Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott - Page 10
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 114

Thread: Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Except sometimes when they're cops, they AREN'T used:

    Killed on Camera

    Killing of Michael Pleasance

    The killer was never even charged, much less indicted or tried.
    True, I have no answer for that either. The courts and juries are fickle and don't always give us the verdict that we expect. I have been stumped to understand why the courts do what they do. All you have to do is go to a local summary court and watch as some people are found guilty and some are found not guilty for the same charge and officer who brought the charge to court. Over time cops wonder why they do what they do, the good cops know that win or lose they may have saved or changed a life for better.
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Well said, you sound like an attorney. Everyone has their biases and I am working on them now. It would be nice if we all believe things the same way but that would be way too strange and this world would be so boring, right.

    The thing is that my post was meant to point out that we are all human with feeling, emotions, and failings. Too many people will lie to stay out of trouble or promote a their view of an issue or incident. That's why we use reasonable suspicion and probable cause in to prosecute violations of law.

    I will work harder on the bias thing. Thanks

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    "Stop and frisk" or a Terry stop was not found unconstitutional. The way the NYPD were conducting "Stop and frisk" was deemed unconstitutional based on the number of young black and hispanic males. The Judge did not recommend stopping the practice, just to change policies that made it appear racially motivated.

    The practice was to take illegal guns off the streets of NYC. What does that mean, you ask? It means any person in possession of a hand gun without a permit to carry, with mean almost everyone. It is my understanding that it is hard to obtain a carry or even a premise permit. If anyone is going against the NRA it is NYC.

    Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional?
    Factcheck.org, eh? Have you ever thought about who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?

    Stop and Frisk was never compliant with Terry v. Ohio, not in NYC, not in Oakland, CA, nor anywhere in between. Terry has its own Fourth Amendment problems, but S&F far-exceeded anything Terry allowed. S&F is just that - a cop sees someone, they stop 'em without a shred of RAS or PC, and pat 'em down for weapons. At least Terry stipulates that RAS must be present, and that the mere possession of a weapon is not sufficient to create RAS absent any other suspicious activity by the subject, that latter point being necessary to articulate in the ruling because Ohio is an open carry state and the Supremes saw fit to disallow the legal possession of a gun being the only thing needed for a cop to violate the subject's 4A rights. Factcheck.org saying that S&F and Terry Stops are basically one in the same is just the first hint that whoever wrote that is full of bovine excrement, and that nothing that follows it is trustworthy for truth or accuracy. They do allege that it was the judge who ruled that, and I wouldn't dismiss that possibility out of hand either, but it simply ain't true no matter who or what organization is the origin of that lie.

    Regardless, it can hardly be validly asserted that support for S&F would come out of the mind of someone who claims to support the Constitution. That goes for everybody from Donald Trump to the statist hacks of the Supreme Court who have so watered down the Fourth Amendment that it has nothing but rhetorical value left within it, down to the voters who think it's just great that Trump is willing to sacrifice their fundamental rights for the ridiculous notion of "law and order" coming out of constitutional usurpations(!!!), and right on down to the cops on the street who are thrilled with the Supreme Court giving them carte blanc to violate The Peoples' rights not only with impunity, but with the imprimatur of legitimacy that the law-breaking Supreme Court rules with. Terry is also an example of the same statist overreach, as is NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment to FOPA and on and on endlessly until the Constitution is nothing more or less than a rotting piece of sheepskin parchment unceremoniously tucked away in a not-so-hermetically-sealed glass case where the ink is as faded as the intended meanings of the words therein.





    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    True, I have no answer for that either. The courts and juries are fickle and don't always give us the verdict that we expect.
    My point was that Weems was never even CHARGED, much less tried. He got a pass on what was AT BEST criminally negligent homicide. Given that a guy was once convicted of felony MURDER... AND SENTENCED TO DEATH for merely being IN a drug house when one Chicago cop accidentally shot and killed another during a raid, it should be crystal clear what the odds are of a Chicago cop actually being held accountable for an unjustified killing.

    Weems was NEVER punished in any meaningful way, and was in fact promoted. The ONLY dose of "justice" came at his own hands.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    The way stop and frisk was used in NYC was by design. It was a display of domination and that was understood from the start.
    You may be right about that. But the fact is that if the Police use "Stop and frisk" it is effective. The problem is demographics.

    Question?? Would this be an issue if the statistics were reversed.

    If most of the offenders are of one race or another and those are the people being stopped and crime statistics dropped as they did in NYC is that really unconstitutional or racist? Or is that just good police work?

    When it comes down to it every person that is killed, no matter who does the killing matters. It is too bad that while we are having this discussion someone, somewhere is being killed by a civilian who may or may not have the right to have a weapon in the first place. Or a cop is stopping someone who believes that they should not be stopped and feels harassed and essentially escalates the situation to something that it was not going to be. 1% of all police contacts end in violence and most of those could be avoided by simply cooperating with the police.

    Still not sure why the majority of murders nation wide are less important than the few Officer involved shooting that occur on a daily basis. I feel that part of why is because someone is trying to convince people that parts of our country is powerless and needs to be controlled. In my opinion there is nothing further from the truth than that. I don't believe for a minute that I am any better than anyone else and work hard everyday to provide for my family.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  6. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Factcheck.org, eh? Have you ever thought about who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?

    Stop and Frisk was never compliant with Terry v. Ohio, not in NYC, not in Oakland, CA, nor anywhere in between. Terry has its own Fourth Amendment problems, but S&F far-exceeded anything Terry allowed. S&F is just that - a cop sees someone, they stop 'em without a shred of RAS or PC, and pat 'em down for weapons. At least Terry stipulates that RAS must be present, and that the mere possession of a weapon is not sufficient to create RAS absent any other suspicious activity by the subject, that latter point being necessary to articulate in the ruling because Ohio is an open carry state and the Supremes saw fit to disallow the legal possession of a gun being the only thing needed for a cop to violate the subject's 4A rights. Factcheck.org saying that S&F and Terry Stops are basically one in the same is just the first hint that whoever wrote that is full of bovine excrement, and that nothing that follows it is trustworthy for truth or accuracy. They do allege that it was the judge who ruled that, and I wouldn't dismiss that possibility out of hand either, but it simply ain't true no matter who or what organization is the origin of that lie.

    Regardless, it can hardly be validly asserted that support for S&F would come out of the mind of someone who claims to support the Constitution. That goes for everybody from Donald Trump to the statist hacks of the Supreme Court who have so watered down the Fourth Amendment that it has nothing but rhetorical value left within it, down to the voters who think it's just great that Trump is willing to sacrifice their fundamental rights for the ridiculous notion of "law and order" coming out of constitutional usurpations(!!!), and right on down to the cops on the street who are thrilled with the Supreme Court giving them carte blanc to violate The Peoples' rights not only with impunity, but with the imprimatur of legitimacy that the law-breaking Supreme Court rules with. Terry is also an example of the same statist overreach, as is NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment to FOPA and on and on endlessly until the Constitution is nothing more or less than a rotting piece of sheepskin parchment unceremoniously tucked away in a not-so-hermetically-sealed glass case where the ink is as faded as the intended meanings of the words therein.





    Terry stop and stop and frisk are the same thing according to the courts. There are several sites use the courts decisions are it is also part of the legals training that the academy requires yearly in South Carolina. In NYC it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon without a permit so it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to "stop and frisk" someone they think might be carrying an illegal gun, don't you think. The problem is that some cops were using it to check even if they didn't have the RAS or PC. That is a problem, and that is what the courts were trying to stop. There are lazy people in every job, and far too often good cops look the other way rather than be ostracized by the peers. Is it a problem, yes. How can we fix that? Good question, by having leaders that back their good officers when they come forward instead of making them look bad.

    I don't believe it can be fixed. Do you? And if you do how?

    Terry v. Ohio (1968) - Crime Museum

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You may be right about that. But the fact is that if the Police use "Stop and frisk" it is effective.
    I'm sure that torture and targeted assassinations would be "effective" too... if you want to discard the Bill of Rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    The problem is demographics.
    No, the problem is what kind of society in which you want to live.

    If I wanted to be treated like the Germans treated the Belgians in WWI, I'd move to some 3rd world hell hole.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Question?? Would this be an issue if the statistics were reversed.
    It should ALWAYS be a "question".

    Stop and frisk wasn't bad JUST because it happened to Black people. It would have been every bit as bad were it applied primarily to Eskimos or Walloons.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    If most of the offenders are of one race or another and those are the people being stopped and crime statistics dropped as they did in NYC is that really unconstitutional or racist? Or is that just good police work?
    If most of the offenders were Irish and those are the people whom you connected to field phones and tortured is that really unconstitutional or bigoted? Would torture be justified if crime decreased? How about summary execution? I've lived in a place where those things were practiced.

    People weren't being stopped because they were suspected of being specific criminals.

    They were being stopped because they were BLACK, and ALL Black people were suspected of being criminals.

    If you're going to treat me like a criminal merely because of my race, there's certainly no reason for me NOT to treat you like a member of a hostile foreign army of occupation because you're a cop.

    If you're going to treat me like a criminal without evidence, I'm going to treat you the way the Chinese treated Japanese collaborators and the Japanese themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    1% of all police contacts end in violence and most of those could be avoided by simply cooperating with the police.
    Charles Kinsey cooperated with the police 110%. He has more holes in his body now than he had before he cooperated with them. And it looks like a coverup is in full swing.

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    . . . There are several sites use the courts decisions are it is also part of the legals training that the academy requires yearly in South Carolina....
    I live in SC so this interests me but I don't understand this sentence. Can you please explain or rephrase?

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    . . .
    Charles Kinsey cooperated with the police 110%. He has more holes in his body now than he had before he cooperated with them. And it looks like a coverup is in full swing.
    To be fair, trmac did say "most" of the 1%, not "all." Sadly, Kinsey didn't escape the violence despite cooperating.

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You may be right about that. But the fact is that if the Police use "Stop and frisk" it is effective. The problem is demographics.
    Have you ever actually read the Fourth Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    If most of the offenders are of one race or another and those are the people being stopped and crime statistics dropped as they did in NYC is that really unconstitutional or racist? Or is that just good police work?
    Have you ever actually read the Fourth Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    When it comes down to it every person that is killed, no matter who does the killing matters. It is too bad that while we are having this discussion someone, somewhere is being killed by a civilian who may or may not have the right to have a weapon in the first place. Or a cop is stopping someone who believes that they should not be stopped and feels harassed and essentially escalates the situation to something that it was not going to be. 1% of all police contacts end in violence and most of those could be avoided by simply cooperating with the police.
    I'm shocked I tell's ya, simply shocked that a cop would advocate submission over standing for one's rights. There are those of us out here who both know our rights and the law that you are supposed to operate under, and we have researched and know your own department policy on the most commonly-violated issues you are likely to contact us about to boot. But as is beyond common, your attitude is that a cop's authority is never to be questioned. You have been trained to believe that the citizen is responsible for acquiescing all his liberties to you, and if there's ever a question, it is the citizen who must take it to court and prove that s/he should've never been harassed by you in the first place. Even if your subject has the law and department policy printed out for just such an occasion as them being illegally harassed, most cops won't even read it, and their questioning will result in exactly what you describe as "...something that it was not going to be." If we're still talking about S&F, it is always, 100% of the time, exactly what the harassed person thought it was going to be - that is - illegal harassment without a shred of RAS or PC. And you would be perfectly comfortable with statistics garnered from such illegal police-state tactics as to couch it as, "...just good police work."

    It is because of the ubiquitous nature of that exact attitude amongst LEOs that I would no more cooperate with someone violating my rights than I would volunteer to have them violated, but I repeat myself. The sad thing is that the system never holds the violator of citizens' rights to account, rather, it holds the municipality responsible for recompense to your victims. Getting killed by a cop is not the only way to be victimized by a cop. My rights are tantamount to being my property according to the man who wrote the Constitution.

    "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is sage in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
    --
    James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

    The state of the police state proves the prescience of Madison in that essay, but it also seems to me to justify resisting cops at the moment they're violating my rights just like I would resist a burglar breaking into my home to steal any other property I might own from me. I'm reasonably certain that I can expect you will see it differently. So be it, but please, at least read the Fourth Amendment before suggesting again that it's "just good police work" for law enforcement to violate it as a matter of course.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. Did I say all or most. I already said that I don't believe that the Kinsey shooting was justified. Stop and frisk is not torture by any means. I would not advocate torture ever. Not sure where you thought I would. My comments are based on facts and not speculation. It is my opinion that too much of the time the victims of violence are the ones that need Police to do their jobs. Community policing works only when the community works with the police to solve crime. It is not true that only black people were targets of stop and frisk. They were a [email protected] 83% but were the stops done in a predominantly black neighborhood? You are repeating the same line as the media.

    I am not sure what you want me to say or do. Because I don't believe that every cop is bad the same way that I don't believe that every black person is a criminal. I agree that not all police shootings are justified either but I refuse to say that everything I read or see in the media is true. You sound and write like someone who is very intelligent and educated, but I can't seem to keep from wondering why you believe what the media is telling the world. You don't find it strange that the media ignores all the intercity violence unless police are the shooters. It is almost the same as the combat deaths of American soldiers when deaths by motor vehicles here in the the states were 12 times as great.

    I know that I can never convince you of anything because you have already made up your mind. Thing is that you change my way of thinking and showed me one of my biases. Thanks for getting me to think about my personal biases, I challenge you to do the same thing. "That is to say; cops are not an occupation force out to get the black man. If we don't change our thinking we are bound to repeat the past. Ever race on this planet has been a slave of some sort or another. Today it is the people of the intercity, weather they be black, white or hispanic or any other peoples that depends on the government to provide them with sucker. That's economics of socialism at its lowest." Sheriff Clarke made that statement on CNN during the riots in Charlotte, NC.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast