"I was afraid for my life!"

The Ferguson report proved that there was bias in determining the "screening" and "selection" of victims in the majority of police stops in Ferguson. Originally Posted by shanm

Actually, as usual, you are wrong. The "report" didn't "prove" anything. It claimed it.

Recognizing your lack of any concept that would even remotely appear to be a legal one, there is a distinction between an accusation and the proving of the accusation.

Thank God we have Courts, and don't rely on the "internet" to convict people. You should Thank God as well, because just based on your "internet persona" you would have been flushed long ago.

Recess is almost ready to begin. Enjoy yourself during your recess. Try to impress the 3rd graders, ok?

Actually, as usual, you are wrong. The "report" didn't "prove" anything. It claimed it.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

As usual, you take one word out a hundred to base your baseless argument.(notice how your ass didn't respond to anything else in the post?) Good luck holding that up in "court".

The report "claimed" that based on overwhelming statistical and verifiable evidence. Which is infinitely better than the non-stop horseshit that comes out of your whore-cunt (err..mouth).

Hopefully the day comes when you're on the receiving end of police brutality. Not that it will make much of a difference. Your ass will still be sniveling on these forums, blaming the Grubered Odumbo liberals. Keep banging the freedom drum, buddy, until that's all you have left. fuckin Dipshit.

You should probably examine the basis for the reporting of the stats, and I am talking about the justification for the "stop." Your personal "investigation" based on some officers bullshitting about their "screening" and "selection" more than likely is not representative of the majority of officers. It's anecdotal in nature at best. There are officers who are prejudice on a variety of levels or categories, just like there is in our society. I don't believe you can generalize from that fact to paint LE generally. Unfortunately the liberal media tries to support their criticism of LE based on some isolated incidents, rather than support LE based on some isolated incidents of unusual kindness and extraordinary bravery.

Although I recognize that it is "fashionable" to criticize LE so on a hooker board, when being a "bad boy" seems to be a technique explored to attract the attention (and perhaps a discount) from a "bad girl"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not looking for a discount, firstly. The fact that you would twist it around to arrive at that point is troubling. I never said it was a majority of LE, did I? But if you have even 10 percent acting in this way, it's too many. As for the justification for the stop, in many cases, when we're talking about the percentage who have a problem, you don't need any more justification than being black. Do you live in a bubble? Did you not see the video of a man getting shot in the back? You say it's not a large percentage and I don't believe it is, but it keeps happening over and over. You say it's isolated incidents. Isolated incidents don't happen over and over. Day after day. The media is not there to support or tear down. That isn't their job. There job is to follow stories wherever they may lead. Just because they lead somewhere uncomfortable for you personally is of no concern to me.

Actually, as usual, you are wrong. The "report" didn't "prove" anything. It claimed it.

Recognizing your lack of any concept that would even remotely appear to be a legal one, there is a distinction between an accusation and the proving of the accusation.

Thank God we have Courts, and don't rely on the "internet" to convict people. You should Thank God as well, because just based on your "internet persona" you would have been flushed long ago.

Recess is almost ready to begin. Enjoy yourself during your recess. Try to impress the 3rd graders, ok? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Any rational person would be able to recognize that police department had problems when it came to racial profiling. I don't think that point can even be argued. Why do you feel the need to defend officers who were very clearly in the wrong? I think that's a much more interesting question.

BTW, I said "Klan members" and you bristled. Does that mean you have appointed yourself the matriarchal Klan leader?
If so, will you be taking lodgings in the (previously known as) patriarchal suite? Where will LLIdiot be sleeping from now on? Last I heard, his home under the I45 is no longer Originally Posted by shanm

WTF are you on? And do you always just make up stuff just to hear yourself laugh? I have never known a poster who laughed at his own 3rd grade BS as much as you.

Dude I appreciate a good zinger as long as they are funny but you're just lame.

You know I have Sha-na-na on ignore so I can't read his crap. My first post on this subject was in response to what Sins said and what I imagined an idiot like Sha-na-na would write. Looks like I was right on the money. Liberals.....so easy to guess what they will do.

uh-huh. right. "forensics". Sure. yeah. "forensics". yeah. that's it. "forensics".

Yes. Forensics. Something vexes thee?

I'm sure you place unequivocal trust in the forensic sciences, and no amount of political dogma would have affected your viewpoint. As usual, repubtard hindsight is full 20-20!

Unlike your typical liberal, I prefer to rely on facts rather than a narrative. Perhaps you will recall we were just discussing this phenomenon on another thread.

I guess you missed the part where the officer tried to deliberately plant the stun gun on the victim, and claimed "I feared for my life" after the victim tried to run away from him. No surprise the victim was black either.

What does this have to do with anything? The facts will prove that he is lying. End of story. He could have said he saw an Alien Elvis trying to kidnap the guy and was only shooting at him to save him from a fate worse than death. That doesn't change the facts.

So many issues at play here. Overreach of authority, unjustified use of excessive violence, unnecessary arming of LE, possible racial bias. And your takeaway from that is that "the officer was fucked anyways". Please tell us more about how your political beliefs have nothing to do with the way you think.

There is really one issue here that matters. Murder. He's fucked because at this point, the only question is how long his prison sentence will be.

BTW, I said "Klan members" and you bristled. Does that mean you have appointed yourself the matriarchal Klan leader?
If so, will you be taking lodgings in the (previously known as) patriarchal suite? Where will LLIdiot be sleeping from now on? Last I heard, his home under the I45 is no longer Originally Posted by shanm

Again, nice try with the KKK bullshit.

What do you mean "typical liberal?" Is that anything like a ...

Any rational person would be able to recognize that police department had problems when it came to racial profiling. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Especially, if the "any rational person" had egg on his face for prematurely convicting Officer Wilson for the "killing" of Brown and the "any rational person" had to have "something" to justify playing the "race card."

A problem with trying to "prove" a case with stats is that the data is subject to examination, the source of the data is subject to examination, and the interpreter of the data and any conclusions drawn from the data is subject to examination.

This is not 2+2=?

In another thread the "data" was compared to a national statistical average and in reality the Ferguson "data" showed a lower level of Black LE attention per capita than the national average. In English ... when a town has a high % of population in one identifiable group then there will more than likely be more contacts with that group than a lower % group. The leap to the assumption that the contact was "race based" is just that ... a leap ... and pure speculation.

If you are UC ... you lost that conversation then, and you'll lose it again regardless of the new sheep's skin. But don't feel bad...

Eric Holder lost it right out of the shoot!

uh-huh. right. "forensics". Sure. yeah. "forensics". yeah. that's it. "forensics".

I'm sure you place unequivocal trust in the forensic sciences, and no amount of political dogma would have affected your viewpoint. As usual, repubtard hindsight is full 20-20!

I guess you missed the part where the officer tried to deliberately plant the stun gun on the victim, and claimed "I feared for my life" after the victim tried to run away from him. No surprise the victim was black either.

So many issues at play here. Overreach of authority, unjustified use of excessive violence, unnecessary arming of LE, possible racial bias. And your takeaway from that is that "the officer was fucked anyways". Please tell us more about how your political beliefs have nothing to do with the way you think.



BTW, I said "Klan members" and you bristled. Does that mean you have appointed yourself the matriarchal Klan leader?
If so, will you be taking lodgings in the (previously known as) patriarchal suite? Where will LLIdiot be sleeping from now on? Last I heard, his home under the I45 is no longer Originally Posted by shanm

Jesus Christ the cop was charged with murder, what the fuck more do you want. What he wasn't charged fast enough, if there wasn't a video who knows what would have happened, but there was and the system has worked thus far, at least wait until there is a case for it before you start the Sharpton campaign.

Jesus Christ the cop was charged with murder, what the fuck more do you want. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Attention.

Jesus Christ the cop was charged with murder, what the fuck more do you want. What he wasn't charged fast enough, if there wasn't a video who knows what would have happened, but there was and the system has worked thus far, at least wait until there is a case for it before you start the Sharpton campaign. Originally Posted by dirty dog

It's interesting that your tone almost indicates an indignation on your part. A case? A fleeing man was shot in the BACK. Even in the Old West, that was the pinnacle of cowardice.

As usual, you take one word out a hundred .... Originally Posted by shanm

I keep forgetting about your fundamental ignorance of all things obvious ....

... the word "prove" is pivotal in YOUR CLAIM .... The rest of your post is just crap.

You sound more and more like WTF.

It's small wonder you would marginalize "forensics" as being irrelevant to "proof"!

Here's another one
Originally Posted by shanm

ONE Texas cop would have taken care of that problem in about 2 seconds. I support him and his gun.

The cop in the OP's thread??? probably NOT but we need the facts...

In the mean time, it's a great distraction and MSN will maybe get there ratings to creep up a bit...

It's interesting that your tone almost indicates an indignation on your part. A case? A fleeing man was shot in the BACK. Even in the Old West, that was the pinnacle of cowardice. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Not even the U.S. Supreme Court has taken than position. The case is ...

Tennessee vs. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), which was based upon the "reasonableness" of the "seizure," which is how the SCOTUS evaluated the 4th amendment application to the shooting of a fleeing child by an LE officer.

To assert such a hard and fast rule or conclusion ignores all possible explanations.

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. .....

"It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [12] feasible, some warning has been given."

There are circumstances when shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is justified.