Gugny Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Someone please tell Jim Kelly hasn't been relevant sine the Bills lost their fourth straight Super Bowl. Jesus. He's like Curt Schiling and Joe Namath. Just go away, dude. Put your Starter jacket away and go play some golf, man.
devldog131 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 I think you are trying to be reasonable during this discussion, but your reasons for excusing the cops actions are total BS. Just because someone called 911 doesn't justify the shooting, the choice of waiting to be shot or shot at before reacting should not be the only choice. I am certain there are other procedures in place besides, shoot first ask questions later. If he felt his life was threatened he is in the wrong line of business. I remember the female cop that shot the black guy whose car stalled said she was never so scared in her life when she shot him. She was with 2 other armed cops about a hundred feet or so from an unarmed man. If this is her most frightened moment of her life, she shouldn't be a cop. Again, I wasn't assigning blame or excusing anybody's actions. I was only trying to point out that, as much as you and others talk about what he should have done (with the benefit of hindsight), none of us were there, and very few of us know what it feels like to legitimately fear for our lives, and not one of us has a complete evidentiary picture of the incident, so we aren't equipped to pass judgement on either party.
Shamrock Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Did you see the ridiculous reasoning used by the cop in that case? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-castile-pot-smell-made-fear-life-article-1.3265188 Naturally the cop wasn't found guilty of manslaughter. His partners calmness is amazing under circumstances that would be unimaginable.
NoSaint Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 At no point did I argue that he provoked his own shooting. The poster I responded to emphasized the "toy gun." I just refuted that inaccuracy and explained how difficult it can be to differentiate between a pellet gun styled after a real gun and a real gun. At what point in my post did I even remotely indicate any belief that he provoked his own shooting? Nobody, even those who have seen the video, know all of the circumstances surrounding the events that took place. The officer was responding to multiple 911 reports of a person brandishing a gun and, upon arrival saw something that corroborated those reports. Was he supposed to wait until he had been shot or shot at to establish if it was a real gun? Clearly he felt his life was threatened. It's not my place to judge whether or not that feeling was justified. Not one of us, even the most highly trained and experienced, know how we would respond in that situation. I am not assigning blame to any party because neither I, nor anyone else on this board, was present that moment or have all of the requisite information necessary to do so. I won't pretend I know 100% of what the jury heard, but the thought process you described is extremely common when it comes to police shootings. Anecdotally I find it even more common in conversations where the officer is white and the dead citizen is a young black man. There's a benefit of the doubt that certain groups get and others don't. It's natural on many levels- but that's why we need to be willing to have tough conversations that make us uncomfortable and why we need to hold our law enforcement to the highest standards. Again, I wasn't assigning blame or excusing anybody's actions. I was only trying to point out that, as much as you and others talk about what he should have done (with the benefit of hindsight), none of us were there, and very few of us know what it feels like to legitimately fear for our lives, and not one of us has a complete evidentiary picture of the incident, so we aren't equipped to pass judgement on either party. It sounds like short of both video and it being incredibly damning video you would never say guilty in an officer involved shooting when you say this.
klos63 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Again, I wasn't assigning blame or excusing anybody's actions. I was only trying to point out that, as much as you and others talk about what he should have done (with the benefit of hindsight), none of us were there, and very few of us know what it feels like to legitimately fear for our lives, and not one of us has a complete evidentiary picture of the incident, so we aren't equipped to pass judgement on either party. I will respectfully disagree with your assessment that we aren't equipped to pass judgement. We can gather a lot from the video. If you find the time, please watch it.
Saxum Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Do people who say dumb stuff like this realize our country was founded by people deciding they didn't like the way things were and decided to revolt? I guess George Washington should have just moved to France. Actually Washington very much wanted to be a top British general and they didn't really want to let him. Just sayin'. French supporters had told Washington as well as a number other revolutionaries that they would support them if it failed; I have not heard of any who though counted on it. The French were rivals to the British and did as much to weaken England as they did to support colonists.
klos63 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) Again, I wasn't assigning blame or excusing anybody's actions. I was only trying to point out that, as much as you and others talk about what he should have done (with the benefit of hindsight), none of us were there, and very few of us know what it feels like to legitimately fear for our lives, and not one of us has a complete evidentiary picture of the incident, so we aren't equipped to pass judgement on either party. could probably use this logic when we do our monday morning quarterbacking. Except for the fear for our lives part. Edited September 26, 2017 by klos63
devldog131 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 I won't pretend I know 100% of what the jury heard, but the thought process you described is extremely common when it comes to police shootings. Anecdotally I find it even more common in conversations where the officer is white and the dead citizen is a young black man. There's a benefit of the doubt that certain groups get and others don't. It's natural on many levels- but that's why we need to be willing to have tough conversations that make us uncomfortable and why we need to hold our law enforcement to the highest standards. I come from a family with deep ties to law enforcement, so I see things from a slightly different perspective than most. That being said, I would have the same thought process if a green cop shot a purple guy. I give zero $#its what color anybody is. I care only about innocence until proven guilt and what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conjecture by amateurs helps nobody and can sometimes only serve to fan the flames of conflict before any actual facts and evidence have even been examined.
Boatdrinks Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) I think I know the Castile shooting - he announced that he had a concealed weapon and a permit to have one. He said he was reaching for his ID? If he wanted to shoot the cop over a broken brake light, why announce that he has a gun? And he obviously didn't pull out a gun before the cop unloaded into him. I'm sorry, but these incidents shouldn't be death sentences. And to make a black/white comparison = The Chad Kelly incident where he threatened to go to his car, get his gun and shoot the place up. I think he ended up going home that night, he certainly wasn't shot. He was initially asked for his ID. That changed to " keep your hands where I can see them" when he informed the officer ( correctly) that he had a weapon. He then reached anyway. I felt the Cop overreacted . He fired many more times than necessary and seems terrified. . The guy was McFly. Not cut out to be a cop. But his reaction wasn't criminal. It wasn't pre mediated or anything like that. Whatever he said in that staement was questionable on a good day. But even without reading that statement and viewing the dashcam video with audio, I would not conclude that his actions were criminal. Not everyone is built for that kind of Police work. A jury followed the law and agreed that the standard was met. As for Chad Kelly wasn't that a bouncer? I don't think it was a cop. I also don't know what he did when he was ordered to keep his hand where they can be seen. I'm assuming he complied? Saying I'm going to get a gun is not the same as saying I have one in my pocket for obvious reasons. Edited September 26, 2017 by Boatdrinks
Saxum Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 What an embarrassing hot sticking mess. Everyone is offended by everything in the Land of the free, Home of the brave. Since I'm on the other side of the world (Thank God), can someone enlighten me please. I understand how and why these protests began last year, with Keapernick, but... weren't most of yesterdays protests directed more at Trump? Yes they were. Many of the players protested as part of unity against the POTUS (pronounce it like "putz").
Saxum Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Probably not. Or they could just stop playing the national anthem before sporting events, which would make far more sense, since sporting events really have nothing whatsoever to do with national identity, patriotic fervor, etc. i wish they would do this as well.
Domdab99 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 LOL at pulling out the manual like the NFL is some bastion of patriotism...players are only out there for the Anthem in the first place because the Defense Department paid the NFL millions to have them on the field for recruitment purposes into the Armed Services.
devldog131 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 I will respectfully disagree with your assessment that we aren't equipped to pass judgement. We can gather a lot from the video. If you find the time, please watch it. I have seen the video, but a 12 second clip doesn't paint anything resembling a complete picture without full context and background information.
Saxum Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Gee, It's almost like sports writers want all this divisiveness so people will take the clickbait and yell and scream about their team so they'll share the clickbait so more people visit their website. So odd, huh? Clickbait does not work so much with a paywall. I am not paying one penny to keep Jerry "trumpass" Sullivan employed.
SoCal Deek Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 LOL at pulling out the manual like the NFL is some bastion of patriotism...players are only out there for the Anthem in the first place because the Defense Department paid the NFL millions to have them on the field for recruitment purposes into the Armed Services. This is simply not true! The National Anthem has been played prior to sporting events for many decades (most of which was before television!). It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Defense Department recruitment policies. Sheeesh
Saxum Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 When Kap was the only one to sit, everybody on the 49ers defended him. When the Steeler was the only one to stand, his coach scolded him for it. Can't make this stuff up. He did not intentionally do so. Read the interviews.
klos63 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 He was initially asked for his ID. That changed to " keep your hands where I can see them" when he informed the officer ( correctly) that he had a weapon. He then reached anyway. I felt the Cop overreacted . He fired many more times than necessary and seems terrified. . The guy was McFly. Not cut out to be a cop. But his reaction wasn't criminal. It wasn't pre mediated or anything like that. Whatever he said in that staement was questionable on a good day. But even without reading that statement and viewing the dashcam video with audio, I would not conclude that his actions were criminal. Not everyone is built for that kind of Police work. A jury followed the law and agreed that the standard was met. As for Chad Kelly wasn't that a bouncer? I don't think it was a cop. I also don't know what he did when he was ordered to keep his hand where they can be seen. I'm assuming he complied? Saying I'm going to get a gun is not the same as saying I have one in my pocket for obvious reasons. Basically, if it wasn't for barney fife, an innocent black man would still be alive. If I remember correctly, the cop had his gun drawn as he approached the car. Remember this was for a broken tail light.
devldog131 Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) It sounds like short of both video and it being incredibly damning video you would never say guilty in an officer involved shooting when you say this.I wouldn't say guilty for anybody for anything unless it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I sat on a jury for a criminal trial. It was particularly difficult for me as the father of two little girls because the charge was "Rape of a Child." The entire jury believed the defendant (who happened to be a minority) had done what he was accused of, but we had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence and testimony to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us liked it, but we agreed that the cornerstone of our judicial system is innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that to imprison a person who *may* be innocent would be far more egregious than to acquit a person who was *probably* guilty. Edited September 26, 2017 by devldog131
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 (edited) I wouldn't say guilty for anybody for anything unless it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I sat on a jury for a criminal trial. It was particularly difficult for me as the father of two little girls because the charge was "Rape of a Child." The entire jury believed the defendant (who happened to be a minority) had done what he was accused of, but we had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence and testimony to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. None of us liked it, but we agreed that the cornerstone of our judicial system is innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that to imprison a person who *may* be innocent would be far more egregious than to acquit a person who was *probably* guilty. Huh? All the evidence points to being innocent yet the whole jury thinks he is guilty. Why did you feel he was guilty? Edited September 26, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
NoSaint Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 Huh? All the evidence points to being innocent yet the whole jury thinks he is guilty. Why did you feel he was guilty? They all thought he was guilty but weren't positive
Recommended Posts