Warbler

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: I know most of them won’t do that, but that’s the mindset amongst many people. “Oh, he was unarmed, but it looked like he could’ve been reaching for a gun. Better safe than sorry.”

You make a good point, but consider this: what if the cop in question were a family member of yours? You might then prefer the “better safe than sorry” approach.

I probably would, but I would also prefer that my cop family member opt for a taser or stun-gun in a situation where he’s got an apparently unarmed suspect held at gunpoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIQ3A7uWxzU

Jeebus said:

He was pulling up his pants.

How do you know? Did you figure that out for certain the first time you watched the video? Remember The cop only had a split second and couldn’t replay what the guy was doing like you can with the video. Again, the first time I watched the video it looked like he could have been pulling gun. I certainly couldn’t be sure he wasn’t, and I wasn’t under and kind of stress when I watched it the first time, unlike the cop whose life was on the line if he guessed wrong. Keep in mind, we can analyze the video until doomsday if we want, that cop had only a split second to make a decision knowing that if he screwed up someone could die.

Why would he decide to pull out a gun as he’s being faced down by 2 officers with rifles?

for all the cops knew, the guy was crazy. I agree it is stupid to pull a gun out when faced with 2 cops with rifles pointed at you, but sometime people do stupid crazy suicidal things.

Why would he comply with their endless stupid demands if he intended to pull out a gun? If he intended to shoot, why not do it before surrendering?

Don’t know. But you are assuming people always do what makes sense. That is not always the case. Btw, I looked that at video multiple times and thought about it a lot and never considered why would comply with their demands if he intended to pull out a gun. Think about that. I had a lot of time to think about the shooting and I watched the video multiple times and I didn’t consider your point here until I read it. The cop in this situation didn’t have the luxury of sitting around thinking about the situation and pondering this point. He had a split second to make a decision, knowing that if guessed the guy did not have a gun and he was wrong he could end up dead.

Those cops got on the scene intending to kill someone.

You don’t know that.

They shouted confusing demands at him, hoping for him to slip up; as if to justify their cold-blooded murder.

Again, you are assuming. You don’t know that to be the case.

If they intended to arrest him, they would’ve done so the second he surrendered himself, but they wanted to play with their prey.

for pity sake. seriously? What makes you so certain of all of this?

Whether or not the cops genuinely believed he was reaching for a gun is immaterial,

no, it is not immaterial. If a person in that position is reaching for a gun, knowing there are rifles pointed at him, he is doing so for only one reason: he intends to use it.

because everything else surrounding the case shows that they’re totally unfit for the position.

maybe, I agree their attitude towards the guy seems strange. Again I don’t know why they didn’t order the guy to lay and search him that way. Maybe they are unfit. But the question before the court was whether the guy that fired is guilty of 2nd degree murder. If the cop that fired the shots believed the man had a gun, is he really guilty of murder? Bad policing maybe, but murder? You may have a good case for a wrongful death suit, but murder?

Like I said before, I want to know exactly what happened the led up to the beginning of what he see in the video.

moviefreakedmind said:

EDIT: I know most of them won’t do that, but that’s the mindset amongst many people. “Oh, he was unarmed, but it looked like he could’ve been reaching for a gun. Better safe than sorry.”

You make a good point, but consider this: what if the cop in question were a family member of yours? You might then prefer the “better safe than sorry” approach.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Bon voyage! Have fun in jail, shitbag!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentence-walter-scott.html

He should’ve gotten life, and this is only one case stacked up against a mountain of cases where the cop gets away with it; but it’s a start.

I agree justice was done in this case. Yes there are cases where the cop gets away with it, there are also cases where people presume the cop guilty and won’t give the evidence an open-minded evaluation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging-officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/

This absolutely fucking enraged me. I can not think of a punishment too cruel or too unusual for those cops.

While I don’t agree with how the officer handled the situation up to the point of shooting, I have to be honest and say it looked to me like the guy could have been reaching for a gun. At the time the cop fired, Daniel Shaver reached his right hand behind his back like he was reaching for something and then brought it out again. For all the cop knew, Shaver had in the back pocket of his pants. When I watched the video the first time, I could not tell whether he had a gun when he brought his hand out from behind him. Keep in mind, if Shaver was armed and intended to shoot, the officer would have had a mere split second to react. He could reply the video again and again and in slow motion to make sure whether or not Shaver had a gun. Now, I will say I do not understand why he ordered the guy to come forward on his knees with his legs crossed. I don’t why he couldn’t have ordered the guy to lie flat and have cop search him. I would like to know more about how things got to the point it did in the video. Also wish Ferris were still here. I’d be interested to hear what he would have to say about this.

God, I don’t know what to say. It is out of my depth as well.

Jeebus said:

Bon voyage! Have fun in jail, shitbag!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/michael-slager-sentence-walter-scott.html

He should’ve gotten life, and this is only one case stacked up against a mountain of cases where the cop gets away with it; but it’s a start.

I agree justice was done in this case. Yes there are cases where the cop gets away with it, there are also cases where people presume the cop guilty and won’t give the evidence an open-minded evaluation.

NeverarGreat said:

My heart is with Windu, but my brain sides with Anakin.
He should probably stand trial first.

Here is the problem with this: Whether he is guilty or innocent, him standing trial while still a Senator will undoubtedly distract from his duties as Senator and could potentially cause conflicts of interest with those duties. The people of his state will be better served by someone who doesn’t have this cloud hanging over his head.

Also I know he admitted to being guilty in at least one case.

I agree, if there isn’t a set way to deal with this, there ought to be. Nevertheless, someone choosing to resign is always going to be able to go faster than having to do it via due process. Due process, by its very nature must take time or it isn’t really due process.

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/al-franken-satirist-turned-senator-resign-amid-sexual-misconduct-allegations-n825576

“Today I am announcing that in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate,” Franken said during an emotional speech from the Senate floor.

"I of all people am aware that there is some irony that I am leaving, while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has preyed on underage girls is running for the Senate with the full support of his party,” Franken said, referring to President Donald Trump, who has also been accused of sexual misconduct, and Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama.

“But this decision is not about me, it’s about the people of Minnesota,” Franken said.

He is right about the irony, but it is also right that he resign.

true.

Why not? Also keep in mind that even if one were arrested they did still have to prove you guilty beyond reasonable doubt in court. They would have to prove it wasn’t self defense.

Agreed.

True.

moviefreakedmind said:

Not to mention that a man defending himself against a woman would likely get him arrested.

Why would he be arrested if it were truly self defense?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:

I will agree that there is one big difference between a male being harassed and a female being harassed. Most men are bigger and stronger than women, that is just the biology works. So when a man gets harassed, he can defend himself because he is stronger, most of the time. But when a woman gets harassed, most of the time she can not.

Yikes, this is exactly why there is a stigma around it. Because for a man to admit it, he will believe that others will see him as weak, as your post proves.

That is not what I intended.

That was horrible.

ditto.

Handman said:

yhwx said:
trying to frame it as an everybody problem is disingenuous.

I’m not going to bother with why this pisses me off. Just know it goes right along with what I’ve been trying to say.

I think Handman is trying to say it is an everybody problem. Saying it is not is disingenuous to the male victims.

I suppose not.

oh. Well it would still be self defense.

It sounds like the only things that would get in this guys way is either jail or an ass kicking.

oh. Well still I don’t see why a male defending a woman against a male harasser would look bad.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

I will agree that there is one big difference between a male being harassed and a female being harassed. Most men are bigger and stronger than women, that is just the biology works. So when a man gets harassed, he can defend himself because he is stronger, most of the time. But when a woman gets harassed, most of the time she can not.

I suppose they could, but how would that reflect on them? You may be able to punch a male harasser (even that would look bad, as Terry Crews said)

why/how would a woman punching a male harasser look bad?

; but hitting a woman is a huge no-go, coincidentally for the exact same reason that you say men should be able to defend themselves.

This is true. Still, if it were a true self defense situation . . .

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

I will agree that there is one big difference between a male being harassed and a female being harassed. Most men are bigger and stronger than women, that is just the biology works. So when a man gets harassed, he can defend himself because he is stronger, most of the time. But when a woman gets harassed, most of the time she can not.

ChainsawAsh said:

Terry Crews would like a word.

I’ll have to research that story.

I will agree that there is one big difference between a male being harassed and a female being harassed. Most men are bigger and stronger than women, that is just the biology works. So when a man gets harassed, he can defend himself because he is stronger, most of the time. But when a woman gets harassed, most of the time she can not.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Re: Time. It’s their magazine, they can do whatever they want. It’s not like it’s anything official or legal.

I never said they couldn’t.