News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

As much as their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't make the effort to show up. Like in any political assembly, local or international, your vote and opinion won't count if you don't show up. Even so, that treaty was ratified by 48 out of 51 participating nations.

how do you show up when you weren't invited?

[OH&S]

Here's a more detailed article on the recent shooting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hreatened.html

Honestly, this is just sad. I would've thought that with the recent high profile police shootings, that police officers would at least try not to do anything that would cause similar attention.

That's just despicable; he was caught red-handed.

[LKK]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

In the video the officer also can be observed moving the taser and placing it next to the victims body. Shooting a fleeing person is a crime and he had to know it. No where in the video is the victim observed to be grabbing for the officers taser. The officer's original story, which would have likely held up if not for this video, was that in the process of the suspect trying to wrestle the taser away from him, he pulled his revolver and shot him. The video clearly shows that to be a lie.

I'm not surprised. There had to be something more than was shown even in the video I saw to warrant the murder charge.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by LKK

I'm not surprised. There had to be something more than was shown even in the video I saw to warrant the murder charge.

yup, the officer screwed up and he knew it, trying to plant the taser is about as good an admission of guilt as it gets.

He's gonna get burned for this, and rightly so.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

yup, the officer screwed up and he knew it, trying to plant the taser is about as good an admission of guilt as it gets.

He's gonna get burned for this, and rightly so.

It is still 50/50 odds that he would get punished. There is still a chance that he would just get paid leave instead.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

It is still 50/50 odds that he would get punished. There is still a chance that he would just get paid leave instead.

Nope, whatever the perception some may have about police in the US(many borders on the realm of ridiculous), you'd have to be nuts if you think this will get swept under the rug.

Case in point: he's ALREADY fired, charged with murder, and jailed without bond. You can hardly get paid leave when you're literally nothing more than an inmate waiting for trial.

[Eragon]

If there was no video there would be people here defending the officer that the black man had a taser on him. Any perception of the police that people have, inside or outside the USA, is pretty justified given the flood of shooting reports and the results of such incidents.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Nope, whatever the perception some may have about police in the US(many borders on the realm of ridiculous), you'd have to be nuts if you think this will get swept under the rug.

Case in point: he's ALREADY fired, charged with murder, and jailed without bond. You can hardly get paid leave when you're literally nothing more than an inmate waiting for trial.

You might have a point if it wasn't for the case of Eric Garner. They caught him on camera being choked to death and the officer was also fired but that case didn't even make it past the grand jury. Many are all ready switching their reasoning from the original story to justify it based on the fact the victim ran. The onus is placed on blacks in America to do absolutely nothing (no sudden movements, no backtalk, no scary black man looks etc.) that might give the officer the urge to shoot them. When broken down to it core that truly means that blacks are supposed to be docile in the face of their betters, like the good ole days.

Another problem I have is that many people will only view this officers actions as an aberration and not something endemic to America's justice system. I earlier watched CNN parade a bunch of well-dressed uncle tom's to defend the police as a largely benevolent organization. While it would be unfair to characterize all police as biased and corrupt, it is also unfair to pretend bias and corruption doesn't influence many police officer's actions. Prison's aren't filled with blacks because blacks have some propensity to crime that whites lack; though many have brought in to this belief wholeheartedly.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

As much as their opinion doesn't matter because they didn't make the effort to show up. Like in any political assembly, local or international, your vote and opinion won't count if you don't show up. Even so, that treaty was ratified by 48 out of 51 participating nations.

China did submit a complain right after the SF conference. What makes it moot for today's debate is that their complain did not include Senkaku.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

China did submit a complain right after the SF conference. What makes it moot for today's debate is that their complain did not include Senkaku.

Touché!

In other news, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty on all charges and now faces death penalty for the Boston Marathon bombing. There was no way anybody would be able to paint his older brother as a totally manipulative mastermind and the younger brother as a mere follower.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

You might have a point if it wasn't for the case of Eric Garner. They caught him on camera being choked to death and the officer was also fired but that case didn't even make it past the grand jury.

No, I have a point because this has already moved past all those, he's ALREADY CHARGED WITH MURDER, there's no "lack of indictment" possible here.

If you want to argue using court procedures, then at least understand said procedures.

On the Garner case, there arguments can be made for the restraining method and intent of the officer (unless you're one of those guys who thinks the cop was literally trying to choke him to death, which btw also wasn't how he died). There is no such ambiguity here.

Many are all ready switching their reasoning from the original story to justify it based on the fact the victim ran. The onus is placed on blacks in America to do absolutely nothing (no sudden movements, no backtalk, no scary black man looks etc.) that might give the officer the urge to shoot them. When broken down to it core that truly means that blacks are supposed to be docile in the face of their betters, like the good ole days.

So there are stupid people who also doesn't know jack shit about the law (running alone is not a justifiable cause for using deadly force), what's your point?

Oh nvm, your point is the race card.

Another problem I have is that many people will only view this officers actions as an aberration and not something endemic to America's justice system. I earlier watched CNN parade a bunch of well-dressed uncle tom's to defend the police as a largely benevolent organization. While it would be unfair to characterize all police as biased and corrupt, it is also unfair to pretend bias and corruption doesn't influence many police officer's actions. Prison's aren't filled with blacks because blacks have some propensity to crime that whites lack; though many have brought in to this belief wholeheartedly.

The problem here is with your characterization, specifically in the lack of actual numbers.

How many police officers are there? what do you mean by "many" when it comes to bias and corruption? would you care to clarify just what you mean by "many"? perhaps a %? If you can't, then how can you say that police as a whole is not a "largely" benevolent organization?

The incarceration problem in the US goes FAR beyond simple race issue like you're trying to do here. While race is certainly a component, the more significant factors are a socio-economic ones.

[JokerD]

There were 2 lie told that were significant, 1 is that CPR was given, it was not and frankly it wouldn't have helped since a bullet went through his heart, any compressions would have led him to bleed more anyway. This would have easily came to light in the autopsy since CPR would have left rib injuries which would not be present.
Second is that the guy took his tazer. Well we saw what happened in the video since he planted it next to the fallen body. Interfering the crime scene and planting evidence. This is a really bad charge.
One thing that strikes me is that he fires eight shots and hit only 5, at this close distance indicates that he's quite a bad shot , but yeah, overkill or he is shooting until the suspect drops. And no skyward warning shot either

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by kyp275

No, I have a point because this has already moved past all those, he's ALREADY CHARGED WITH MURDER, there's no "lack of indictment" possible here.

If you want to argue using court procedures, then at least understand said procedures.

On the Garner case, there arguments can be made for the restraining method and intent of the officer (unless you're one of those guys who thinks the cop was literally trying to choke him to death, which btw also wasn't how he died). There is no such ambiguity here.

He did choke him to death according to the medical examiner. They introduced other factors like him being overweight, out of shape, and in poor health but those were not the primary cause of death. Compression of chest and neck, that means choking and sitting on him were the cause. Intent is always a problem and could be used in this case, though shakily at best given the video, to argue the officer reacted reflectively and with intent only to injure. Though that probably won't stop some from latching on to that reasoning.

My point still holds up, whether charged or not, Eric Garner shows that video evidence against cops can be explained away with enough legal wrangling.

So there are stupid people who also doesn't know jack shit about the law (running alone is not a justifiable cause for using deadly force), what's your point?

Oh nvm, your point is the race card.

Yep, because it a card that exists no matter how much people trying to deny it. These people find it morally permissible to shoot a person running which I doubt most would still feel the same way if that person were white.

The problem here is with your characterization, specifically in the lack of actual numbers.

How many police officers are there? what do you mean by "many" when it comes to bias and corruption? would you care to clarify just what you mean by "many"? perhaps a %? If you can't, then how can you say that police as a whole is not a "largely" benevolent organization?

The incarceration problem in the US goes FAR beyond simple race issue like you're trying to do here. While race is certainly a component, the more significant factors are a socio-economic ones.

Yes, I'm sure if we survey police officer we will get solid numbers on their bias. If I wanted to know about the bias of police I need only look at the society that they are pulled from. America's on large are extremely biased. How do I know that cause I live it everyday. I'm not black but I watch and observe people. I listen to people talk shit about violent blacks, I hear friends and colleagues make jokes about blacks and I too have absorbed many of those biases which I have to constantly suppress since I have grown up inundated with racist beliefs.

Socio-economic is an easy out that only tries to obfuscates the issue. The question is why are so many blacks poor in the first place. Must be because they are lazy and don't have that hardworking spirit that whites have right?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

My point still holds up, whether charged or not, Eric Garner shows that video evidence against cops can be explained away with enough legal wrangling.

No it really doesn't. Go back to the posts, the argument was that he's probably going to get off scot free with a paid leave, and I pointed out how that's literally impossible.

Seriously, stop moving the goal posts.

Yep, because it a card that exists no matter how much people trying to deny it. These people find it morally permissible to shoot a person running which I doubt most would still feel the same way if that person were white.

Of course there are those people out there. Nobody said they don't exist.

However, you're the one making the sweeping generalizations here. You realize anyone can just as easily pull out some racist posts by blacks or people of any ethnicity and then paint the entire race with the same brush you just did.

Except we'd be calling those people racists, because they would be.

Yes, I'm sure if we survey police officer we will get solid numbers on their bias. If I wanted to know about the bias of police I need only look at the society that they are pulled from. America's on large are extremely biased. How do I know that cause I live it everyday. I'm not black but I watch and observe people. I listen to people talk shit about violent blacks, I hear friends and colleagues make jokes about blacks and I too have absorbed many of those biases which I have to constantly suppress since I have grown up inundated with racist beliefs.

Obviously your anecdotal experience, including the few hundred people you probably meet and interact with in a single geographical location totally reflect the entire 320 million + people in the entire US.

It may be a surprise to you, but everyone stereotypes. It's unavoidable, it's how human brains are wired. So if your goal is a society without biases, you best start working on creating AIs or bioengineer the next evolutionary step for humans. Hell, go out into the world, you'd see very quickly just how much "bias" there are out there between people of all creed and races.

Unrealistic expectations aside, it doesn't change the fact that you're still passing judgement on a huge group of people based on nothing more than your own extremely limited experience. As I said, that's something most people do on some level, but the difference is that bigots takes that and run with it, while those who know better look to hard data to question their beliefs.

Again, YOU are the one making those sweeping claims. Ask yourself, if someone makes a sweeping claim against an entire nation/race/group of people based on nothing more than their limited personal experience, how would you take it? Say, a first-generation immigrant worker from Asia who then worked 20 years in the rougher parts of Detroit, who got to see all the bad things ever associated with blacks fairly or not, and very little of the good.

Now, he would be able to make the exact same argument you just did using the exact same logic and standards to make very racist claims against black people, do you honestly not see the fault in your reasoning here?

Socio-economic is an easy out that only tries to obfuscates the issue. The question is why are so many blacks poor in the first place. Must be because they are lazy and don't have that hardworking spirit that whites have right?

No, playing the race card without studying the issues behind it like you just did here again is what obfuscates the issue. Labeling the socio-economic factors here as distractions is like saying the LHC is really there to confuse physicists.

Urban culture, racial discrimination, the failed war on drugs, gang violence, disintegration of the traditional core family unit, poverty etc. all combine and overlaps to create a vicious cycle that afflicts many african americans (though not just them either). But feel free to default to your race card position, I'm sure that'll address the core issues.

...sometimes before the Sun turn into a Red Giant. Maybe.

Originally Posted by JokerD

There were 2 lie told that were significant, 1 is that CPR was given, it was not and frankly it wouldn't have helped since a bullet went through his heart, any compressions would have led him to bleed more anyway. This would have easily came to light in the autopsy since CPR would have left rib injuries which would not be present.
Second is that the guy took his tazer. Well we saw what happened in the video since he planted it next to the fallen body. Interfering the crime scene and planting evidence. This is a really bad charge.
One thing that strikes me is that he fires eight shots and hit only 5, at this close distance indicates that he's quite a bad shot , but yeah, overkill or he is shooting until the suspect drops. And no skyward warning shot either

Yup, the lies and the obvious and immediate cover ups is what's going to seal his fate, it's about as obvious as an admission of guilt as they come outside a straight out confession.

On the other notes, there's no such thing as "warning shots", at least not with a firearm, outside of a battlefield, and those are straight at the ground. Remember, what goes up must come down. A warning shot is no different than blindly firing your gun and hoping nobody will get hit. As for the shooter's accuracy, at that distance with a pistol is actually not bad, unfortunately for the victim.

[ganbaru]

Iran will only sign nuclear deal if sanctions lifted 'same day': Rouhani
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0N00EQ20150409

South Carolina police shooting reflects racist pattern, residents say
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...09?mod=related

By condemning nuclear deal, Netanyahu prioritizes his own personal fortune
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...sonal-fortune/

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by JokerD

One thing that strikes me is that he fires eight shots and hit only 5, at this close distance indicates that he's quite a bad shot , but yeah, overkill or he is shooting until the suspect drops. And no skyward warning shot either

That's more accurate than the New York police who hit just 34% of their targets over a ten-year period. See my earlier post at: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...25#post5394925

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by kyp275

On the other notes, there's no such thing as "warning shots", at least not with a firearm, outside of a battlefield, and those are straight at the ground. Remember, what goes up must come down. A warning shot is no different than blindly firing your gun and hoping nobody will get hit. As for the shooter's accuracy, at that distance with a pistol is actually not bad, unfortunately for the victim.

As opposed to say... the 3 bullets that didn't hit the guy and shot in a straight arch to god knows where? Bullets fired straight up fall back to earth at their terminal velocity which is far less dangerous than that.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

That's more accurate than the New York police who hit just 34% of their targets over a ten-year period. See my earlier post at: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...25#post5394925

Well this is a distance of 0 to 15 (ish) meters straight away from you, it's not exactly a small or difficult target to shoot...

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by JokerD

As opposed to say... the 3 bullets that didn't hit the guy and shot in a straight arch to god knows where? Bullets fired straight up fall back to earth at their terminal velocity which is far less dangerous than that.

Uh, not sure what your point is, as those weren't warning shots. You said you were surprised there were no skyward warning shots, I explained why, and you counter by saying missed shots were more lethal than warning shots? I don't follow your logic, those missed shots were just that - missed shots, the intention behind those was not to warn.

Well this is a distance of 0 to 15 (ish) meters straight away from you, it's not exactly a small or difficult target to shoot...

Go to a range and snap off 8 rounds in rapid fire at a stationary target, and you'd be surprised at how large your grouping is.

Now do it again after running around and wrestling with a person to get your adrenaline pumping, and now shoot at a moving target, you'll rethink how "easy" it is to put down accurate fire from a pistol in real life situations.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Uh, not sure what your point is, as those weren't warning shots. You said you were surprised there were no skyward warning shots, I explained why, and you counter by saying missed shots were more lethal than warning shots? I don't follow your logic, those missed shots were just that - missed shots, the intention behind those was not to warn.

Well, in some states such as Texas where you are allowed to shoot at a fleeing thief, some may argue about the "double standard" of not allowing warning shots there even though it poses less danger to bystanders than missed shots in the case of shooting at a fleeing thief at long distance...

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Well, in some states such as Texas where you are allowed to shoot at a fleeing thief, some may argue about the "double standard" of not allowing warning shots there even though it poses less danger to bystanders than missed shots in the case of shooting at a fleeing thief at long distance...

that's a different subject altogether, you're conflating rules allowing the use of deadly force with risks with warning shots.

also, just because you may be allowed to use deadly force against thiefs in Texas doesn't mean you don't own the consequences for the rounds you fire - if you end up shooting someone else while you're firing at the thief, you're still fully responsible for it.