- 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
3
Posted on 7/16/15 at 7:52 am to TigerHam85
So dropping your hands = deserving to be shot and killed.
OT, never change.
OT, never change.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 7:59 am to cas4t
Not listening to what the law enforcement officer is telling you to do results in consequences. Unfortunately in this instance it was death.
Had he listened, he'd be alive.
Had he listened, he'd be alive.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:16 am to CptRusty
So there is no gray area? No blame to share?
Dispatcher gets call, judging by the looks of the teens, I would say that the dispatcher did not fully comprehend the call. He/She most likely heard robbed and x store. -Why are dispatchers in CA not bi-lingual, this should be mandatory.This is the point where a stolen bike goes to possible armed robbery.
Cops get the call out to a bad neighborhood for a possible armed robbery. If the dispatcher had gotten the information correct do we honestly think that cops would have responded to a stolen bike at night in a bad neighborhood? Cops find "suspects", they are on a call out for a possible armed robbery so weapons are drawn. Once again, if the dispatcher gets the call right this is a taser situation, not a firearm.
Teen is upset. He just stole back his brothers bike and is on his way home, then the cops pull up. The language barrier is frustrating him. He is pacing, mumbling, making aggravated gestures.
Back to the cops who are on alert, because their call out was for a possible armed robbery. Two teens standing still, one is pacing, he keeps dropping his hands down, he is mumbling. One cop reacts when he thinks he sees a weapon, second cop fires as his partner had a better view.
Dispatcher gets the majority of the blame in my opinion, this interaction most likely never happens or if it does is approached differently had he/she put out accurate information. Cops and victim share the same amount of blame, although unfortunately their penalties are drastic in comparison. I do not think the teen should have paid for not obeying orders with his life, but I also believe had he done so he would still be alive.
Dispatcher gets call, judging by the looks of the teens, I would say that the dispatcher did not fully comprehend the call. He/She most likely heard robbed and x store. -Why are dispatchers in CA not bi-lingual, this should be mandatory.This is the point where a stolen bike goes to possible armed robbery.
Cops get the call out to a bad neighborhood for a possible armed robbery. If the dispatcher had gotten the information correct do we honestly think that cops would have responded to a stolen bike at night in a bad neighborhood? Cops find "suspects", they are on a call out for a possible armed robbery so weapons are drawn. Once again, if the dispatcher gets the call right this is a taser situation, not a firearm.
Teen is upset. He just stole back his brothers bike and is on his way home, then the cops pull up. The language barrier is frustrating him. He is pacing, mumbling, making aggravated gestures.
Back to the cops who are on alert, because their call out was for a possible armed robbery. Two teens standing still, one is pacing, he keeps dropping his hands down, he is mumbling. One cop reacts when he thinks he sees a weapon, second cop fires as his partner had a better view.
Dispatcher gets the majority of the blame in my opinion, this interaction most likely never happens or if it does is approached differently had he/she put out accurate information. Cops and victim share the same amount of blame, although unfortunately their penalties are drastic in comparison. I do not think the teen should have paid for not obeying orders with his life, but I also believe had he done so he would still be alive.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:38 am to TigerHam85
quote:
The victims actions are the reason he's dead. There is no other way to swing it.
So the city shelled out 4.7 mil because it was clearly the victim's fault?
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:42 am to TigerHam85
quote:
The victims actions are the reason he's dead. There is no other way to swing it.
If this is your opinion that's fine, but you cannot also say that you aren't defending the police officer's actions, because you are.
If you do not hold the officer at fault, even partially, then you are condoning his actions.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:42 am to LSUTANGERINE
They shelled out 4.7m because the judicial system in this country is shite.
Sorry, tangerbro. He should have left his hands in the air and he'd be alive today.
Sorry, tangerbro. He should have left his hands in the air and he'd be alive today.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:43 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
No blame to share?
Sure.
99% police officer
1% unarmed innocent victim
And that's being generous.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:44 am to CptRusty
I never said the law enforcement officer wasn't in the wrong. I simply said had the brotaco left his hands in the air, he'd still be eating starburst and fried chicken today.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:46 am to LSUTANGERINE
Do you honestly base your opinions on right and wrong on court decisions?
Although, in this case I believe the court ruled correctly to award the family some monetary award (although multi million dollar settlements via taxpayers and not police unions in these cases is quite egregious).
Although, in this case I believe the court ruled correctly to award the family some monetary award (although multi million dollar settlements via taxpayers and not police unions in these cases is quite egregious).
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:50 am to TigerHam85
quote:
I never said the law enforcement officer wasn't in the wrong.
You placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the victim, with no qualifying statement that the officer was also at fault.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:50 am to CptRusty
quote:
An autopsy found he had methamphetamine and high levels of alcohol in his system.
I'm ok with this shooting.
ETA: had he pulled a gun and killed a cop, we never would have heard about it. This frickin society my kids are growing up in
This post was edited on 7/16/15 at 8:54 am
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:51 am to CptRusty
By your assumption then the victim was dead when police showed up. You are literally saying that had he kept his hands up that there was a 99% chance he gets shot. He paid a higher price for his part of blame than any other, but that does not absolve him of blame.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 8:55 am to bayourougebengal
quote:
quote: An autopsy found he had methamphetamine and high levels of alcohol in his system.
Has no bearing on the officers actions. The officer had no way of knowing. In fact, the meth would certainly help explain his overly fidget behavior.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:00 am to AwesomeSauce
quote:
You are literally saying that had he kept his hands up that there was a 99% chance he gets shot
I'm really not sure how you have misconstrued my assignment of blame into some statistical analysis of a hypothetical situation. I'll just say that, no, that's not what I intended to convey. If that's how you understood it, then perhaps my wording was incorrect.
quote:
He paid a higher price for his part of blame than any other, but that does not absolve him of blame.
Where did I say the outcome of the situation had bearing on the amount of blame each party is assigned? The thing which absolves the victim of blame is the fact that he did nothing which threatened the officers lives, or that could even be construed as such by a reasonable person.
I'll put it to you this way, if the people on camera had been regular civilians, they'd be in jail by now, and rightfully so.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:00 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Has no bearing on the officers actions. The officer had no way of knowing. In fact, the meth would certainly help explain his overly fidget behavior.
you are correct. I'm simply saying one less meth head causing trouble for innocent people.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:01 am to CptRusty
The victim is dead 100% because of his actions. There is no arguing that.
Should the law enforcement officer have used lethal force? Probably not, but had the victim done as he was told the law enforcement officer would have used zero force.
Leave your hands in the air, nothing bad would have happened, but he didn't do that. So he gone
Should the law enforcement officer have used lethal force? Probably not, but had the victim done as he was told the law enforcement officer would have used zero force.
Leave your hands in the air, nothing bad would have happened, but he didn't do that. So he gone
This post was edited on 7/16/15 at 9:03 am
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:05 am to TigerHam85
quote:
The victim is dead 100% because of his actions. There is no arguing that
In fact I'm arguing that the vast majority of the blame for the victims death lies with the officers.
quote:
Should the law enforcement officer used leather force? Probably not,
You can't have it both ways. You can blame the kid, the officers, or both...but you can't say that the kid is 100% to blame and then in the next sentence claim that the officers should not have done what they did.
By making this claim, you are admitting that there is shared blame.
I happen to disagree with you on how much of that blame rests on the police, but my bigger issue is that you seem to want to play both sides of the fence. It doesn't work that way.
This post was edited on 7/16/15 at 9:08 am
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:08 am to CptRusty
It's the Internet, it works however I want it to work.
Kids dead cause he didn't listen.
Kids dead cause he didn't listen.
Posted on 7/16/15 at 9:10 am to CptRusty
Yeah suck it Scott
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News