Jump to content

Alton Sterling shooting.


James Arryn

Recommended Posts

I shouldn't be surprised to find the legal/ethical/mental gymnastics to wave away all of the blame this cop deserves.  Yet, I am.  The cop has clearly and boldly lied about the situation, the offered explanations are less than flimsy, and yet there are still eye-popping contortionists trying to absolve this cop of blame.

At absolute best, this SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics, doesn't that sound fancy) officer is beyond incompetent, should be fired, and face every civil suit imaginable on his/her own.  At worst, this SWAT officer is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Instead, the investigation will find nothing worth of blame (let alone guilt), this officer will continue drawing a paycheck, remain employed, and the ranks will close.

No wonder the unarmed black guy "did everything right" by laying down in the street with his hands up and begging not to be shot.  Only in this fucked up world is that level of terror for one's safety from those charged to protect described as "the right thing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lightning Lord said:

Instead, the investigation will find nothing worth of blame (let alone guilt), this officer will continue drawing a paycheck, remain employed, and the ranks will close.

Idk about that. This time we have video evidence, and more importantly, a living victim, who can tell the other side of the story that tragically is far too often missing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk about that. This time we have video evidence, and more importantly, a living victim, who can tell the other side of the story that tragically is far too often missing. 

oh fellow Minnesotan...you have far more optimism than I...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk about that. This time we have video evidence, and more importantly, a living victim, who can tell the other side of the story that tragically is far too often missing. 

We've had lots of video evidence in the last few years.  It hasn't helped.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lightning Lord said:

oh fellow Minnesotan...you have far more optimism than I...

Tis the life of a Vikings fan.

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

We've had lots of video evidence in the last few years.  It hasn't helped.  

But how many times did we have video evidence AND a living victim who could testify? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tis the life of a Vikings fan.

But how many times did we have video evidence AND a living victim who could testify? 

I don't know the answer, but I suspect we'll find it depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lightning Lord said:

I shouldn't be surprised to find the legal/ethical/mental gymnastics to wave away all of the blame this cop deserves.  Yet, I am.  The cop has clearly and boldly lied about the situation, the offered explanations are less than flimsy, and yet there are still eye-popping contortionists trying to absolve this cop of blame.

At absolute best, this SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics, doesn't that sound fancy) officer is beyond incompetent, should be fired, and face every civil suit imaginable on his/her own.  At worst, this SWAT officer is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Instead, the investigation will find nothing worth of blame (let alone guilt), this officer will continue drawing a paycheck, remain employed, and the ranks will close.

No wonder the unarmed black guy "did everything right" by laying down in the street with his hands up and begging not to be shot.  Only in this fucked up world is that level of terror for one's safety from those charged to protect described as "the right thing."

How has the cop clearly and boldly lied, and what are you basing that on?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

How has the cop clearly and boldly lied, and what are you basing that on?

 

Well, there's an inconsistency with 'accident' and 'handcuffed'. Neither is great on it's own. If the police misidentified the assailant, that leads to incompetence and further supports the idea that race is a factor in perceived threat. If the police identified the other man as the assailant and shot the victim by accident as claimed, it raises significant questions about handcuffing a 'black' man you yourself have identified as a victim of accident. 

To argue both is, well...nonsensical. You earlier hinted that they might cuff him because of a potential grievance over the accident, but surely you can see how such reasoning would in a very real sense be unlimited licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

How has the cop clearly and boldly lied, and what are you basing that on?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. 

There is nothing a police officer could do that you wouldn't find some way to excuse or pretend didn't happen is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Well, there's an inconsistency with 'accident' and 'handcuffed'. Neither is great on it's own. If the police misidentified the assailant, that leads to incompetence and further supports the idea that race is a factor in perceived threat. If the police identified the other man as the assailant and shot the victim by accident as claimed, it raises significant questions about handcuffing a 'black' man you yourself have identified as a victim of accident. 

To argue both is, well...nonsensical. You earlier hinted that they might cuff him because of a potential grievance over the accident, but surely you can see how such reasoning would in a very real sense be unlimited licence.

Would the situation be better if they handcuffed both Kinsey and the autistic man? 

9 minutes ago, KiDisaster said:

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. 

There is nothing a police officer could do that you wouldn't find some way to excuse or pretend didn't happen is there?

No I'm not, you are.  And yes there is.  I just like to look at shooting incidents as individual cases from the officer's perspective and not assume that it is part of a vast, sweeping institutional racism in America's police force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

But how many times did we have video evidence AND a living victim who could testify? 

I'm not sure of the answer, and it would also depend on whether or not we are including other forms of police brutality (tasering, kicking, punching, sitting on, etc).  

I think one thing working in the police officer's favor here is that there isn't video for when the shooting actually took place.  They can make up any story they want, really, or at least present it in a way that argues they sincerely feared for their lives.  Because their lives matter more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Would the situation be better if they handcuffed both Kinsey and the autistic man? 

 

From a practical standpoint, no. It would neither undo Kinsey's being identified as an accident victim nor retroactively eliminate the police knowledge of who was the shooter. From a rhetorical point of view, yes, it would at least be a less egregious undermining of their own contention that the other man was the/a perceived threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BBW,

So, it wasn't gross negligence to dismiss Mr. Kinsey's shouted warnings that the man they were approaching was unarmed and then shoot the man who was lying on the ground offering absolutely no threat at all? 

It could be...but read the first and second page of this article:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYr7_W4YfOAhUIYyYKHeWtDKkQFghVMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forcescience.org%2Farticles%2Fstressreactions1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGgIBHPlNwtW-LFYWMlLnm8iQm2CA&bvm=bv.127521224,d.eWE

It is common in these situations for officer's to be so focused in on the threat that they literally don't hear what people are shouting to them.

You seem to be rejecting the idea that Kinsey was wounded accidentally.  Are you saying that the officer is lying about what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not sure of the answer, and it would also depend on whether or not we are including other forms of police brutality (tasering, kicking, punching, sitting on, etc).  

Good point. And I don't know if the question can ever truly be answered. But I do believe the likelihood of the police officer getting off without any charges is a lot less likely if the victim of police brutality can tell their side of the story as well. 

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think one thing working in the police officer's favor here is that there isn't video for when the shooting actually took place.  They can make up any story they want, really, or at least present it in a way that argues they sincerely feared for their lives.  Because their lives matter more.  

The image of Kinsey on the ground may be enough, and since the cop has already been caught in a lie of sorts, it makes it harder for them to spin their way out of this.

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

How has the cop clearly and boldly lied, and what are you basing that on?

 

The victim has no reason not to be believed, and he said that after he was shot he asked the cop why and the cop responded with, "I don't know." Now the police have created a story that directly contradicts this and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So yeah, the cops have already lied, rather blatantly I might add. But keep on trolling if you please.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

It could be...but read the first and second page of this article:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYr7_W4YfOAhUIYyYKHeWtDKkQFghVMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forcescience.org%2Farticles%2Fstressreactions1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGgIBHPlNwtW-LFYWMlLnm8iQm2CA&bvm=bv.127521224,d.eWE

It is common in these situations for officer's to be so focused in on the threat that they literally don't hear what people are shouting to them.

You seem to be rejecting the idea that Kinsey was wounded accidentally.  Are you saying that the officer is lying about what happened?

"Gross Negligence" is an accident.  However it is an accident for which the person who screwed up damn well should have known better. 

When the person they shot is out there screaming directly pertinant information that explicitely told the officers that firearms were not needed, yes, that rises to "gross negligence".  The officers do have duty of care in the performance of their jobs and ignoring directly pertinant information is grossly negligence in my earnest opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The officer really doesn't think he did anything wrong.

In a statement released by the police union, the unnamed officer said, "I took this job to save lives and help people. I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something I'm not."

Another cop at the scene has also been put on leave for giving conflicting statements, so there may be at least one punished for what happened here.  Though probably not the one who did the shooting.

There was also a witness at the scene, a 73 year old man, who also tried telling the cops that it was just a toy truck.  They told him to go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Would the situation be better if they handcuffed both Kinsey and the autistic man? 

No I'm not, you are.  And yes there is.  I just like to look at shooting incidents as individual cases from the officer's perspective and not assume that it is part of a vast, sweeping institutional racism in America's police force.

I agree that every shooting is a separate incident, but surely you're not implying that there isn't institutionalized racism in America's police departments, and society in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Fallen said:

I agree that every shooting is a separate incident, but surely you're not implying that there isn't institutionalized racism in America's police departments, and society in general?

I guess it depends on what you consider 'racism'.

 

17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The officer really doesn't think he did anything wrong.

In a statement released by the police union, the unnamed officer said, "I took this job to save lives and help people. I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something I'm not."

Another cop at the scene has also been put on leave for giving conflicting statements, so there may be at least one punished for what happened here.  Though probably not the one who did the shooting.

There was also a witness at the scene, a 73 year old man, who also tried telling the cops that it was just a toy truck.  They told him to go away.

The witness tried to tell a police officer who was on crowd control, not the officers confronting Kinsey and the autistic man.

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

"Gross Negligence" is an accident.  However it is an accident for which the person who screwed up damn well should have known better. 

When the person they shot is out there screaming directly pertinant information that explicitely told the officers that firearms were not needed, yes, that rises to "gross negligence".  The officers do have duty of care in the performance of their jobs and ignoring directly pertinant information is grossly negligence in my earnest opinion.

Did you read the article I linked?  It's very possible they weren't ignoring it, but just didn't hear it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've read somewhere that there is footage of the actual shooting, but it was cut out. Most likely by the news station assuming it's too graphic.

Also, I think we're giving the officer the yuuugest benefit of the doubt on his cockamamie version of what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...