Neither you nor I can state as fact whether running got this kid killed, all we have is conjecture until the cop speaks out. I'm not trying to change the outcome by not answering the question I'm trying to point out how frankly silly the question was in the first place.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NYPD Kills 2 [Senseless War on Drugs]
- Thread starter YoungHav
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Neither you nor I can state as fact whether running got this kid killed, all we have is conjecture until the cop speaks out. I'm not trying to change the outcome by not answering the question I'm trying to point out how frankly silly the question was in the first place.
Neither you nor I can state as fact whether running got this kid killed, all we have is conjecture until the cop speaks out. I'm not trying to change the outcome by not answering the question I'm trying to point out how frankly silly the question was in the first place.
How is it silly? It's practical common sense.
Your view point is everyone should have the right to run away and avoid arrest from the police, without consequence. Who is the silly one here?
How is it silly? It's practical common sense.
Your view point is everyone should have the right to run away and avoid arrest from the police, without consequence. Who is the silly one here?
lol you're obviously the silly one. You don't know anything about me and yet you're assigning all these viewpoints to me. I've never said there should be no consequence for running from police. I've consistently stated that running alone (he didn't even fight back apparently) is not grounds for being shot at. You obviously disagree.
lol you're obviously the silly one. You don't know anything about me and yet you're assigning all these viewpoints to me. I've never said there should be no consequence for running from police. I've consistently stated that running alone (he didn't even fight back apparently) is not grounds for being shot at. You obviously disagree.
What does knowing you have anything to do with my responses? I'm basing this on your responses directed to me.
I never agreed to that bolded point you have made. You are basically bullshitting your way through a discussion, without making a proper stance or point.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Discharging a firearm, by definition, is exercising lethal force. You could blow off someone's foot, shatter their knee cap, hit a major artery, and put the victim in shock. There is no "safe" place to shoot someone.Which is what I said I disagreed with. There have been too many cases where someone was unarmed or didn't post a threat but was killed because of this policy. Shoot them in the leg, they fall down, everyone rushes and then you can find out what the real story is. Shooting to kill should only be done if someone has a gun and is rushing towards you, aiming at you, etc. things like that.
But...I saw this movie and the cop was like "its only a flesh wound!"Discharging a firearm, by definition, is exercising lethal force. You could blow off someone's foot, shatter their knee cap, hit a major artery, and put the victim in shock. There is no "safe" place to shoot someone.
What does knowing you have anything to do with my responses? I'm basing this on your responses directed to me.
I never agreed to that bolded point you have made. You are basically bullshitting your way through a discussion, without making a proper stance or point.
Look I'm not trying to get you angry or anything and I'm definitely not trying to "bullshit" my way through this argument. My last post was lampooning the fact that you said this.
Which isn't my viewpoint at all.Your view point is everyone should have the right to run away and avoid arrest from the police, without consequence.
EDIT: To be honest I really don't see how you missed the hypocrisy of crying foul there.
DBL EDIT: My point if you still don't get it is that the cop should not have shot the kid. And that a person engaging in non-threatening behavior shouldn't have to factor their "life expectancy" in when dealing with cops. Cop was wrong 100% that is all.
No worries, I'm not angry. You have just avoiding answering a simple question and not take a full stance on the argument you are trying to convey.
The question was again, "The question is do you believe the suspect's actions factored into the final outcome of this situation?" (Yes/No)
The question was again, "The question is do you believe the suspect's actions factored into the final outcome of this situation?" (Yes/No)
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Sounds like enter the void.
No worries, I'm not angry. You have just avoiding answering a simple question and not take a full stance on the argument you are trying to convey.
The question was again, "The question is do you believe the suspect's actions factored into the final outcome of this situation?" (Yes/No)
You're still hung up on this? I've taken a position on my argument just not the one you want me to. Why should I answer a question that doesn't matter? Here's a better one Do you agree that the decision by the kid to run should've factored into his shooting considering there was little to no violence? If you believe it should've been a factor should cops be able to draw their weapons on non-violent suspects? If you're dealing with cops the thought "if I run I might get shot/killed" should never go through your mind. Running is non-violent. Cops are only allowed to fire weapons when they or someone else is in danger.
I wonder if they'll release that audio recording from the second incident. What the fuck was the guy thinking walking at them with a gun in his hand? That first one though, that sounds like some weird shit went down. The grandmother being heard screaming "why are you hitting me" is pretty fucking weird and makes you think there was some shady shit going down in that house on the cops ends.
The man was in his own fucking house, holding a gun because he'd probably been trying to clear out the assholes who had been trying to rob his friend.
WTF ever happened to Castle Doctrine?
You're still hung up on this? I've taken a position on my argument just not the one you want me to. Why should I answer a question that doesn't matter? Here's a better one Do you agree that the decision by the kid to run should've factored into his shooting considering there was little to no violence? If you believe it should've been a factor should cops be able to draw their weapons on non-violent suspects? If you're dealing with cops the thought "if I run I might get shot/killed" should never go through your mind. Running is non-violent. Cops are only allowed to fire weapons when they or someone else is in danger.
I'm not forcing you to take a stance on anything. I was looking for an honest answer and take the discussion from there. When every one of your responses are "IM NOT ANSWERING AND I BELIEVE THIS ETC" it simply doesn't go anywhere from there and comes across as annoying overall.
I don't even disagree with you, in fact I agree with many of your stances. Your overall perspective of things is just very off.
I'm not forcing you to take a stance on anything. I was looking for an honest answer and take the discussion from there. When every one of your responses are "IM NOT ANSWERING AND I BELIEVE THIS ETC" it simply doesn't go anywhere from there and comes across as annoying overall.
I don't even disagree with you, in fact I agree with many of your stances. Your overall perspective of things is just very off.
Hey It's all good. I had a feeling you agreed with me. For the most part our argument has been academic. It may be annoying but I simply thought the question was leading and didn't want the discussion to go in that direction.
EDIT: For the record I do think it had an effect on this cops decision but letting something as small as fleeing influence a decision like that is bad police work hence why I say it doesn't matter.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
The man was in his own fucking house, holding a gun because he'd probably been trying to clear out the assholes who had been trying to rob his friend.
WTF ever happened to Castle Doctrine?
he ran outside waving the gun around, police had JUST arrived answering the call of an armed robbery. they see a guy with a gun and tell to drop it. they need to know who is who and to sort out who is doing what, the real robbers had left already by the way.
They got robbed because of marijuana's black market. When have you ever heard about someone getting their home invaded because the criminals wanted to get their budweiser stash?former incident = tragedy, direct fault of idiot officer and drug policies latter incident = don't hold a gun when confronting the cops
and the latter incident has nothing to do with drugs?
what are you talking about? They are both drug related incidents, the first not being forgivable, the latter still needs to be investigated thoroughly. The bottom line is the NYPD treats situations differently when blacks and latinos are involved. Could you imagine this ending up bein the same result if a homeowner in upstate NY came out of his home with his hunting shotgun? They would not be as quick to pull the trigger. Let the facts come out but for now there needs to be more accounts from non-police witnesses as to what happened at that scene. Cops aren't infallible (duh), and they could have lied to protect themselves as far as gun holding victim's movements.I get the impression Hav grouped em up together to make them both look like incidents directly related to drugs as well as both incidents where the NYPD are entirely at fault....
when in reality, they're both very separate incidents probably worthy of separate threads.
how very disingenuous, but not surprising coming from OP
The War on Drugs has always been a stupid idea. To add insult to injury, the cops will get a slap on the wrist if found at fault, which will aggravate relations between them and civilians. The judicial system seems to avoid making an example out of police, no matter how egregious the conduct, which is bad policy altogether. Do we need a cop who moonlights as serial killer or something?
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
He was a drug dealer and he was approaching officers with a gun. If he really didn't drop the gun after the police identified themselves, then I can't see a problem with the shooting. The police had every right to expect him to be dangerous.The man was in his own fucking house, holding a gun because he'd probably been trying to clear out the assholes who had been trying to rob his friend.
WTF ever happened to Castle Doctrine?
He was a drug dealer and he was approaching officers with a gun. If he really didn't drop the gun after the police identified themselves, then I can't see a problem with the shooting. The police had every right to expect him to be dangerous.
WTF is this shit?
They didn't know he was a drug dealer until after the fact.
Drug dealing is not a capital offense.
The drug was marijuana.
It was his own home.
LOL at you. So the telepathic police knew he was a drug dealer? And the person who got shot wasn't the drug dealer btw.He was a drug dealer and he was approaching officers with a gun. If he really didn't drop the gun after the police identified themselves, then I can't see a problem with the shooting. The police had every right to expect him to be dangerous.
This post is so silly.Welcome to the media. When a white person kills/beats up a black man the races are brought up. When a black man or a group of black people kill a white person or beat up white people, races are never mentioned.
Either always mention the race or never mention the race. Picking and choosing is a joke.
Gonna pack a bowl for the first dude.
Thats just a terrible situation, my sympathies go out to him and the family.
The second case however... I mean, he had a gun in his hand. Dude was collateral damage. I can't exactly be pissed at the cops in that second case.
The first one though? Yeah, I'll keep that one in mind, police. One more strike against you guys.
Thats just a terrible situation, my sympathies go out to him and the family.
The second case however... I mean, he had a gun in his hand. Dude was collateral damage. I can't exactly be pissed at the cops in that second case.
The first one though? Yeah, I'll keep that one in mind, police. One more strike against you guys.
Vicetrailia
Member
First case...Fuck the police!
Second case...Dude's fault, especially since it's gun vs gun, not crowbar vs gun or something.
Second case...Dude's fault, especially since it's gun vs gun, not crowbar vs gun or something.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.