Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

weldoninhio

nofiller69 wrote: »

Tell me if any of these are valid:

1. Population not recovering since the famine

2. Country being divided into two - Still causing severe issues today read: wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_and_the_Irish_border

3. Terrorism and violence - The Troubles, Bloody Sunday, IRA, UVF, Car bombings, civilian casualties on both sides

4. Ireland being a severely poor satellite state until recently - Due to the Anglo-Irish trade war severely limiting Ireland's ability to take part in global commerce and having to fend for itself during the Great Depression. Joining the EU eventually reversed the effects of this



But I guess all of that is Okay because people watch football?

1. Recovering from what?
2. GFA
3. When was the last time we had that?
4. Waffle.

Spon Farmer

nofiller69 wrote: »

Tell me if any of these are valid:

1. Population not recovering since the famine

2. Country being divided into two - Still causing severe issues today read: wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_and_the_Irish_border

3. Terrorism and violence - The Troubles, Bloody Sunday, IRA, UVF, Car bombings, civilian casualties on both sides

4. Ireland being a severely poor satellite state until recently - Due to the Anglo-Irish trade war severely limiting Ireland's ability to take part in global commerce and having to fend for itself during the Great Depression. Joining the EU eventually reversed the effects of this



But I guess all of that is Okay because people watch football?

Where is the trauma from this things?

Are you therapy because of the Famine and the Troubles?

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

And if they ran in the opposite direction and increased the distance even more? Called for backup? Arrested him at a later point in time? As happens in two videos I have posted with white people resisting arrest, assaulting the police, chasing the cop (who ran from him) and one even stole his police car. What about when white mass murderers are calmly arrested? Surely the threat was there to keep killing?? No shots fired in any of those examples.

And it's just as easy to find videos of cops killing white people too in similar circumstances to the Brooks shooting.

nofiller69

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Recovering from what?
2. GFA
3. When was the last time we had that?
4. Waffle.

Yep I knew it. None of these exist. Britain and Ireland have always been best friends.

Absolutely Orwellian.

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

He was scared of the police.

He was scared of going back to jail for breaching the terms of his parole. Just a reminder, DUI.

Pkiernan

nofiller69 wrote: »

What kind of broken and sick society do you have that you end up dead for falling asleep in a drive through?

American police are low IQ rent-a-thugs. They wont hire smart people. This is a fact.

Now tell me if what transpired in that video are smart men making smart decisions, or morons unable to de-escalate one half asleep drunk guy.

Can you imagine the Garda shooting every drunk man they encounter in Ireland?

Or is it just you're contrarianism unable to see how sick and twisted this whole situation is?

He wasnt shot for being drunk, and you are just lying about the facts again.

Your faux outrage for virtue signalling purposes is vile. Your behaviour is despicable.
Salivating over the death of a man and the unjust charges against a cop dealing with a violent drunk.

And why no concern for rampant police brutality in China and Africa, or do only Western lives matter to the deluded ultra left?

Spon Farmer

BattleCorp wrote: »

Fair enough. Lads, if you are black you don't have to obey laws or comply with lawful requests by cops.

If you are black you can drink and drive.
If you are black you can resist arrest.
If you are black you can assault two police officers.
If you are black you can steal a police taser.
If yoy are black you can shoot it at a police officer.
And if you are black you can put a police officer's life in danger by doing all of the above.

And you should be allowed to do that because you are black.

And if anyone challenges you, just tell them you are black and have a fear of the cops.

That makes it all ok.

Oh yeah, being drunk also makes the above ok. If you are black that is.

Yes. That seems about right.

Spon Farmer

Stateofyou wrote: »

So the cop was scared, fear was a factor? But fear isn't allowed to be a factor for Rayshard...

He was scared of the police. Who else would he be going after with a taser? The only innocent people at danger were the ones who's car was hit with the out of control trigger happy cop's bullet.

Why are you conflating two different imagined scenarios as if that works. It's as simple as this: imagine the British police are the American police, Irish people are the Black and indigenous people and then imagine how that would feel. Go.

I never said Brooks wasn't allowed to scared of being arrested or going back to prison.

Please point out where I said that.

Go.

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

Fair enough. Lads, if you are black you don't have to obey laws or comply with lawful requests by cops.

If you are black you can drink and drive.
If you are black you can resist arrest.
If you are black you can assault two police officers.
If you are black you can steal a police taser.
If yoy are black you can shoot it at a police officer.
And if you are black you can put a police officer's life in danger by doing all of the above.

And you should be allowed to do that because you are black.

And if anyone challenges you, just tell them you are black and have a fear of the cops.

That makes it all ok.

Oh yeah, being drunk also makes the above ok. If you are black that is.

What isn't ok is catastrophic thinking. Taking what I actually said and blowing it out to an extreme meaning that just isn't there to try and make a point where you don't have one.

No one said that Black people have immunity to do any of those things. That's just you engaging in dramatics. One of the reforms being implemented in police depts in the US is a non-armed response to calls such as these. This whole mess didn't even warrant an armed response and wouldn't have happened if the police force there wasn't in need of massive reform. Or perhaps you'd like to argue now our Gardai should be armed now when they respond to all our drunks?

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

He was scared of going back to jail for breaching the terms of his parole. Just a reminder, DUI.

He was scared of the police. :rolleyes:

Danzy

Reports that a lot of Atlanta PD have gone home, the police scanners, readily listened to online, are completely silent, which is mad, pick a smaller and much safer city and they are always some chatter.

Who knows, interesting to see how it plays out.

Atlanta PD is 60% black and higher among beat cops, they know most of the activists, the media community and their superiors at the top in politics, Justice etc will see them as plebs, regardless of colour, if they defend themselves.

Rodin

Stateofyou wrote: »

What isn't ok is catastrophic thinking. Taking what I actually said and blowing it out to an extreme meaning that just isn't there to try and make a point where you don't have one.

No one said that Black people have immunity to do any of those things. That's just you engaging in dramatics. One of the reforms being implemented in police depts in the US is a non-armed response to calls such as these. This whole mess didn't even warrant an armed response and wouldn't have happened if the police force there wasn't in need of massive reform. Or perhaps you'd like to argue now our Gardai should be armed now when they respond to all our drunks?

Non-armed response?
In a country where there are more guns than people?

Im sure police recruitment will soar

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

And it's just as easy to find videos of cops killing white people too in similar circumstances to the Brooks shooting.

Is it? Besides which, proportionality is the key here.

Danzy

Rodin wrote: »

Non-armed response?
In a country where there are more guns than people?

Im sure police recruitment will soar

Many of these activists see a never ending stream of working class people ready to fill the gaps in the ranks as others fall.

Worth the sacrifice to meet their aims.

Stateofyou

Rodin wrote: »

Non-armed response?
In a country where there are more guns than people?

Im sure police recruitment will soar

It's all one big sh*t show, isn't it? It's almost as if guns are the problem. :rolleyes:

Spon Farmer

Stateofyou wrote: »

What isn't ok is catastrophic thinking. Taking what I actually said and blowing it out to an extreme meaning that just isn't there to try and make a point where you don't have one.

No one said that Black people have immunity to do any of those things. That's just you engaging in dramatics. One of the reforms being implemented in police depts in the US is a non-armed response to calls such as these. This whole mess didn't even warrant an armed response and wouldn't have happened if the police force there wasn't in need of massive reform. Or perhaps you'd like to argue now our Gardai should be armed now when they respond to all our drunks?

How would anyone know when a non-armed response is needed?

A drunk asleep in a car can still have a weapon or be capable of doing physical harm - which was the case here.

Rodin

Stateofyou wrote: »

It's all one big sh*t show, isn't it? It's almost as if guns are the problem. :rolleyes:

If the criminals may be carrying the guns, the police must do too.

Gun control simply won't happen.

It really is quite a f.c.kd up country. Such a mess.

Spon Farmer

Rodin wrote: »

Non-armed response?
In a country where there are more guns than people?

Im sure police recruitment will soar

Trevor Noah said the same thing on The Daily Show and asked why were armed please responding to a call about a drunk in a parking lot.

Because it is America maybe?

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

No one said that Black people have immunity to do any of those things. That's just you engaging in dramatics. One of the reforms being implemented in police depts in the US is a non-armed response to calls such as these. This whole mess didn't even warrant an armed response and wouldn't have happened if the police force there wasn't in need of massive reform. Or perhaps you'd like to argue now our Gardai should be armed now when they respond to all our drunks?

ha ha ha ha ah :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Ah fcuk, I'm not able.

I'd jump straight into a meat grinder quicker than be an unarmed cop in one of the most well armed, violent countries in the world.

Talk about naive.

Stateofyou

Spon Farmer wrote: »

How would anyone know when a non-armed response is needed?

A drunk asleep in a car can still have a weapon or be capable of doing physical harm - which was the case here.

Because when the people call in they state why they're calling, and the operator will activate a response according to a pre-determined criteria of what should initially constitute an armed response or not. Obviously? So for example, mental health trained professionals will respond to those type of calls. Welfare checks by non-armed individuals (Rayshard's case). Etc. Currently the US police dept are dealing with every single issue with untrained/unspecialised, people with guns who have bias. Not a good combination.

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

ha ha ha ha ah :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Ah fcuk, I'm not able.

I'd jump straight into a meat grinder quicker than be an unarmed cop in one of the most well armed, violent countries in the world.

Talk about naive.

Despite the statistics of gun ownership, most are responsible gun owners that don't go around strapped and with intent to use it on cops or each other. Have you ever lived there or are you just taking your cues from Terminator films. :pac:

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

Because when the people call in they state why they're calling, and the operator will activate a response according to a pre-determined criteria of what should initially constitute an armed response or not. Obviously? So for example, mental health trained professionals will respond to those type of calls. Welfare checks by non-armed individuals (Rayshard's case). Etc. Currently the US police dept are dealing with every single issue with untrained/unspecialised, people with guns who have bias. Not a good combination.

Serious question.

Someone phones the cops and reports that there is a man asleep in a car in a queue for Wendy's.

How does the cop at the other end of the phone know whether to send either a mental health professional, unarmed cops or a feckin SWAT team?

The fact is that cops don't know what they are going to face when they pull on the uniform so they have to be prepared to defend themselves and unfortunately that means that they have to be armed with something that has the capability of killing someone.

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

Because when the people call in they state why they're calling, and the operator will activate a response according to a pre-determined criteria of what should initially constitute an armed response or not. Obviously? So for example, mental health trained professionals will respond to those type of calls. Welfare checks by non-armed individuals (Rayshard's case). Etc. Currently the US police dept are dealing with every single issue with untrained/unspecialised, people with guns who have bias. Not a good combination.

Joe Public......'Hello officer, there's a man breaking into my house'


Police.......'Go check and see if he intends on robbing you, raping you or is just looking for somewhere to sleep. Also see if he has a gun, or a knife. Or if he is a big tank of a fcuker who could kill you with his hands. Then come back to us and we'll decide if we send a psychiatrist or an unarmed or armed cop.'

Spon Farmer

Stateofyou wrote: »

Because when the people call in they state why they're calling, and the operator will activate a response according to a pre-determined criteria of what should initially constitute an armed response or not. Obviously? So for example, mental health trained professionals will respond to those type of calls. Welfare checks by non-armed individuals (Rayshard's case). Etc. Currently the US police dept are dealing with every single issue with untrained/unspecialised, people with guns who have bias. Not a good combination.

And how does the person who calls the police know there is not a gun in the car?

BattleCorp

Stateofyou wrote: »

Despite the statistics of gun ownership, most are responsible gun owners that don't go around strapped and with intent to use it on cops or each other. Have you ever lived there or are you just taking your cues from Terminator films. :pac:

I lived in a place called Mountain View CA. It's where Google have their world headquarters. Not that I worked for them mind. It's not far from San Jose, about 3/4 of an hour outside of San Francisco.

I never owned a gun over there because I wasn't allowed to own one. I also wasn't allowed to buy a taser while I was there either as my work visa wouldn't allow that.

I do however own guns here. And I agree, the vast vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

And please, where has anything I have said sound like it came from a Terminator movie?

s7ryf3925pivug

Mattdhg wrote: »

we've all been in situations where there was a nod and a wink and you're told to be on your way carefully. .

No we haven't. WTF.

Killing someone is obviously a whole different kettle of fish, but I knew one woman who was caught drunk driving in the USA. They went to prison for it. Didn't hurt other people or property. They were entirely white, entirely American, middle class, very good looking even.

NOT defending unnecessary use of lethal force at all, and I do perceive systemic racism. However US police are far more heavy handed in general and their judicial system far more punitive.

I'm a bit pissed off at the idea of people being let drive away after failing a breathalyzer here too tbh.

s7ryf3925pivug

They should have kicked off over the systemic poisoning in Flint Michigan if you ask me. Watching Obama fake-sip a glass of water and telling them he probably ate a flake of paint when he was a kid was one of the most enraging things I have seen on a tv screen.

BattleCorp

Talia High Ledge wrote: »

but I knew one person who was caught drunk driving in the USA. They went to prison for it. Didn't hurt other people or property. They were entirely white, entirely American, middle class, very good looking even.

FFS. Don't you know that you are not allowed to tell those kinds of stories under the current climate. :pac:

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

Serious question.

Someone phones the cops and reports that there is a man asleep in a car in a queue for Wendy's.

How does the cop at the other end of the phone know whether to send either a mental health professional, unarmed cops or a feckin SWAT team?

The fact is that cops don't know what they are going to face when they pull on the uniform so they have to be prepared to defend themselves and unfortunately that means that they have to be armed with something that has the capability of killing someone.

Maybe if sh!t goes sideways, they call in armed enforcement that is there within minutes (unlike Ireland, ha ha)

Stateofyou

BattleCorp wrote: »

Joe Public......'Hello officer, there's a man breaking into my house'


Police.......'Go check and see if he intends on robbing you, raping you or is just looking for somewhere to sleep. Also see if he has a gun, or a knife. Or if he is a big tank of a fcuker who could kill you with his hands. Then come back to us and we'll decide if we send a psychiatrist or an unarmed or armed cop.'

I'd be willing to bet an active robbery gets an armed response. :rolleyes: