Black Man Killed by Cops For Selling CDS

[DarthSkywalker]

It's pretty convenient thr their body cams apparently came unsecured and didn't film anything. I'm not saying it's impossible they came unsecured on their own, but it certainly looks fishy as hell.

How easily do body cams come unsecured?

Reminds me of this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/local/la-me-lapd-tamper-20140408

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You implied that his death shouldn't really matter because of it.

I was just pointing out a fact that wasn't being discussed. You're the one who tried to make more of my statement than it should have been.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was just pointing out a fact that wasn't being discussed. You're the one who tried to make more of my statement than it should have been.

But it is a fact that has no relevance on what happened. It is simple used to paint the potential victim as deserving of what happened. Like discussing a rape victim's outfit or sexual history.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

But it is a fact that has no relevance on what happened. It is simple used to paint the potential victim as deserving of what happened. Like discussing a rape victim's outfit or sexual history.

It sort of does since I've seen some people say that because Louisiana is an open-carry state, that he's allowed to have it and the call placed about him brandishing a gun in front of the store shouldn't have been made.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It sort of does since I've seen some people say that because Louisiana is an open-carry state, that he's allowed to have it and the call placed about him brandishing a gun in front of the store shouldn't have been made.

If he is allowed to have the gun, how would anyone know he isn't suppose to in an open-carry state unless they ran his name? Again irrelevant when he was held down and shot.

This is exactly why DJ called you out. You are trying to muddy the waters with something irrelevant. If he pulled out the gun, went for it, etc. that is relevant. Whether he was allowed to have a gun is irrelevant to how he was killed if he wasn't actually attempting to use it.

 

[LoganGambit87]

We have an eye witness account from the clerk who watched it happen. Of course that isn't good enough for you.

yup this seem appropriate to post
[YT]8IUTwaIWPBc[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

If he is allowed to have the gun, how would anyone know he isn't suppose to in an open-carry state unless they ran his name? Again irrelevant when he was held down and shot.

This is exactly why DJ called you out. You are trying to muddy the waters with something irrelevant. If he pulled out the gun, went for it, etc. that is relevant. Whether he was allowed to have a gun is irrelevant to how he was killed if he wasn't actually attempting to use it.

Bingo.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The big question seems to me to be what made the police go over there. Presumably there would be some kind of record of a call.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The big question seems to me to be what made the police go over there. Presumably there would be some kind of record of a call.

We already know this, someone called and said the man was brandishing a gun at another person.

 

[Thundercrack85]

We already know this, someone called and said the man was brandishing a gun at another person.

His account is what is needed then.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Video looks pretty bad for the cops.

 

[Lencho01]

Sterling's family...

[YT]urLybnPRLcI[/YT]

 

[chaseter]

We already know this, someone called and said the man was brandishing a gun at another person.

I thought you said eye witness testimony of the other guy was all we needed?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, he was a registered sex offender illegally carrying a firearm, actively resisting arrest, so the cops have that going for them. You also can't see what he's doing with his right arm in the video, but that might be cleared up if a store camera captured the event from a different angle.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I thought you said eye witness testimony of the other guy was all we needed?

I said we have eyewitness testimony of the store clerk who did not corroborate what the police described. Tell me Chaseter, how does one go for their gun whilst being tazed and pinned down by police? Seems a bit problematic does it not? Even if he was reaching for his gun it does seem fairly easy to gain control of the weapon at that point.

 

[Thundercrack85]

He could be reaching for it? I mean, we can't see his right arm.

Should the cops have shot him dead? No. But, that's not an incredible reaction to seeing someone reach for a gun after repeated warnings.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

He could be reaching for it? I mean, we can't see his right arm.

Should the cops have shot him dead? No. But, that's not an incredible reaction to seeing someone reach for a gun after repeated warnings.

I'm sure you're familiar with videos showing folks getting tazed. They tend to spazz out and not be in control of their limbs. The store clerk said he did not go for his weapon and after the fact the cops pulled it out of his pocket. Pretty hard to make use of a weapon in your pocket while being tazed.

 

[Teelie]

The way a tazer works is it is supposed to prevent control of your muscles and for him to grab for a gun, he'd need to be able to use his arms...

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I don't see how this is anything but murder. The cops had him taken down and neutralized. They had him pinned to the ground. Even if he was reaching for his gun he could've easily been stopped without being shot 14 times.

These cops are a disgrace to their uniform.

 

[Black Narcissus]

It continues to baffle me and scare me how some cops go for the kill when the person is already pretty much detained.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It continues to baffle me and scare me how some cops go for the kill when the person is already pretty much detained.

It scares me that I am no longer baffled by it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I have a real question here about law enforcement. Over the last few years I have seen a lot of videos, including on Cops, where the police mention how their number one job is getting home. When did that become a thing? When did that become their #1 job? I thought their job was to serve and protect the public? This mentality that even the slightest bit of risk is unacceptable and is to be confronted with deadly force. It is insane.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have a real question here about law enforcement. Over the last few years I have seen a lot of videos, including on Cops, where the police mention how their number one job is getting home. When did that become a thing? When did that become their #1 job? I thought their job was to serve and protect the public? This mentality that even the slightest bit of risk is unacceptable and is to be confronted with deadly force. It is insane.

I'm not really sure I buy this notion that this is a new problem. I mean, having had a course on African American history, police had quite a history of supporting extrajudicial murder of African Americans and other minorities (not pretending to be an expert, but the numbers are shocking).

I have to wonder if this is just a continuation of that. As someone pointed out the other day, police killings now actually outnumber lynchings of the Jim Crow era.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not really sure I buy this notion that this is a new problem. I mean, having had a course on African American history, police had quite a history of supporting extrajudicial murder of African Americans and other minorities (not pretending to be an expert, but the numbers are shocking).

I have to wonder if this is just a continuation of that. As someone pointed out the other day, police killings now actually outnumber lynchings of the Jim Crow era.

The problem with minorities is definitely not new, but I don't remember this being their justification for it in the past. I honestly don't know if it is new. I probably have just started noticing it. Maybe it has because the new tagline to justify this stuff in the new digital era.

 

[terry78]

Thin their numbers.