Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Cop freed by judge,unbelievable.***Graphic Video in OP***
Comments
-
end of the road wrote: »he had no gun on him. so it makes everything else irrelevant. the law does not say were wrong. it says were right.
he was a young innocent man who did something years ago and who didn't cause his own death, but was brutaly murdered.
not another happy ending at all. a young innocent man who made mistakes taken long before his time.
I already showed you the exact part of the law in the quote from the district attorney... so THAT TOTALLY MAKES YOU WRONG!
The lack of a gun makes NO DIFFERENCE!
The judge based this on the perceived threat. So yes, you are WRONG!
I think you do hate cops. Because calling this cop a murderer is disgraceful.
He did a great job. Followed all the rules and procedures. And a judge says he's completely in the right here!
Perfect result. Another bad guy in a box! :pac:0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »I already showed you the exact part of the law in the quote from the district attorney... so THAT TOTALLY MAKES YOU WRONG!
The lack of a gun makes NO DIFFERENCE!
The judge based this on the perceived threat. So yes, you are WRONG!
I think you do hate cops. Because calling this cop a murderer is disgraceful.
He did a great job. Followed all the rules and procedures. And a judge says he's completely in the right here!
Perfect result. Another bad guy in a box! :pac:
Can you answer this,a small scenario- you are driving and get pulled over,the cop comes to the window and asks you for your license,you reach inside your pocket or over to the glovebox,the cop pulls out his pistol and shoots you numerous times-His excuse= "there was a perceived threat." Is he right to have acted in this manner,and should he be let off?0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »I already showed you the exact part of the law in the quote from the district attorney... so THAT TOTALLY MAKES YOU WRONG!
The lack of a gun makes NO DIFFERENCE!
The judge based this on the perceived threat. So yes, you are WRONG!
I think you do hate cops. Because calling this cop a murderer is disgraceful.
:pac:
Eh, you do realise that judges actually don't decide court cases?
The decision not to prosecute the cop was decided by a grand jury. A grand jury hearing is not the same as a criminal trial, it is a preliminary hearing to decide whether or not a trial should take place. Despite what you seem to think a grand jury does not hear the same quality of evidence a criminal trial would hear. .
The grand jury decided that the cop acted in self defence which is defence to a manslaughter/homicide charge in common law countries. He wasn't found innocent as he wasn't put on trial.
The opinion of the DA is utterly irrelevant. The DA is an elected official, they have a tendency to say what their voters want to hear to get re-elected.
I'm guessing both logic and the law are not your strongest subjects.He did a great job. Followed all the rules and procedures. And a judge says he's completely in the right here!
Perfect result. Another bad guy in a box!
You sir, are the hardest of internet hard men.0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »I already showed you the exact part of the law in the quote from the district attorney... so THAT TOTALLY MAKES YOU WRONG!
The lack of a gun makes NO DIFFERENCE!
The judge based this on the perceived threat. So yes, you are WRONG!
I think you do hate cops. Because calling this cop a murderer is disgraceful.
He did a great job. Followed all the rules and procedures. And a judge says he's completely in the right here!
Perfect result. Another bad guy in a box! :pac:
Are you a sociopath?
Because calling the death of a person a great result makes it look like you have some poor skills or need some help.
The guy had no gun and had not been in trouble, despite all this he was shot for complying, he may have acted stupidly but could this have been avoided, yes is the answer.
The police there as has been seen before in footage, turn up and give no room to defuse any situation, in the event there us a gun and potentially force a person into making a split second decision under pressure, whether they had a weapon or not.
They are either dumb or have exceptionally poor training or have a very specific military training and are trying to apply that to law enforcement, I won't be suprised when ordinary people start to shoot back in self defence or in retaliation for the death of friends and family, the thing is, the police there are forcing a way of dealing with all citizens as criminals, it will be no surprise to me if citizens start to apply the same logic and respond with extreme hostility at the slightest perceived threat.
Its hard not to believe there isnt some policy involved in this, why hasnt there been an outcry about police shootings of innocent people going about their business or where any actual crimes are dealt with out of proportion and resolved on the side of the road by the police with one option?
If anything I'd be more afraid if they had their gun rights reduced or infringed upon, how would the police deal with people then?0 -
-
-
-
-
Can you answer this,a small scenario- you are driving and get pulled over,the cop comes to the window and asks you for your license,you reach inside your pocket or over to the glovebox,the cop pulls out his pistol and shoots you numerous times-His excuse= "there was a perceived threat." Is he right to have acted in this manner,and should he be let off?
Before I answer, tell me a little bit more about this scenario you've cooked up.
Did someone call the cops and tell them there was a guy driving around with a gun - waving it around and putting back into the glovebox?
Did I try to drive away while he shouted at me to not drive away?
Did I then attempt to get something out of the glovebox, while he ran after my car shouting at me to stop driving away?Arsemageddon wrote: »Eh, you do realise that judges actually don't decide court cases?
The decision not to prosecute the cop was decided by a grand jury. A grand jury hearing is not the same as a criminal trial, it is a preliminary hearing to decide whether or not a trial should take place. Despite what you seem to think a grand jury does not hear the same quality of evidence a criminal trial would hear. .
The grand jury decided that the cop acted in self defence which is defence to a manslaughter/homicide charge in common law countries. He wasn't found innocent as he wasn't put on trial.
The opinion of the DA is utterly irrelevant. The DA is an elected official, they have a tendency to say what their voters want to hear to get re-elected.
I'm guessing both logic and the law are not your strongest subjects.
You sir, are the hardest of internet hard men.
The law decides cases... which it did perfectly in this one!
Yes, he did act in self defense - they were very wise in their decision. Renews my trust in people a little bit here tbh.
There were probably many delusional folks like yourself out there putting them under huge pressure, but credit to them... they made the correct decision!
My logic is very sound. And the law very much supports my side of this argument... it's certainly not supporting your side!
Hard men? What has my opinion on this subject got to do with being a hardman?? lol
You really should think before you post crazy sh*t.
Hardman...!? haha (I really am scratching my brain to think what part of my posts were hard?) 0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »Before I answer, tell me a little bit more about this scenario you've cooked up.
Did someone call the cops and tell them there was a guy driving around with a gun - waving it around and putting back into the glovebox?
Did I try to drive away while he shouted at me to not drive away?
Did I then attempt to get something out of the glovebox, while he ran after my car shouting at me to stop driving away?
The law decides cases... which it did perfectly in this one!
Yes, he did act in self defense - they were very wise in their decision. Renews my trust in people a little bit here tbh.
There were probably many delusional folks like yourself out there putting them under huge pressure, but credit to them... they made the correct decision!
My logic is very sound. And the law very much supports my side of this argument... it's certainly not supporting your side!
Hard men? What has my opinion on this subject got to do with being a hardman?? lol
You really should think before you post crazy sh*t.
Hardman...!? haha (I really am scratching my brain to think what part of my posts were hard?)
The scenario is as i described-can you answer please0 -
Advertisement
-
The guy had no gun and had not been in trouble, despite all this he was shot for complying, he may have acted stupidly but could this have been avoided, yes is the answer.
Actually he'd been in plenty of trouble. Read about the case. He had an impressive criminal record.
They perceived that he might have a gun, partly because he appeared to be concealing something. And partly because the 911 call reported that he was brandishing a gun earlier and was concealing it in his pants.
He acted very stupidly. He also broke the law by ignoring the instructions of law enforcement.
He killed himself, either through stupidity / criminality / suicide (which is also a crime btw)
Pick whichever one you wish.
He was a scumbag suicidal criminal, who didn't give a sh*t about his life... and I'm guessing many others don't care either!
I certainly don't.
I care more about the cops, most of whom sign up to protect us and are not bad people.
These cops did their jobs correctly. Job well done!
0 -
-
-
ThinkProgress wrote: »What was his basis for the perceived threat?
Can't make a judgement without a clear explanation of what his basis was for perceiving a threat!
Can't answer can you-As the innocent driver,you don't know what his basis is,he acts in how i described and stands behind the "perceived threat" excuse. Now,does he act rightly and should he be let off0 -
Can't answer can you-As the innocent driver,you don't know what his basis is,he acts in how i described and stands behind the "perceived threat" excuse. Now,does he act rightly and should he be let off
The incident in question is nothing like that scenario you cooked up.
The cop in the utah shooting would have had to explain in great detail, what and why he perceived a threat... so I don't know how you expect me to answer your foolish little scenario.
It has zero relevance to this topic.
It's a completely different scenario to the utah shooting. Maybe you should expand on your little story first, and then come back to me once you've revised it.
Go on, give it another try. You'll do better next time! 0 -
-
ThinkProgress wrote: »Actually he'd been in plenty of trouble. Read about the case. He had an impressive criminal record.
They perceived that he might have a gun, partly because he appeared to be concealing something. And partly because the 911 call reported that he was brandishing a gun earlier and was concealing it in his pants.
He acted very stupidly. He also broke the law by ignoring the instructions of law enforcement.
He killed himself, either through stupidity / criminality / suicide (which is also a crime btw)
Pick whichever one you wish.
He was a scumbag suicidal criminal, who didn't give a sh*t about his life... and I'm guessing many others don't care either!
I certainly don't.
I care more about the cops, most of whom sign up to protect us and are not bad people.
These cops did their jobs correctly. Job well done!
He had been in very little trouble by their standards, hadnt been so in years and had done nothing at the time.
None of which is relevant as the cop didnt know him or his history or lack of it, much the same as his lack of concern for actually identifying a lack of a weapon.
Can you confirm he broke the law? Which one? For not complying, deaf and blind people better pay heed, theyll be next on the hit list for not complying, I think the mentally impaired already are.
You seem to think driving off or not doing what you are told is a justifiable reason for a cop to shoot you? So if you go on your holidays and end up there, what slight are you to determine will be the one that will get you shot and how do you avoid it, ok the obvious ones.
But what if they sneak up on you unawares? And catch you by surprise, and you turn around with a bread roll in your hand? You won't mind being blown away with a 12 gauge so or have your child shot to ribbons because they're holding an ice pop or god forbid a toy gun or water pistol?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
ThinkProgress wrote: »The incident in question is nothing like that scenario you cooked up.
The cop in the utah shooting would have had to explain in great detail, what and why he perceived a threat... so I don't know how you expect me to answer your foolish little scenario.
It has zero relevance to this topic.
It's a completely different scenario to the utah shooting. Maybe you should expand on your little story first, and then come back to me once you've revised it.
Go on, give it another try. You'll do better next time!
i'm not linking the scenarios,i was asking in an unrelated scenario-says a lot that you couldn't answer0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
ThinkProgress wrote: »Appears to be a completely different scenario to the utah shooting though...
So no real relevance to this topic!
The relevance is based on your opinion of the term "perceived threat", are you gonna bother answering or just skirt around pretending to be smart?0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »Appears to be a completely different scenario to the utah shooting though...
So no real relevance to this topic!The relevance is based on your opinion of the term "perceived threat", are you gonna bother answering or just skirt around pretending to be smart?
But also because the poster cited this very example as a reason to follow instructions,0 -
-
-
-
-
Arsemageddon wrote: »Anyone who tries to justify the unnecessary killing of a young fella the way you have or who watches that young fella bleed to death and revel in it is, IMHO someone trying to project a tough guy persona that they don't have. It never fails to look utterly pathetic.
Listen, stop pretending you care about some random dude over in some random place in the US. You don't... You just want people to think you do, because you're trying to project your own fake internet image! (don't worry you're certainly not alone in that around here)
That kind of false empathy neither furthers your argument in this debate or makes you look any smarter or enlightened. Except perhaps among those who share your love for fraudulent compassion.
Smarter people than me justified the killing as being in self defense. They decided no laws or police procedures were broken. I didn't make those laws or procedures.
And NO, I don't give a sh*t about some idiot criminal who stupidly got himself shot by a cop. It's wrong that he used an innocent cop to commit suicide, if that's what he did... but there are lots of selfish a$$holes out there so it's not a big surprise!
I'm just really shocked at how ready people are to hang the cops. Even though most cops are just trying to do an honest days work in very difficult situations!
The example of a rare few bad cops, seems to have tainted their reputation among the sheeple of our society. I think that's not just wrong and unfair - but also a braindead mentality towards an essential public service.0 -
Obviously i know this,i was asking a personal opinion,based on the fact that he agreed with the cops shooting using "perceived threat" as a legitimate reason. I merely wanted to see would he agree with that same reasoning in the scenario i put to him
But as I already stated to you, your scenario didn't explain what the basis was for the perceived threat from the officer's perspective?
So, even if I was privy to the finer details of the american laws... logically I'd still need complete information before I could make that judgement.
The DA explained the piece of law that was relevant to the utah shooting, and gave clear details as to why they interpreted the case in the way they did.
I simply understood their reasoning based on that quoted law. And I felt that their reasoning was sound and logical.
Your scenario was completely irrelevant, and so completely impossible to answer. That's why I advised you to re-write it. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
ThinkProgress wrote: »Appears to be a completely different scenario to the utah shooting though...
So no real relevance to this topic!
It's relevant to test if you are consistent in your belief that a perceived threat is enough justification for a cop to shoot someone.0 -
So you'll agree then that cops who get shot dead are doing a "suicide by criminal". Idiots eh, getting shot dead by thugs like that. Stupid cops.
Pedantic arguments such as this one, only serve to display your lack of a rigorous response to the genuinely pertinent points in this discussion.
I'll leave you to that... 0 -
-
-
Translates as "I don't like your post".ThinkProgress wrote: »Pedantic arguments such as this one, only serve to display your lack of a rigorous response to the genuinely pertinent points in this discussion.
I'll leave you to that...
So, is this a can't or a won't answer I wonder? Bit of both?0 -
ThinkProgress wrote: »But as I already stated to you, your scenario didn't explain what the basis was for the perceived threat from the officer's perspective?
So, even if I was privy to the finer details of the american laws... logically I'd still need complete information before I could make that judgement.
The DA explained the piece of law that was relevant to the utah shooting, and gave clear details as to why they interpreted the case in the way they did.
I simply understood their reasoning based on that quoted law. And I felt that their reasoning was sound and logical.
Your scenario was completely irrelevant, and so completely impossible to answer. That's why I advised you to re-write it.
ok,lets just keep it simple-you stated the cop acted because of a "perceived threat",that also cleared him. So now cops can hide behind that piece of reasoning in shooting people. Therefore,in the scenario i picked out for you,lets say the "perceived threat" excuse is that the cop said he thought you were reaching into your jacket or glove box for a gun,and so shot you- is that,in your opinion the correct judgement,and should the cop be let off-(and please don't mention laws etc,i only want to know what you think)0 -
ok,lets just keep it simple-you stated the cop acted because of a "perceived threat",that also cleared him. So now cops can hide behind that piece of reasoning in shooting people. Therefore,in the scenario i picked out for you,lets say the "perceived threat" excuse is that the cop said he thought you were reaching into your jacket or glove box for a gun,and so shot you- is that,in your opinion the correct judgement,and should the cop be let off-(and please don't mention laws etc,i only want to know what you think)
In my opinion (based mostly off my threadbare knowledge gained from the utah case), there would need to be more to the incident to warrant a legit shooting in self defense.
There were quite a few things that were taken into account from the utah case, that I don't think would be factors in the scenario you're describing.
You must factor in ALL the elements of the utah case in order to come to the verdict of a self defense shooting.
In your scenario:
- There is no prior indication that the victim has a gun in the glovebox.
- There is no indication that the victim is attempting to evade custody or disobey your instructions
- There is no act of aggression or movement suggesting that what they're reaching for might be a gun.
Basically, your incident, as you describe it... is far too simplistic to make any judgement. There is very few details in your scenario. We don't know any of the circumstance around the scenario you're describing.
But I think that's a deliberate ploy by you to try and lead me down a path.... but you are telegraphing your intentions too much! (You need to disguise your agenda here a bit better)
The Utah incident is FAR more complex than the scenario you are describing.
It has many different factors that influence how you interpret it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement