- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'Bad police work' in Alton Sterling's death, but don't expect a conviction ...
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:57 am to shel311
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:57 am to shel311
I didn't like what I saw either, it looked brutal. I guess it will come down to the fact that they violated protocol or not.
I don't think he was "murdered." In fact it might be 100% justified, you just can't tell enough from the videos.
I don't think he was "murdered." In fact it might be 100% justified, you just can't tell enough from the videos.
1
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:57 am to SabiDojo
quote:Pretty much, yea.
From what I understand, two officers are given the same "area". When an officer responds to a call, he calls for his second officer when he feels he needs the support. Do you think having more officers would have made things better? People would be bitching about how it's "overkill" (for lack of a better word). Yes, Alton was a big man, but I don't blame the officers for thinking they could "take him". And you have to think of the reality of the situation. An encounter can go from "neutral" to "oh shite" in just seconds.
I've said all along basically my "official" take was I think the officer's put themselves in more danger with the takedown. And virtually every single time I posted that I put a disclaimer to say I'm not an officer so I don't know what the official policy or checklist, if you will, is in a situation like that. And I've also said every single time that I don't fault the officers in the least for the decision they made. Hindsight is 20/20, and again, I'd concede their judgment over mine.
Just funny that I got at least 2 people to freak out over my post, which was half joking.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:57 am to upgrayedd
quote:I don't even know what you're talking about.
Why won't you answer the question?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:58 am to lsupride87
For example, the EXPERTS actually contradict themselves.
They give an opinion, and then say people shouldnt be giving opinions because there is not enough information yet
They give an opinion, and then say people shouldnt be giving opinions because there is not enough information yet
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:59 am to shel311
quote:What if he was going for his gun before the takedown?
put themselves in more danger with the takedown
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:59 am to shel311
quote:
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Sure you do. You're just choosing to ignore it.
I'll ask again. What should the cops have done to properly handle this situation?
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:59 am to shel311
quote:
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Classic deflection.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:02 am to Will Cover
DINDU's gone be madddddd
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:02 am to OysterPoBoy
The cops could have been absolutely wrong for the takedown and tasering, or absolutely justified for the takedown and tasering.
The EXPERTS, actually say there is not enough information to make this call yet.
But even after saying there is not enough info, 4/5 EXPERTS decide to give an uniformed opinion on the takedown anyway, which leads me and other rational people to say it is pandering.
The EXPERTS, actually say there is not enough information to make this call yet.
But even after saying there is not enough info, 4/5 EXPERTS decide to give an uniformed opinion on the takedown anyway, which leads me and other rational people to say it is pandering.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:02 am to lsupride87
quote:
What if he was going for his gun before the takedown?
Then they should have shot his arse without trying to tackle him in the first place.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:03 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:What if he was threatening to shoot, so they thought the had a chance to use non lethal force to stop the situation?
Then they should have shot his arse without trying to tackle him in the first place.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:04 am to The Sad Banana
quote:
Did I read that right? That the police were supposed to safely retreat?
I guess the point was that they should've left themselves the option, but if you start giving ground to criminals, they typically exploit it. It doesn't seem like a good tactic to me.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:04 am to Will Cover
white people win again
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:05 am to lsupride87
quote:With gun in hand? Blast his arse
What if he was threatening to shoot,
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:08 am to Uncle JackD
quote:No, without gun in hand. There is so many possibilities on why the tasering and takedown would be necessary. There are also many possibilities on why it wouldnt be necessary.
With gun in hand? Blast his arse
But to comment either way at the time, is asinine.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:09 am to lsupride87
quote:
What if he was threatening to shoot, so they thought the had a chance to use non lethal force to stop the situation?
I hope there is more audio/video to clear up these "what if" scenarios.
My fear is that the witness statements are going to be biased with emotional, antipolice sentiment
It looked to me like Alton was unresponsive to officer demands rather than threatening/menacing officers. Maybe he did threaten to harm the officers/civilians. Hopefully this is cleared up in the audio from the BRPD bodycams.
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 11:11 am
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:10 am to lsupride87
No gun = no direct threat imo. Non lethal force should be used then. That I agree with.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:12 am to Uncle JackD
quote:My only point is, there is justification for the takedown. We have no real info on what happened at that time. I have no clue why the "experts" would state an opinion on it, all while contradicting themselves saying there is not enough information and evidence to yet make a comment on it
No gun = no direct threat imo. Non lethal force should be used then. That I agree with.
It shows preconceived bias to me
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:15 am to lsupride87
quote:
It shows preconceived bias to me
I'm not sure about that, but to base an entire article on the opinions of experts that are forming said opinions based on only partial evidence is very irresponsible. That shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity but, of course, that's never stopped the new owners of The Advocate before.
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 11:15 am
Posted on 9/19/16 at 11:16 am to lsupride87
quote:
I have no clue why the "experts" would state an opinion on it, all while contradicting themselves saying there is not enough information and evidence to yet make a comment on it
Because they get paid to appear on these things. They are also paid consultants/authors/Instructors who could use their name being in the public domain.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News