|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. |
| 1-8 of 8 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 03-21-18 05:51pm - 2468 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. However, the police can say it was in self defense. The man had a cell phone in his hand. The police have made statements about the weapons the man was holding: The current statement is the police thought the cell phone was a gun. The police fired 20 rounds at the man. After the shooting, officers waited several minutes for backup before moving to handcuff Clark and beginning medical treatment. And the only item he turned out to have been carrying was a cellphone. The police issued multiple statements about the suspect they killed: -they said the man may have been armed (holding a gun). -they said the man had a tool bar (a cell phone is a tool bar?). -they said the had a wrench (a cell phone can be used as a wrench, which police know is a deadly weapon). What can we learn from this? Never wave or point your cell phone at a police officer. This a reson for them to shoot you. Never wave or hold or move your hands if you see a police officer. That is a reason for them to shoot you. Police officers are here to serve and protect. That is why they carry guns. Guns can be dangerous. -------- -------- https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/21...-shooting-sacramento Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone. Officers say they mistook Stephon Clark’s cellphone for a gun. Activists want more answers. By P.R. Lockhart Mar 21, 2018, 6:30pm EDT Stephon Clark, 22, was shot and killed in his backyard by police on Sunday, March 18. Officers say they mistook his cell phone for a gun. Facebook Police killings of unarmed black men helped fuel the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Now a new tragedy — the shooting death of an unarmed black man in his own backyard — is raising new questions about how much things have changed, if at all. On Sunday, 22-year-old Stephon Clark was shot in the backyard of the home he was staying in with his grandparents. Police officers were purportedly responding to reports of a man breaking car windows. According to a press release issued by the Sacramento Police Department, a helicopter tracking a suspect directed the officers to Clark, who ran towards the house after being confronted by officers. The police department said Clark turned and began to “advance forward with his arms extended, and holding an object in his hands.” The officers, who are said to have thought the object was a gun, then fired 20 rounds at Clark. It’s unclear how many of the shots hit Clark, but other facts aren’t in dispute, and they’re disturbing: After the shooting, officers waited several minutes for backup before moving to handcuff Clark and beginning medical treatment. And the only item he turned out to have been carrying was a cellphone. The shooting has sparked public outcry both locally and nationally. And, nearly four years after the death of Michael Brown sparked the rise of Black Lives Matter and brought more attention to racial disparities in police shootings, the Clark case serves as a stark reminder that even as national attention has waned, unarmed black men and women continue to experience deadly encounters with police. There are a lot of questions and few answers about the Sacramento shooting What happened immediately before Clark’s shooting remains unclear, and his family and community are demanding answers. ”He was at the wrong place at the wrong time in his own backyard?” Sequita Thompson, Clark’s grandmother, said to the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday. Thompson also said that though she heard the gunshots, she never heard the police ask Clark to drop what he was holding. Clark’s family also said that they were not immediately told that their relative was the man killed in their backyard. At a city council meeting in Sacramento on Tuesday, local activists argued that the police department’s multiple statements on the shooting have only added to the confusion. “They put one story out that he may have been armed. They put out another that he had a ‘tool bar,’ whatever that is,” Tanya Faison, founder of the Sacramento chapter of Black Lives Matter, told reporters. “Then they put out that he had a wrench, and then they put out that he just had a cellphone. They need to get it together.” The officers who shot Clark have each served in the Sacramento Police Department for less than five years, and were placed on paid leave while the investigation continues. Both officers were wearing body cameras. A local ordinance requires that footage from the cameras be released to the public within 30 days, and the department says that it plans to release video and audio from the helicopter in the near future. Clark’s shooting is the latest in a troubling pattern Clark’s death follows several high profile police shootings of black men in recent years. According to the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, some 230 people have been shot and killed by police in 2018. 38 of those people were identified as black in news reports. Research has shown that there are significant racial disparities in police use of force. While these disparities are most commonly attributed to issues like implicit bias and systemic racism, recent research has also noted that specific factors like high levels of housing segregation and economic inequality also play a role in where police shootings occur and who they affect. “It’s not just about how individuals interact, but how society is structured,” Michael Siegel, the author of a recent study examining the relationship between housing segregation and structural inequality to police violence, told the Intercept earlier this month. At this point, it is unclear what the results of the police investigation will be, or if the officers will face charges for the shooting. But when police officers shoot civilians, it is rare that these cases lead to prosecution. As Vox’s German Lopez has noted, police are given wide latitude to use force and only have to reasonably perceive a threat at the time of the shooting for their actions to be legally justified. | |
|
||
| 03-21-18 07:51pm - 2468 days | #2 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User  Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
In the entirety of 2017, Finnish police fired six bullets. For the entirety of the country. They didn't kill anyone. In the United States, in the first 77 days of 2018, police killed 238 people. Finland is a much smaller, more homogeneous society, so comparisons are difficult. But one must ask, "Why do so many encounters with the police (especially for people of color and the mentally ill) end with fatal shootings?" "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 03:56am - 2468 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
A simplified explanation for why police in the US kill people. -If a police officer kills someone, it's rare that he is charged with a crime. Even more rare that he is sent to prison. Basically, police officers are given a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Card with their job, and if a civilian did what the police do, they would almost certainly go to jail or prison. The public believe that the police are in a dangerous job, and that gives them the right to shoot first, and ask questions later. So even if a cop shoots an unarmed man, the cop will claim self-defense, that the cop shot in fear of his life. That's the training they receive. The mind-set. A cop gives a civilian an order, the civilian better obey: especially since cops are under a lot of pressure, and might release that pressure by beating or shooting a suspect, or someone they think might be a suspect. You also get a lot of cops that have a temper, or are in bad frame of mind because life has problems, so they take it out on civilians. And the cop culture is that cops protect one another. If a cop breaks the law (simple case, speeding), other cops will give the cop offender a pass. Cops are all brothers. I read about a woman cop who stopped another cop for speeding. The speeding cop was driving at a high rate of speed. He was off duty. There was no emergency. The cop was speeding because he is a cop, and who's going to stop a cop from speeding? A civilian? You're going to take a chance pissing off a cop, who can mess you up so bad it's not funny, or he can get his buddies to mess you up. The woman cop who stopped the speeding cop was harassed by other cops in her area in different ways, that were illegal. Cops sent hate emails to her, and other things happened to her. She sued in federal court for illegal harassment. But, basically, she was a pariah, because she stopped a cop for speeding, and other cops resented that. Anyway, the basic answer to why cops kill innocent people in the US: because they can. There's very little consequence to a cop shooting an unarmed civilian. Once in a while a cop might lose his job or even go to jail. But actual jail time for cops is rare. There are probably other factors involved. But I think the main reason is that most people believe that cops are doing a dangerous job, and they are trying to protect the general populace. Which is myth. Cops are people just like everyone else. Just like ministers are people just like everyone else. Some ministers are in it for the money. And they can make an obscene amount of money from preaching the good word. And since ministers are real people, they sometimes get caught for sex activities and other "sins" that they are preaching against. | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 08:15am - 2467 days | #4 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
I used to believe that most police shooting occurred because people didn't follow the orders of the police (like "drop your weapon" or "on the ground NOW!") and that if they did as they were told there wouldn't have been a problem. Yeah, right. I was so naive. Even when people do EXACTLY as they're supposed to, like the black motorist who told the police officer he had a legal firearm in the car and was reaching for his registration, they still get shot and killed. Police shoot people without warning. Witness the kid who was playing with a toy gun who was shot and killed in 12 seconds. The number of people who are killed who were never given any chance to comply is staggering. "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 04:38pm - 2467 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The main problem is accountability. If police shoot and kill an unarmed person, they are shielded by both the law, fellow police officers, and the public, as well as by the government agency that employs them, because civil suits against the officer are paid for by the the government that employs them (which only makes sense from a legal standpoint, because a cop does not have a lot of money--you sue where the money is--which is the government (city, county) instead of the cop himself. Am I over-simplifying? Possibly, to a certain extent. But the main problem is that cops are not punished for killing unarmed people. In some cases, they even refuse to make public the name of the cop who kills--to protect the officer from hate mail/whatever. (Which seems to me to be illegal--but that's what I have read.) The officer who killed the unarmed man who was a victim of a phone prank in Wichita, Kansas. The man answered the police who came to his front door, and he was shot and killed. The man had no gun, no weapon. He just opened his front door, and was shot. He was not threatening anyone. But the officer who shot him somehow thought the guy had a weapon. The officer's name has been withheld from the public, to protect the officer's rights and safety. . | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 05:07pm - 2467 days | #6 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Off-topic: My next car: Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat. Can I start a Go-Fund-Me to buy my dreamcar? I always wanted to go 160 mph on the freeways and byways. ------- ------- Hellcat doing 160 MPH is too fast for cop, but then driver's luck runs out By Mike Moffitt, SFGATE Updated 3:49 pm, Thursday, March 22, 2018 Now Playing: Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat at Lightning Lap 2016 With its relatively skimpy tires, it's like the Hulk in Gucci pumps. Media: CarAndDriver An Indiana state trooper found his police cruiser seriously challenged when he tried to pull over a speeding Dodge Challenger Hellcat on the Indiana Toll Road. Trooper Dustin Eggert was merging back into traffic near Bremen on Tuesday after helping a broken-down motorist when the reddish-orange Hellcat passed him at a high rate of speed, according to a police statement obtained by Jalopnik. Police said Eggert witnessed the 707-horsepower muscle car weaving in and out of traffic without using turn signals as it passed slower vehicles. The trooper began pursuit, but even though he reached reached speeds of 150 mph, he could not catch the Hellcat, which was allegedly going 160. State police in Bremen, Ind., say this Dodge Challenger Hellcat was clocked at 160 mph Tuesday while trying to evade a pursuing officer on the Indiana State Toll Road. The speed limit on the toll road is 70 mph. Unable to gain on the speedster, Eggert radioed ahead for help, requesting officers watch for the Dodge. But then two big-rig trucks inadvertently came to the aid of law enforcement. They happened to be driving side by side on the two-lane highway, blocking the Dodge and allowing Eggert to catch up. Arrested on a reckless driving charge was J. Jesus Duran Sandoval, 38, of Lake Geneva, Wis., who police say was driving on an expired driver's license. He was taken to LaPorte County Jail. The reason he was driving so fast? He was "trying to get to Maryland," or so he told Eggert. Apparently he had a very pressing engagement. | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 05:44pm - 2467 days | #7 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Off topic: Wild hogs in Louisiana are a huge problem. Could cost the state a lot of money. I don't know why they have this problem. Give all citizens a rifle, plus ammo, and the hogs would soon be bacon. (And save on grocery bills, as well.) But an estimated population of 700,000 wild hogs in Louisiana? Where did they come from? -------- -------- 'Huge problem' of transporting wild hogs in Louisiana could soon cost big bucks under proposed legislation BY ELIZABETH CRISP | ecrisp@theadvocate.com Mar 22, 2018 - 1:38 pm (…) Elizabeth Crisp State lawmakers are trying to root out a growing problem in Louisiana: A booming wild hog population. A state House committee on Thursday approved legislation that would make it illegal to transport feral swine. Those found guilty of the infraction would face fines of up to $900 or up to six months in prison, if the measure makes it into law. It now heads to the House floor for consideration. "If you're any kind of an outdoorsman you know wild hogs are becoming a huge problem in this state," said Rep. Kirk Talbot, R-River Ridge. Talbot said the problem is growing because people trap wild hogs, keep them alive and then let them loose in other locations. "That's how they spread so quickly," he said, describing seeing trailers full of hogs riding 60 miles per hour down the highway. Wild hogs like a 'cockroach:' Officials hope poison can help control widespread problem It's already illegal to release feral hogs into the wild or at an unapproved site. But Talbot said that people are skirting the law. He hopes his House Bill 226 will give another point to try to stop the problem. The Department of Wildlife has already sought to have give its agents the ability to write tickets when they see feral swine being transported. Talbot's bill would expand that beyond policy to state law. Talbot's bill would still allow the state to issue permits for lawful transport of feral pigs. Wild hogs are considered nuisance in Louisiana. They root for food, often damaging crops, trees and even man-made structures. The state has a year-round hunting season for them to try to curb the problem. Jim LaCour, state wildlife veterinarian for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, said they currently exist in every parish in Louisiana, with a population of about 700,000. "One of the goals is to prevent purposeful introduction of them onto (non-native) properties," he said, speaking at a hearing in support of Talbot's bill. He said some people catch them and bring them home so that they can fatten up the hogs and slaughter them later, but feral hogs have rapid reproduction rates. Rep. John Bagneris, a Democrat, said his New Orleans East district even has problems with feral swine. "I'm thinking about joining the rural caucus," he joked, before telling his own interaction with them. Bagneris said he was driving in his district when he spotted what he thought was a pack of dogs. It ended up being a pack of about 10 wild hogs, he said. "I didn't stop. I ran the red light," Bagneris said of his fear that they would charge at his car. "I had to get out of dodge." Follow Elizabeth Crisp on Twitter, @elizabethcrisp. | |
|
||
| 03-22-18 11:58pm - 2467 days | #8 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Back on the thread topic: I said the main reason police are able to shoot unarmed people is because the police often face few consequences for the shooting (and possible killing). As a side note, I mentioned that if anyone has to pay money, it's not the cop that did the shooting, because the cop has little money: in a lawsuit, you go after the ones with big pockets, it's standard legal practice. Here's a case where an officer killed an unarmed black man. He was fired (which is not the normal practice.) However, his employer, a university: 1. The University of Cincinnati agreed to pay more than $244,000 in back pay and benefits and $100,000 in legal fees, to the fired officer (who killed an unarmed black man). 2. The university earlier reached a $5.3 million settlement with the victim's family, including free undergraduate tuition for his 13 children. ----- ----- https://www.yahoo.com/news/fired-officer...k-pay-205859460.html U.S. Fired officer who killed unarmed black man to get back pay Associated Press DAN SEWELL,Associated Press 6 hours ago CINCINNATI (AP) — A white police officer fired after he fatally shot a black unarmed motorist will get about $344,000 in back pay and legal fees from the University of Cincinnati, the school said Thursday. The university is paying Ray Tensing to settle a union grievance brought on his behalf for his 2015 firing, following his indictment on murder charges. The charges were dropped last year after two juries deadlocked. The Fraternal Order of Police had challenged Tensing's firing, saying he shouldn't have been removed from the university's police force before the case was resolved. As part of the settlement, the union said, Tensing has resigned and will not pursue any other claims against the university. "This case has caused a lot of strife in the community, and I believe the settlement will allow for healing to continue," said Tensing, 28. "It certainly will do that for me after two difficult trials." Tensing's statement released by the FOP thanked those who had stood behind him. Tensing shot Sam DuBose, 43, in the head after pulling him over for a missing front license plate in 2015. He testified that he believed his life was in in danger when DuBose tried to drive away during the traffic stop. The shooting is among numerous cases nationwide that have called attention to how police deal with blacks, and the two trials underscored the difficulty prosecutors can have gaining convictions of police officers for on-duty shootings. The University of Cincinnati agreed to pay more than $244,000 in back pay and benefits and $100,000 in legal fees, the two sides said. "I realize this agreement will be difficult for our community," university President Neville Pinto said. "I am nevertheless hopeful that we can focus on supporting each other as members of the same Bearcat family — even, perhaps especially, if we don't agree." The university earlier reached a $5.3 million settlement with DuBose's family, including free undergraduate tuition for his 13 children. The school has initiated police reforms and restructured its leadership since the shooting. ___ Follow Dan Sewell at http://www.twitter.com/dansewell | |
|
||
| 1-8 of 8 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
