Cop in America doing a bad job, again

NotThatSoph said:
Referencing the shooting of the 13 year old man recently (a criminal, according to some Redcafe members); these cops are clearly hostile and angry, and they're armed. I wouldn't blame the citizens there fearing for their lives. Just shoot the cops, I guess? Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

What is the accepted definition of a criminal?
 
calodo2003 said:
Good point. That’s why I asked if it was a parody.
Click to expand...

Not sure if he came across it somewhere and retweeted it, or came up with it himself, but it’s either a bad joke in horrendously poor taste, or someone trying to stir things up. The alternative would be that they did actually post it and I don’t think anyone would be that incredibly tone deaf to wade into that discussion like that. Although the Raiders have proven me wrong once already.
 
Shamana said:
Having seen the body cam footage what's the correct protocol in this situation?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Sara125 said:
That’s what I meant he could’ve de-escalated it by stopping her before she even lunged at the girl in pink. When she attempted to stab her he could’ve tazered her or gone for the legs at most if he had to shoot. Apparently officers are taught that if in extreme cases they *must* shoot, they should aim for the legs or shoulder area.
Click to expand...

bsCallout said:
Having watched it, I find it hard to think of any way the police officer could have done anything other than shoot or put his own life at risk to stop the other person being stabbed.

I'm not sure how effective a taser would be in that situation, perhaps someone with experience could explain.

She looked like she was going crazy with that knife.
Click to expand...
Dr. StrangeHate said:
Do American cops don't get tasers, surely a taser will stop a knife attacker.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the poor lass made it easy for her to be taken out. The biggest blame goes to the father, not the cop. The dad was there when his daughter attacked the first girl and rather than restrain her or even put a protective wall around her, he proceeds to kick the first girl in the face and watch his daughter attempt to catch a body in front of a police officer. As the adult and man in the situation he let it go completely out of control. How many people would watch whilst their teenage daughter attempts to stab two people? Sicko. Those saying he should use a taser, they don't always work (some as low as 54.7% effectiveness rate) , have an effective range of 10 ft (3.5 metres) and sometimes even have a delayed response. I also feel the girl was mentally ill possibly as I can't figure why you would try to stab (or appear to) 2 people in front of a police officer. If you call the police in fear then just wait in your house until they arrive but don't then decide to be in the midst of homicide when they arrive. You think the police will just chill and let it happen? Her dad again could have kept her safe in the house until the cops game but he fumbled the whole situation. The girls who started the fight are also to blame as they must have antagonised the young girl and got her mad. The most at fault for this are;

1) Dad
2)Victim
3) Girls who nearly got stabbed
4) everyone watching this happen who did nothing
5) Police officer who had to make a split second decision to save a girls life and prevent homicide. Maybe could have shot less?

I think we all have to eat this one I'm afraid but there will be plenty more unjust situations we can get made about, trust me.

it's a sad situation, the police officer will never face any charges rightly so and it's just sad all around. Everyone always has all the peaceful solutions when themselves or loved ones are not at risk and the timing is just awful but violent incidents haven't just ceased because of the trial.
 
Last edited:
Grinner said:
What is the accepted definition of a criminal?
Click to expand...

At the bare minimum, someone convicted of a [pretty serious] crime or someone that everyone knows with certainty have done criminal acts (like Al Capone before he was convicted of tax evasion). Not a 13 year old child with no criminal convictions that was gunned down unarmed with his hands up. The only person in that situation that had any legitimate reason to fear for his life was the child, so in order of reasonableness it would be: 1) no dead people, 2) dead cop, 3) dead child.
 
Skizzo said:
Not sure if he came across it somewhere and retweeted it, or came up with it himself, but it’s either a bad joke in horrendously poor taste, or someone trying to stir things up. The alternative would be that they did actually post it and I don’t think anyone would be that incredibly tone deaf to wade into that discussion like that. Although the Raiders have proven me wrong once already.
Click to expand...
What did the vertical game lovers do?
 
Leroy The Red said:
Yup, it's a shitshow all round. But it's again one of those situations which if it happened anywhere else in the western world, probably wouldn't have seen a shooting. It's a tough one, if I'm that girl about to be stabbed and police officers turn up with guns and a taser, I'd be wanting them to pull that gun out without question and I'd assume everyone would be the same. A gun has a 100% rate of effectiveness, a taser about 50% to 75% depending on factors such as proximity, size of target, clothing etc.

If I'm an officer i'm thinking the same, but then I'm also thinking a gun is far deadlier than a knife, maybe I take the chance with the taser but then what if it fails and this woman is stabbed and DOES die and I'm seen to have been standing there and not prevented it. Now this is my review in hindsight where I've had time to think, calculate and review. This event happened in about twelve seconds.

The predominant reaction on twitter has been critical of the officer and pointing this out as more racially motivated police brutality. The sad thing is that if you changed the race of any of the two involved, these discussions probably wouldn't even be had.
But ultimately, this is the result of years and years of racism and bad policing in America, the trust is non existant, they've burned their bridges of 'benefit of doubt' and this is what you're left with.

I also feel really bad for the mother, the media have basically thrown her under a bus. Due to the circumstances of the whole thing they should have just left her alone.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The timing is awful combined with her age and also a complete lack of trust (deservedly so) between the black community and the police.
 
Skizzo said:
Their “I can breathe” Twitter post after the verdict.
Click to expand...

That would be tone deaf in two extremely different ways, though. This alleged tweet would be tone deaf in that it would be cops supporting a murderer (I agree it's probably not a real tweet), while the Raiders's tweet is tone deaf in that it's saying "I can breathe" because justice is served after a murder of someone who couldn't breathe, but it's unfortunately sharing the cop slogan of the people celebrating the killing of Eric Garner.
 
Saw this about an elder woman with dementia, police broke her arm, dislocated her shoulder etc. All this for her not having paid at a store, even though she went back in after talking to a guard and gave back the goods and tried to pay.
I just do not get how a 36 kg old demented lady on her way home can be a threat, and how the police do not understand that people that frail can not handle this physical abuse. Of course if you bend an older womens arms up behind her head they will be injured. Or maybe they were scared of this old woman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...elderly-woman-dementia-during-arrest-n1264347
 
Cardboard elk said:
Saw this about an elder woman with dementia, police broke her arm, dislocated her shoulder etc. All this for her not having paid at a store, even though she went back in after talking to a guard and gave back the goods and tried to pay.
I just do not get how a 36 kg old demented lady on her way home can be a threat, and how the police do not understand that people that frail can not handle this physical abuse. Of course if you bend an older womens arms up behind her head they will be injured. Or maybe they were scared of this old woman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...elderly-woman-dementia-during-arrest-n1264347
Click to expand...
Saw this at the weekend. Horrible cnuts. Who needs to break and OAP arm like that?
 
NotThatSoph said:
At the bare minimum, someone convicted of a [pretty serious] crime or someone that everyone knows with certainty have done criminal acts (like Al Capone before he was convicted of tax evasion). Not a 13 year old child with no criminal convictions that was gunned down unarmed with his hands up. The only person in that situation that had any legitimate reason to fear for his life was the child, so in order of reasonableness it would be: 1) no dead people, 2) dead cop, 3) dead child.
Click to expand...

It's a good job you don't make laws or write dictionaries then.
 
Grinner said:
It's a good job you don't make laws or write dictionaries then.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that this means you either 1) want to call someone who has not been convicted of a crime or someone people don't know have commited a crime a criminal, or 2) you prefer that a cop murder an unarmed kid complying with his hands up over the innocent child defending himself or a good guy bystander with a gun protecting the unarmed kid from the bad guy cop with a gun shooting an unarmed kid with his hands up, or 3) you're going on about something else.

Which is it? I'm particularly interested in the dictionary part, because I can't see how that'd refer to anything else than 'criminal'.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Seems to me that this means you either 1) want to call someone who has not been convicted of a crime or someone people don't know have commited a crime a criminal, or 2) you prefer that a cop murder an unarmed kid complying with his hands up over the innocent child defending himself or a good guy bystander with a gun protecting the unarmed kid from the bad guy cop with a gun shooting an unarmed kid with his hands up, or 3) you're going on about something else.

Which is it? I'm particularly interested in the dictionary part, because I can't see how that'd refer to anything else than 'criminal'.
Click to expand...

It's quite common to call someone a criminal if they have engaged in criminal behavior.
 
Grinner said:
It's quite common to call someone a criminal if they have engaged in criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

Yes. So they would be convicted of a crime (like Derek Chauvin), or they'd be someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime but we all know they did it anyway (like Al Capone was a gangster and a murdered even if he was never convicted). Not like a 13 year old child with no convictions who was gunned down with his arms up while complying with the police. Or, if we wanted to stretch the colloquial meaning of criminal, but still within your own definition, Grinner of Redcafe.

Exactly like I said, yes?
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes. So they would be convicted of a crime (like Derek Chauvin), or they'd be someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime but we all know they did it anyway (like Al Capone was a gangster and a murdered even if he was never convicted). Not like a 13 year old child with no convictions who was gunned down with his arms up while complying with the police.

Exactly like I said, yes?
Click to expand...

Someone who engaged in criminal behavior.
 
Grinner said:
You're entitled to your opinion
Click to expand...

This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. We both know Derek Chauvin is a criminal. We both know that you are. I know that I am. We do not know that the 13 year old child that was gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police is.
 
Skizzo said:
Their “I can breathe” Twitter post after the verdict.
Click to expand...
I seen this but didn't understand it.

What did he mean by it?

Didn't George Floyd's family post the same thing?

I took it to be a message of support, no?
 
NotThatSoph said:
This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. We both know Derek Chauvin is a criminal. We both know that you are. I know that I am. We do not know that the 13 year old child that was gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police is.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly what I'm wading in to, but weren't the cops called in the first place because he was shooting a gun or something along them lines?
 
NotThatSoph said:
This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. We both know Derek Chauvin is a criminal. We both know that you are. I know that I am. We do not know that the 13 year old child that was gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police is.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you know nothing about juvenile criminal law in the US.
 
arnie_ni said:
Not sure exactly what I'm wading in to, but weren't the cops called in the first place because he was shooting a gun or something along them lines?
Click to expand...

The cops were called because someone was shooting a gun, not because the 13 year old child who was gunned down unarmed with his hands up complying with the police was shooting a gun. If the child was shooting a gun, which we don't know and he has certainly not been convicted of, unless he was shooting at someone (which he wasn't), then that's a pretty mild crime. Certainly milder than the stories Grinner has told on Redcafe, or stuff I have done that I haven't told on Redcafe.
 
NotThatSoph said:
The cops were called because someone was shooting a gun, not because the 13 year old child who was gunned down unarmed with his hands up complying with the police was shooting a gun. If the child was shooting a gun, which we don't know and he has certainly not been convicted of, unless he was shooting at someone (which he wasn't), then that's a pretty mild crime. Certainly milder than the stories Grinner has told on Redcafe, or stuff I have done that I haven't told on Redcafe.
Click to expand...

Cops were called because 2 people were allegedly shooting at cars. Cops respond on scene to investigate, because all the facts aren't known and that's part of the job, detaining possible criminal suspects who might have committed a crime of shooting a gun at cars/people, you know, endangering lives like. At some point Toledo flees with a gun in hand (yes he in fact was armed). He ignored multiple commands to stop and drop the gun. He stops at some point by a fence and tosses the gun behind it and in less than a second turns and puts his hands up, but gets shot.
No one knows how old these shooting suspects were, how many guns, what type. It doesn't matter. Any cop is approaching that scene with the highest threat level awareness as they very well should. And even more so when the suspects run away with gun in hand to do God knows what to God knows who. We all have the luxury of hindsight and relevant facts after-the-fact. The cop who shot does not.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Cops were called because 2 people were allegedly shooting at cars. Cops respond on scene to investigate, because all the facts aren't known and that's part of the job, detaining possible criminal suspects who might have committed a crime of shooting a gun at cars/people, you know, endangering lives like. At some point Toledo flees with a gun in hand (yes he in fact was armed). He ignored multiple commands to stop and drop the gun. He stops at some point by a fence and tosses the gun behind it and in less than a second turns and puts his hands up, but gets shot.
No one knows how old these shooting suspects were, how many guns, what type. It doesn't matter. Any cop is approaching that scene with the highest threat level awareness as they very well should. And even more so when the suspects run away with gun in hand to do God knows what to God knows who. We all have the luxury of hindsight and relevant facts after-the-fact. The cop who shot does not.
Click to expand...

I know all this, thanks. Except the fact that as far as I know (unless something has happened the last day or two) it's not 100 % confirmed that he had a gun, but it's probable that he did. Then it ended up with the fact that a 13 year old child who was suspected of but not convicted of a pretty mild crime getting gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police.

Go on, ask me or Grinner about our endeavours that would make the 13 year old child a criminal but not us.
 
choiboyx012 said:
Cops were called because 2 people were allegedly shooting at cars. Cops respond on scene to investigate, because all the facts aren't known and that's part of the job, detaining possible criminal suspects who might have committed a crime of shooting a gun at cars/people, you know, endangering lives like. At some point Toledo flees with a gun in hand (yes he in fact was armed). He ignored multiple commands to stop and drop the gun. He stops at some point by a fence and tosses the gun behind it and in less than a second turns and puts his hands up, but gets shot.
No one knows how old these shooting suspects were, how many guns, what type. It doesn't matter. Any cop is approaching that scene with the highest threat level awareness as they very well should. And even more so when the suspects run away with gun in hand to do God knows what to God knows who. We all have the luxury of hindsight and relevant facts after-the-fact. The cop who shot does not.
Click to expand...

This is correct, but in the end he guessed/felt/interpreted wrong and he should go to jail for a decent while. He killed an unarmed civilian who had his hands raised. He needs to go away from that. Your desire to go home at night does not give you the right to guess you are in danger. We pay you. We empower you. We hand over some of our civil rights to you. Your side of the bargain is to be 100% certain when you pull the trigger. Anything less is unacceptable.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I know all this, thanks. Except the fact that as far as I know (unless something has happened the last day or two) it's not 100 % confirmed that he had a gun, but it's probable that he did. Then it ended up with the fact that a 13 year old child who was suspected of but not convicted of a pretty mild crime getting gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police.

Go on, ask me or Grinner about our endeavours that would make the 13 year old child a criminal but not us.
Click to expand...

Why would shooting firearms at passing cars be considered a mild crime?
 
arnie_ni said:
I seen this but didn't understand it.

What did he mean by it?

Didn't George Floyd's family post the same thing?

I took it to be a message of support, no?
Click to expand...

It was meant to be in support, and I believe he got the idea from George’s family saying they can breathe a sigh of relief now after the trial. But the message was used prior as a message of support for police after Eric Garner I believe. Plus it just doesn’t really come off sounding all that great in general.
 
Yeah, that’s a tad daft.

Firing rounds off in any public space at any time of the day / night is a bit more than ‘mild.’
 
NotThatSoph said:
I know all this, thanks. Except the fact that as far as I know (unless something has happened the last day or two) it's not 100 % confirmed that he had a gun, but it's probable that he did. Then it ended up with the fact that a 13 year old child who was suspected of but not convicted of a pretty mild crime getting gunned down unarmed with his arms up complying with the police.

Go on, ask me or Grinner about our endeavours that would make the 13 year old child a criminal but not us.
Click to expand...
There are videos of him running with the gun and tossing it behind a fence.

Again you bring up his age. Not relevant and not known at the time.

Conviction comes after arrest and court appearance. He chose to resist arrest (and court and possible conviction) and instead run away with a deadly weapon.

The suspected (alleged) crime was shooting at passing vehicles. (Unlawful discharge of firearm, assault with deadly weapon, ATTEMPTED MURDER anyone?!) but you think that’s mild and petty. Interesting.

You say “unarmed” and “complying”. That is not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.
 
Skizzo said:
Why would shooting firearms at passing cars be considered a mild crime?
Click to expand...

We don't know that he did, and as far as I know have little reason to believe so. We know that the prosecutors allege that he did, but we also know that they lied about him being armed when he was gunned down urnarmed with his hands up. As far as I understand the working theory is that the 13 year old didn't fire the gun at all, but rather that the 21 year old Ruben Roman did.

Edit: Sorry, the confirmed liars might have been the cops rather than the prosecutors. The prosecutors are just relying on the lying cops as witnesses, they might not have used the lies.
 
Last edited:
choiboyx012 said:
There are videos of him running with the gun and tossing it behind a fence.

Again you bring up his age. Not relevant and not known at the time.

Conviction comes after arrest and court appearance. He chose to resist arrest (and court and possible conviction) and instead run away with a deadly weapon.

The suspected (alleged) crime was shooting at passing vehicles. (Unlawful discharge of firearm, assault with deadly weapon, ATTEMPTED MURDER anyone?!) but you think that’s mild and petty. Interesting.

You say “unarmed” and “complying”. That is not the whole truth if not a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

No, there's a video of him running with something that might have been a gun. The fact that he is not convicted of anything is relevant because Grinner is adamant to refer to him as a criminal.

He was unarmed and complying at the time he was gunned down. You know, within a certain culture there's this fecked up notion that if a girl is at one time up for it then it's not rape if she says no later. It is. Even if someone runs from the police, if they then give up, put their arms up unarmed and turn around as they're asked ... guess what, they're complying. That someone's at some point not complying doesn't give you a lisence to kill forever after.
 
Cardboard elk said:
Saw this about an elder woman with dementia, police broke her arm, dislocated her shoulder etc. All this for her not having paid at a store, even though she went back in after talking to a guard and gave back the goods and tried to pay.
I just do not get how a 36 kg old demented lady on her way home can be a threat, and how the police do not understand that people that frail can not handle this physical abuse. Of course if you bend an older womens arms up behind her head they will be injured. Or maybe they were scared of this old woman.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...elderly-woman-dementia-during-arrest-n1264347
Click to expand...
Yeah that bastard needs to be locked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.