Need I go on?

Some of these are a little more ridiculous than the others, but I see your point.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Topic be like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOMLgoKcnH8" data-time="

This is like, the perfect video to describe any internet argument that goes on for too long and becomes increasingly convoluted
---

Also gonna point out, again, that disproportionately, a lot of white people point guns at people and don't get shot to death by the police, where black people can just be doing anything other than pointing guns and still get shot to death. Even when they're 12 year olds playing in a park that have no chance to react to their killers.

That's not to say white people are never victims of police brutality - those suffering from mental illnesses tend to be targeted almost as often by police, which is another problem that shouldn't be ignored.
---

the people that record these videos should really get their diabetes checked out
---

Corrik posted...

No. Their job is to protect the innocent from harm and uphold the law.

And, no you are just trying to act like everything is dumb you don't say to try and pull an air of superiority, but you are consistently across the board wrong.

I said IF only 1% of the time he kills her, which is an if and is an unknowable percentage (hence the usage to show you the it is 100% the right call every time to make), he still has to make the shot every time.

You are trying to no joke play 20/20 hindsight with gambling with lives with unknowable odds. You act like it is a video game that says "This guy may shoot this girl 1% of the time".

You are not operating in real life scenarios.

If the guy would have shot that girl .0000001% of the time or 100% of the time, you have to take the shot every single time. You do not fucking gamble with people's lives that are threatened and that you can save.

That is how real life works. If that bothers, you there is something wrong with you. The cop didn't force you to point a gun at a person. You made that choice. That is a consequence you live with. It has repercussions.

In real life we gamble with peoples lives every day we step out of the house. Not all of us jump straight to killing people before trying to talk to them though. You on the other hand would kill somebody on the .0000001% chance they might do something. But yeah I guess I'm the bad guy here.
---

Corrik posted...

If the guy would have shot that girl .0000001% of the time or 100% of the time, you have to take the shot every single time. You do not fucking gamble with people's lives that are threatened and that you can save.

Me, walking down the street, murdering people that I'm 99.9999999% sure are completely innocent: Can't gamble with people's lives!
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

If the guy would have shot that girl .0000001% of the time or 100% of the time, you have to take the shot every single time. You do not fucking gamble with people's lives that are threatened and that you can save.

Me, walking down the street, murdering people that I'm 99.9999999% sure are completely innocent: Can't gamble with people's lives!

Context, man. A guy pointing a gun at the girl has already crossed a line where he is absolutely not, "completely innocent."
---

redrocket posted...

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

If the guy would have shot that girl .0000001% of the time or 100% of the time, you have to take the shot every single time. You do not fucking gamble with people's lives that are threatened and that you can save.

Me, walking down the street, murdering people that I'm 99.9999999% sure are completely innocent: Can't gamble with people's lives!

Context, man. A guy pointing a gun at the girl has already crossed a line where he is absolutely not, "completely innocent."

Yeah but that guy eyeballing Tony at the crosswalk is sitting behind the wheel of a 2,000 pound murder machine. So hes gotta go.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Then why do they get a slap on the wrist for things that would land a civilian in jail for life?

I'm not saying that cops who actually do commit criminal acts should just get a slap on the wrist.

I'm saying that this "shower head" situation and in situations like it that there was no wrong doing on the part of the cops.

BowserCuffs posted...

Also it's rather dystopian that an orange piece of plastic can determine whether a child lives or dies to a cop.

So maybe don't take off or paint over the orange plastic that is supposed to signal to someone that you are not holding an actual weapon?

Cops arrive at the scene knowing only the information they were given en route. If the information is that someone is waving a gun around, and they arrive at the scene and see someone waving a gun around, then that is what they have to go on.

And it can result in tragic circumstances, but they aren't the ones precipitating the situation, they are the ones who have to show up and diffuse it.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

As far as this part of the post, we're never going to agree here.

The 6th Amendment of the Constitution literally says "yes, even a person pointing a gun is entitled to a fair trial".

It literally does not do this.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

That bolded part there is the important bit. Because you don't get to the "criminal prosecution" into after the alleged criminal has been neutralized and arrested. And if that person is pointing a gun at someone then there is a good chance they might not survive the neutralizing process. But if they DO survive the arrest then yes, they get a fair trial.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I don't know why you keep stripping the nuance from this, but here goes:

I'm not saying Cops should never discharge their weapons at suspects.

I'm saying Cops should assess the scene and attempt to deescalate, every time.

Arriving on scene and firing on someone who's not already firing ends up with 12 year olds dead.

Then someone should have taught that 12 year old not draw a replica at a police officer.

Is it a tragedy? Yes. But it's a tragedy of awful parenting and of a kid who didn't realize the danger he was putting himself into through his actions.

Again, maybe don't take the orange safety feature off your replica gun.

Because imo that situation was fairly assessed from the perspective of the cops. The fact that it was a child was not relayed to them before their arrival on the scene, and that was a mistake on the part of the dispatcher and that might have altered how the situation played out, but it also might not have because it was still the appearance of a real gun. So that's a big ol' "fair, next" as far as I'm concerned. And it does suck, but it would suck a lot less if people would not point guns (or appear to point guns) at other people.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Then someone should have taught that 12 year old not draw a replica at a police officer.

Is it a tragedy? Yes. But it's a tragedy of awful parenting and of a kid who didn't realize the danger he was putting himself into through his actions.

Again, maybe don't take the orange safety feature off your replica gun.

Because imo that situation was fairly assessed from the perspective of the cops. The fact that it was a child was not relayed to them before their arrival on the scene, and that was a mistake on the part of the dispatcher and that might have altered how the situation played out, but it also might not have because it was still the appearance of a real gun. So that's a big ol' "fair, next" as far as I'm concerned. And it does suck, but it would suck a lot less if people would not point guns (or appear to point guns) at other people.

Uh he was just standing under the pavillion and they drove the car right up to him and shot him as they were exiting the vehicle.
---

It didnt help that the dispatcher didn't relay the part about it being a kid and that the gun could be fake.
---

64 police officers were shot and killed in 2016.

17 unarmed black males were shot and killed by police in 2016. A total of 51 unarmed people were shot and killed by the police.

"Police again most frequently used fatal force after encountering people armed with knives or guns, killing 735, a number nearly identical to the 734 armed people and killed in 2015. The number was slightly lower in 2016, with 693 armed with either type of weapon.

White males continued to account for the largest group of people killed while armed with guns or knives, at 330 of those killed. Black males armed with guns or knives were fatally shot in 160 cases last year.

Mental health again played an outsize role in the shootings: 236 people, or nearly 1 in 4 of those shot, were described as experiencing some form of mental distress at the time of the encounter.

In the vast majority of those cases, 88 percent, the deceased people had wielded firearms or other weapons, including a machete, a sledge ax and a pitchfork."

Main take away.

"Our officers are in 1.5 million volatile encounters a year, so shooting someone is an incredibly rare event,"
---

lordloki12 posted...

Uh he was just standing under the pavillion and they drove the car right up to him and shot him as they were exiting the vehicle.

According to police spokesmen, it was initially unclear whether or not that information had been relayed to the dispatched officers, Loehmann and Garmback, and it was later revealed that the dispatcher had not elaborated beyond referencing "a gun".

Its terrible what happened. It was easily preventable. But based on the information that was relayed they had to assume he was reaching for a real gun and not a fake gun.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Uh he was just standing under the pavillion and they drove the car right up to him and shot him as they were exiting the vehicle.

According to police spokesmen, it was initially unclear whether or not that information had been relayed to the dispatched officers, Loehmann and Garmback, and it was later revealed that the dispatcher had not elaborated beyond referencing "a gun".

Its terrible what happened. It was easily preventable. But based on the information that was relayed they had to assume he was reaching for a real gun and not a fake gun.

Who the fuck cares?

He wasnt pointing it at anybody, so merely carrying a gun qualifies for death by cop?

Thats some scary shit, that as I said before, should outrage the anti-gun Left and the anti-government Right.
---

If you are told to raise your hands but you choose instead to reach for a gun then yes, you are asking to be shot.
---

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

If a person of your description is reported to have a gun, they ask you to put your hands up, you refuse, and make any sudden movements, yes, they have reasonable cause to shoot.
---

Corrik is correct.
---

All of this talking in circles, no mention (that I saw while skimming, at least) that the trade war is officially on with Trump escalating tariffs
---

If you think a twelve year old should be shot for playing with a toy gun in the park... or a man in wal-mart picking up a b.b. gun should be shot... then maybe it's really time to ban guns altogether.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

Everything I'm reading says that is what happened, actually. The cop told him to put his hands up and he reached for a replica toy gun that was in his waistband instead. Video supports the whole... Reaching for the "gun" thing, atleast.

I think they acted a bit fast, but I'm also not really sure what else you do in a situation where you are informed (incorrectly) that somebody has a gun and they appear to be trying to pull it on you.

I think a LOT of blame needs to go to the dispatcher who did not relay that the gun was probably fake, nor did they relay that it was a kid.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

If you think a twelve year old should be shot for playing with a toy gun in the park... or a man in wal-mart picking up a b.b. gun should be shot... then maybe it's really time to ban guns altogether.

Should be? No, not remotely.

I don't think anyone is saying that. If you think we are then you might be misreading what we are trying to say.

HashtagSEP posted...

I think a LOT of blame needs to go to the dispatcher who did not relay that the gun was probably fake, nor did they relay that it was a kid.

In that particular scenario, yes that is a big deal. My brother has been a dispatcher for 2 years at our local PD and he doesn't understood where the breakdown of information would have occurred.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

If you think a twelve year old should be shot for playing with a toy gun in the park... or a man in wal-mart picking up a b.b. gun should be shot... then maybe it's really time to ban guns altogether.

You are hiding behind refusing to acknowledge context.
---

What makes it worse is that replicas very much confound things even more. Say it's an adult male that has a replica toy gun, and it's also missing the orange piece that signifies it's a toy. How are the cops supposed to know? Getting closer might have allowed the cops to see that, say, a pipe is not a gun... But getting closer to a replica is going to just go... Yep, it's a gun. So short of them actually taking it from the guy, they'd have no way of knowing.

It creates extremely unfortunate situations like the Rice case, because if all the information you have is "Somebody's pointing a gun at people," and then somebody reaches for a replica gun in their waistband... What do you do? 9/10 times, somebody reaching for a gun in their waistband isn't doing so for a friendly reason, so you can't really hope for "Well, maybe they'll just pull it out and put it down."

The Rice case sucks because there are SO MANY things that could have prevented it. If the dispatcher has actually done their job, it'd have been prevented. And why the hell do we need toy guns that look so much like the real deal?

It's infuriating on a lot of fronts, even before you get to whether the cops should be 100% to blame or not.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

The Rice case sucks because there are SO MANY things that could have prevented it. If the dispatcher has actually done their job, it'd have been prevented. And why the hell do we need toy guns that look so much like the real deal?

I actually agree on this part. Which is why I shake my head at Gen Xers whining about how toy guns aren't "allowed to look like guns" because of the "PC crowd."

The fact of the matter, though, is that it wasn't prevented. Someone fucked up, and nobody faced consequences for it except an innocent little boy.

And regardless of anything else, the boy was innocent. Even if he did reach for the toy gun, it may have been a panic moment where his brain said "don't reach for the toy gun" and he did it anyways because that's a thing that happens to everyone. There's even a term for it that escapes my mind, where you tell yourself not to do something so strongly that you do it.

And I will still add that conservatives ran a smear campaign on Tamir Rice to justify his tragic death, just like they do with every black victim of police brutality, and there are still people that believe it to this day.
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

If a person of your description is reported to have a gun, they ask you to put your hands up, you refuse, and make any sudden movements, yes, they have reasonable cause to shoot.

This is just handing police carte blanche to kill whoever they want. Scary shit.
---

What would you say is the root cause for all these shootings?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

Everything I'm reading says that is what happened, actually. The cop told him to put his hands up and he reached for a replica toy gun that was in his waistband instead. Video supports the whole... Reaching for the "gun" thing, atleast.

I think they acted a bit fast, but I'm also not really sure what else you do in a situation where you are informed (incorrectly) that somebody has a gun and they appear to be trying to pull it on you.

I think a LOT of blame needs to go to the dispatcher who did not relay that the gun was probably fake, nor did they relay that it was a kid.

Lmao what video are you watching that supports the whole reaching for the gun thing?

They basically shoot him less than 3 seconds after pulling up and he never pointed the gun.

Think about the precedent that sets, holy shit that is scary as fuck
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

If a person of your description is reported to have a gun, they ask you to put your hands up, you refuse, and make any sudden movements, yes, they have reasonable cause to shoot.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Corrik is correct.

So basically, if you make a mistake, mishear, have a developmental disability, etc, you DESERVE to be shot by a Cop?

You guys need to think critically about this.
---

How about don't go into public waving around things that look exactly like guns because might think they are actually guns in a country that has a mass shooting every month it seems? You are really saying that is too much to ask?
---

In the US, yes, that is quite literally too much to ask, especially when "things that look exactly like guns" include everyday objects that people wave around in public all the time (wallets, cell phones, etc).
---

Kenri posted...

In the US, yes, that is quite literally too much to ask, especially when "things that look exactly like guns" include everyday objects that people wave around in public all the time (wallets, cell phones, etc).

Don't forget bare hands.
---

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.

I don't think you realize that that's actually reality for those minorities that are disproportionately targeted for police brutality.

And there's nothing irrational about that fear, either.
---

Kenri posted...

In the US, yes, that is quite literally too much to ask, especially when "things that look exactly like guns" include everyday objects that people wave around in public all the time (wallets, cell phones, etc).

Is there an epidemic of wallet-waving of which I am unaware?
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-trump-and-his-generals-victory-has-different-meanings/ 2018/04/05/8d74eab0-381d-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html (remove the space)

Later, when the agencys head of drone operations explained that the CIA had developed special munitions to limit civilian casualties, the president seemed unimpressed. Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, Why did you wait? one participant in the meeting recalled.

---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Is there an epidemic of wallet-waving of which I am unaware?

Yes, pretty much any time you need to pay for something or show your ID.
---

Kenri posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

Is there an epidemic of wallet-waving of which I am unaware?

Yes, pretty much any time you need to pay for something or show your ID.

You wave your wallet around to do that? You don't just calmly extricate said wallet from a pocket or purse and remove your ID? Do you often see people getting cuffed while in line at the supermarket?
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.

Its rich calling it an irrational fear when you literally just said thats the way it should be.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Do you often see people getting cuffed while in line at the supermarket?

Only after they've been shot like 20 times first.

Anyway yes I feel comfortable calling the arc that my wallet travels from my back pocket to in front of me a "wave", but really if our criteria for when police shootings are acceptable is determined by the sort of action you're making with a harmless item, there's already been a pretty big mistake made along the way.

hockeydude15 posted...

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.

I live in a completely rational fear that police will kill innocent people every day, even if those people are not me specifically.

Does your system solve this problem or just tell me to be okay with it?
---

Kenri posted...

Only after they've been shot like 20 times first.

Anyway yes I feel comfortable calling the arc that my wallet travels from my back pocket to in front of me a "wave", but really if our criteria for when police shootings are acceptable is determined by the sort of action you're making with a harmless item, there's already been a pretty big mistake made along the way.

What supermarket are you going to?

To me, the context is key here, and while I believe it is certainly possible that a less scrupulous or reasonable police officer might see a wallet as a threat because it's in the hands of someone said cop thinks fits a suspicious profile, we shouldn't lump everything on earth together and say that it's close enough in shape to a gun to be considered suspicious. Any object is going to be suspicious to a racist cop staring at their minority de jure. People aren't pulling out wallets and getting shot. People are being black and getting shot.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Kenri posted...

Only after they've been shot like 20 times first.

Anyway yes I feel comfortable calling the arc that my wallet travels from my back pocket to in front of me a "wave", but really if our criteria for when police shootings are acceptable is determined by the sort of action you're making with a harmless item, there's already been a pretty big mistake made along the way.

What supermarket are you going to?

To me, the context is key here, and while I believe it is certainly possible that a less scrupulous or reasonable police officer might see a wallet as a threat because it's in the hands of someone said cop thinks fits a suspicious profile, we shouldn't lump everything on earth together and say that it's close enough in shape to a gun to be considered suspicious. Any object is going to be suspicious to a racist cop staring at their minority de jure. People aren't pulling out wallets and getting shot. People are being black and getting shot.

Oh, I don't think we're disagreeing at that point.

The problem is, people are going to use "he aggressively pulled out a wallet and the cop thought he was going for a gun" as justification for him being black and getting shot.

Which is why we're talking about this - in many cases, the defense is as dystopian as the actual reason.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Which is why we're talking about this - in many cases, the defense is as dystopian as the actual reason.

I think my issue is that Kenri 's post fixates on the wrong aspect of the problem. Don't fixate on the objects - that's the weeds. That's wandering away from the issue. Focus on, "When I, as a cop, see a suspicious individual pulling out a foreign object, my response is X."

We can't cure racism, but we can admit where it exists and offer safe alternatives to how these situations can play out, right?
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

Which is why we're talking about this - in many cases, the defense is as dystopian as the actual reason.

I think my issue is that Kenri 's post fixates on the wrong aspect of the problem. Don't fixate on the objects - that's the weeds. That's wandering away from the issue. Focus on, "When I, as a cop, see a suspicious individual pulling out a foreign object, my response is X."

We can't cure racism, but we can admit where it exists and offer safe alternatives to how these situations can play out, right?

I think I'm fixating on objects the least of everyone considering I said it wouldn't make a difference even if it actually was a real gun.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lmao what video are you watching that supports the whole reaching for the gun thing?

They basically shoot him less than 3 seconds after pulling up and he never pointed the gun.

Think about the precedent that sets, holy shit that is scary as fuck

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/11/prosecutor_releases_enhanced_s.html

Text overlays detail what is seen in certain images.

In one frame, Tamir, who had a plastic replica gun tucked into his waistband, stands up from a bench under the recreation center's gazebo as a police cruiser drives toward him.

It is unclear if he sees the cruiser, which would come to a stop in front of him about 10 seconds later.

About four seconds after standing up, Tamir puts his hands together in front of his stomach. In the next second, Tamir walks toward the police cruiser as it reaches the gazebo.

As the nose of the cruiser moves past Tamir, the boy moves his right arm toward his waist.

In the next frame, Tamir walks toward the moving cruiser and continues moving his right arm toward his waist. The cruiser's passenger door opens.

The next frame shows Tamir lift his right shoulder and arm. The cruiser remains in motion as officer Timothy Loehmann springs from the passenger seat.

A frame later, Loehmann shoots Tamir.

The images appear to support arguments made in a trio of expert reports made public by the prosecutor's office beginning in October. In each report, the experts determined that it was reasonable for Loehmann to believe that Tamir was armed with a gun

It's still sad that it was such a quick response to shooting him, but it really sounds like the dispatcher is mainly to blame here since he didn't tell the cops the gun may be fake.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lmao what video are you watching that supports the whole reaching for the gun thing?

They basically shoot him less than 3 seconds after pulling up and he never pointed the gun.

Think about the precedent that sets, holy shit that is scary as fuck

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/11/prosecutor_releases_enhanced_s.html

Text overlays detail what is seen in certain images.

In one frame, Tamir, who had a plastic replica gun tucked into his waistband, stands up from a bench under the recreation center's gazebo as a police cruiser drives toward him.

It is unclear if he sees the cruiser, which would come to a stop in front of him about 10 seconds later.

About four seconds after standing up, Tamir puts his hands together in front of his stomach. In the next second, Tamir walks toward the police cruiser as it reaches the gazebo.

As the nose of the cruiser moves past Tamir, the boy moves his right arm toward his waist.

In the next frame, Tamir walks toward the moving cruiser and continues moving his right arm toward his waist. The cruiser's passenger door opens.

The next frame shows Tamir lift his right shoulder and arm. The cruiser remains in motion as officer Timothy Loehmann springs from the passenger seat.

A frame later, Loehmann shoots Tamir.

The images appear to support arguments made in a trio of expert reports made public by the prosecutor's office beginning in October. In each report, the experts determined that it was reasonable for Loehmann to believe that Tamir was armed with a gun

It's still sad that it was such a quick response to shooting him, but it really sounds like the dispatcher is mainly to blame here since he didn't tell the cops the gun may be fake.

Of course it is the dispatchers fault. The cops were using the information they had available to them to act. They were not given all the information.

Problem is those arguing the other side have shown continually that they do not wish to acknowledge context. Racism is an easy catch all to hide behind despite the fact the numbers do not support that. It is just what the media keeps fixating on because it draws the most outrage and thus ratings.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.

I mean, I'm not, but that's because I'm white.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lmao what video are you watching that supports the whole reaching for the gun thing?

They basically shoot him less than 3 seconds after pulling up and he never pointed the gun.

Think about the precedent that sets, holy shit that is scary as fuck

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/11/prosecutor_releases_enhanced_s.html

Text overlays detail what is seen in certain images.

In one frame, Tamir, who had a plastic replica gun tucked into his waistband, stands up from a bench under the recreation center's gazebo as a police cruiser drives toward him.

It is unclear if he sees the cruiser, which would come to a stop in front of him about 10 seconds later.

About four seconds after standing up, Tamir puts his hands together in front of his stomach. In the next second, Tamir walks toward the police cruiser as it reaches the gazebo.

As the nose of the cruiser moves past Tamir, the boy moves his right arm toward his waist.

In the next frame, Tamir walks toward the moving cruiser and continues moving his right arm toward his waist. The cruiser's passenger door opens.

The next frame shows Tamir lift his right shoulder and arm. The cruiser remains in motion as officer Timothy Loehmann springs from the passenger seat.

A frame later, Loehmann shoots Tamir.

The images appear to support arguments made in a trio of expert reports made public by the prosecutor's office beginning in October. In each report, the experts determined that it was reasonable for Loehmann to believe that Tamir was armed with a gun

It's still sad that it was such a quick response to shooting him, but it really sounds like the dispatcher is mainly to blame here since he didn't tell the cops the gun may be fake.

None of this contradicts what I said: "less than 3 seconds and he never pointed the gun".

What this amounts to is "He put his hands together on his stomach, kill him."

You don't seem to understand my point.

I'm not saying "That cop wanted to kill an unarmed kid".

I'm saying the idea that Cops are allowed to kill someone, anyone, without even confirming a threat (remember, the tip was "possible kid with a gun", not "kid shooting people with a gun"), is horrific and dystopian.

When the rules for the government being allowed to straight up murder you are "someone said you had a gun" and "you don't hold your hands above your shoulders", that's potentially a license to murder anyone at anytime.

Remember the Daniel Shaver? The drunk guy who got blown away because he failed a game of Simon Says? That shit is horrifying.
---

Have we talked about Trump's genius strategy to simultaneously threaten China with tariffs and try to reassure the markets that the tariffs won't actually go into effect?

Master negotiator at it again!
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Have we talked about Trump's genius strategy to simultaneously threaten China with tariffs and try to reassure the markets that the tariffs won't actually go into effect?

Master negotiator at it again!

It's 87D chess, you just don't understand.
---