Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott - Page 5
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 114

Thread: Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

  1. You are the only one that is pushing a narrative and as well as name calling or labeling. Civilized discussion, you mean if I don't agree with your narrative than you label me. You sir are the class act. Not sure you know how to have a discussion without name calling.


    PS: I asked you if you were there at the time of the traffic stop? You didn't answer that question. Soooo...

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You are the only one that is pushing a narrative and as well as name calling or labeling. Civilized discussion, you mean if I don't agree with your narrative than you label me. You sir are the class act. Not sure you know how to have a discussion without name calling.

    PS: I asked you if you were there at the time of the traffic stop? You didn't answer that question. Soooo...
    Civilized discussion, meaning stop lying about what I have said, stop mudslinging at the victim of an officer-involved shooting and stop bringing up race. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging. I didn't lie about the content of your posts. I didn't sling any mud at Officer Yanez. I didn't bring up race.

    As for your question, I wasn't there. Neither were you.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Just what someone that repeats media lies would say. And I said I wasn't trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. This was a fun debate not s why you would stupe to name calling. Good afternoon.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    I guess when you said that Yanez stop the car for in your words, "Driving while black" so you brought race into the conversation. You called me a lier and you talk about mudslinging. You are a remarkable guy, I hope that you have a great night.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I guess when you said that Yanez stop the car for in your words, "Driving while black" so you brought race into the conversation. You called me a lier and you talk about mudslinging. You are a remarkable guy, I hope that you have a great night.
    So, you are referring to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    PS: All my posts up to this point are based on the assumptions that Officer Yanez's statements are true. We can certainly talk about the other case, i.e., he made this felony stop story up after the fact and Castile was stopped for "driving while black".
    This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

    This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    So, you are referring to this:



    This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

    This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.
    So you saying that I was lying and mudslinging is what your talking about. Because I didn't lie and you were slinging mud by calling me a lier among other things. As far as mudslinging a victim, that is nonsense.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    How about stop posting about topics that you have no clue about. LEOs these days have little training and a bully attitude, leading them to make stupid decisions, such as driving up to a suspect in a way that their only option is to shoot him, or using a firearm as a "compliance device" leaving them no other option than to shoot upon perceived (not actual) non-compliance, or shooting a person that is not an imminent threat, or just shooting the wrong person.

    The rest of your post is just the usual "he had it coming" BS. Not all police shootings are justified, unless you want the bullies in uniform running your neighborhood. The Keith Lamont Scott shooting seems to be justified. The Charles Kinsey shooting was clearly not, neither was the Philando Castile shooting.
    I almost forgot about this one where you said I should stop posting about topics that I have no clue about. Nice.
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    So, you are referring to this:



    This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

    This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    So, no quotes, no rebuttal of my arguments, no apology for making stuff up, just another reply with the same BS: Stop breaking the law and you won't get shot. Should the same apply to police officers then? You see your problem here, right? Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile didn't break any law. The responding officers did and got off the hook.

    There are certainly more than the 4 incidents I posted. Most police contacts involve benign traffic stops. The problem is with those contacts that require more training. You seem to ignore the fact that the officers in all these 4 incidents disregarded officer safety. Better training is all about improving officer safety. As a LEO, you should know that!

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    So you saying that I was lying and mudslinging is what your talking about. Because I didn't lie and you were slinging mud by calling me a lier among other things. As far as mudslinging a victim, that is nonsense.
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You called the traffic stop an excuse when in fact he stopped the vehicle because it matched the description of a vehicle that left the scene of an armed robbery and the suspect that was shot happened to be known by the officers.
    I simply did not called the traffic stop an excuse. You lied about what I said. I explained that in post #31. Proof me wrong by providing a quote from this thread or apologize.

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Fact is that the video on YouTube you don't hear Castile say anything because it didn't start until after the shooting. At least we don't see what happened before, just after. I wonder why.
    Insinuating wrongdoing by the passenger recording a video. Why would anyone do that other than for the purpose of mudslinging?

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Also the driver known by police and was identified on video by Yanez before the stop. It is still not clear if he was the suspect or not unless you know something police don't. Did I mention that his gun was on his lap. I hope this will clear things up for you.
    I explained why he was known by police and that there is no actual proof of a gun on his lap in post #38. Should that he was known by police somehow imply that he was a career criminal? Was there really a gun in his lap? Pure mudslinging.

    Again, Philando Castile did not break any law but was shot and killed anyway. I posted the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    If Officer Jeronimo Yanez's intent was to stop an armed robbery suspect, then he should have conducted a proper felony stop. He didn't. He conducted a basic traffic stop. My question is, why? Was he so poorly trained that he did't know that you just don't walk up to the driver-side window of an armed robbery suspect? By doing so, he put himself and everyone else in danger. He also limited his options in case something doesn't go according to plan. Well, something didn't go according to plan. He stopped the wrong person, got spooked by something and killed him. Are you telling me that this is not clear evidence of lack of training?
    You seemed to have ZERO interest in this. Wonder why?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    You clearly do not want to understand my posts. All 4 examples I posted clearly show piss-poor training and attitude that endangered the lives of officers and others. Not a single gun was pointed at any officer or in the hand of a suspect. In all these cases, the officers actions set themselves up for failure. That is the very definition of piss-poor training and attitude.

    PS: I regularly train with current and retired police officers and these discussions come up quite often. Veteran officers understand the difference between a justified shooting and a charlie foxtrot.
    You clearly don't want to understand my side either so I guess we are even, it is your opinion that they are acting on piss poor training.
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    You clearly do not understand what I have been talking about. I also doubt that you are a "16 year veteran police officer", otherwise you would know what I am talking about.

    No one says that a LEO should walk away from a situation. However, how about not screwing it up with a piss-poor bully attitude and piss-poor training? Here are some examples:

    • Charles Kinsey: An officer shot at a mentally ill person that was not a threat. He missed 3 times. One of the misses hit Charles Kinsey. There was zero justification for any shooting. The officer is still with the force. Other officers who made false statements about the incident were also not charged.
    • Philando Castile: Was shot during a traffic stop by an officer who was afraid of his own shadow and put himself into this situation by not following the correct procedures for a felony stop. The shooting will likely be called justified although it was not.
    • Tamir Rice: Officers drove up to a suspect of a "man with a gun" call so close that they endangered their own life. If Tamir Rice had a firearm that shoots actual bullets and ill intend, one of those officers would be dead today. Instead, Tamir Rice is dead.
    • In my area, an officer jumped in the bed of a truck of a suspected fleeing drunk driver and shot him. The officer endangered his own life and therefore was justified in shooting the driver?

    Lastly, a firearm is not a compliance device. The "comply or die" attitude needs to stop as they set police officers up for failure. It is also unlawful. LEOs are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of such piss-poor policies and training. There is a difference between a person that is a danger and is noncompliant and a person that is not a danger. Persons that are not a danger but noncompliant shouldn't be just shot (and potentially killed). Someone who is dead certainly can't comply anymore!

    And please, stop with this "you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons" BS. No one says that.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I almost forgot about this one where you said I should stop posting about topics that I have no clue about. Nice.
    Is there any point in this? If so, you are free to make any substantial arguments. So far, you haven't. I seems I was right with my assumption. Your first post in this thread that I replied to in this fashion seems to be worth repeating:

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Police that see a violation and look the other way are considered cowards. So to say Cops put themselves in positions were they have no choice but kill someone is just foolish. How about stop breaking the law and when caught fighting the Cops. Everytime someone steals, someone else pays. How about stop thinking that society owes you something that you have not earned. It is time to stop allowing bullies from running our neighborhoods and take responsibility for for your actions follow the rules that keep our children safe. Life is not a party, the things that we do or don't do have consciences.
    Words of a bully in uniform, apparently.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You clearly don't want to understand my side either so I guess we are even, it is your opinion that they are acting on piss poor training.
    Understood, you have zero interest in this:

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    If Officer Jeronimo Yanez's intent was to stop an armed robbery suspect, then he should have conducted a proper felony stop. He didn't. He conducted a basic traffic stop. My question is, why? Was he so poorly trained that he did't know that you just don't walk up to the driver-side window of an armed robbery suspect? By doing so, he put himself and everyone else in danger. He also limited his options in case something doesn't go according to plan. Well, something didn't go according to plan. He stopped the wrong person, got spooked by something and killed him. Are you telling me that this is not clear evidence of lack of training?
    Have you any explanation for those shootings or is it just "**** happens" and "comply or die"?

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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