TVC,opinions on this?

[Sports10]

2 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Everybody experiences are different based mainly on race from MY EXPERIENCES! As I have said before, I have had two encounters where police have pulled out their guns on me. It is not a good feeling and something I think most won't forget. 

What exactly was going on when this happened? Were you just sitting/standing there minding your own business and they just walked up and pointed a gun at you? I'm not insinuating you were doing anything wrong, just curious as to what the situation was. Like I've said I'm in no way saying bad things don't happen to people (regardless of race), but it doesn't happen nearly as often as people would like to believe. I also know there are racist cops out there that are out of control, but highly doubt it's a very large number. 

[team first]

This guy can help explain why shooting was justified 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

12 hours ago, Sports10 said:

I agree 100% on the Minnesota shooting. Not all facts are out, but seems like cop was the one in the wrong. I was referring to the Baton Rouge shooting, which at first glance looks like victim could have avoided ending. However, evidence could change my mind on either of these.

Based on what? You have no facts at all other than the guy was shot. 

Speculation isn't a fact and the girlfriend's statement isn't a fact. 

What happens when (assuming he had it) the officer's recording is made public? Let's play "what if". What if the officers said give me your driver's license and within a second opens fire with no other commands? Yeah, the officer probably overreacted. What if the officer says give me your license and sees the guy reaching toward the gun and the officer yells "Don't do that!". Then "Stop!! Stop NOW!!" and the guy keeps reaching and then the officer opens fire? What if the officer says give me your license and opens fire within a second but the guy lunged for his weapon?

Does the audio then completely change the scenario? Can the officer be totally wrong when seen one way and completely correct in another.... all changing only on the officer's words and actions? Can even the time frame look bad on the officer if the suspect lunged for a weapon when truthfully, the officer did say give me your license?

As you note, the facts are not out yet you 100% agree that the officer was wrong.

Jumping to conclusions on both sides is equally wrong. 

Looks bad? Sure. Is bad? How do we know at this point?

[bullets13]

12 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

The store owner said the victim was in good spirits  right before the incident. Just because you have a record does not mean you are fair game for killing. And you need to validate the truth from fiction before we can validate the 911 call.

Officers were responding to a call that he had brandished his weapon at someone.  They had to respond accordingly, based on that call, rather than a convenience store clerk's after the fact assessment of his mood.  when officers approached him and he did not comply, that does not allow the officers to "validate the truth from fiction", forcing them into action. 

[tvc184]

17 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Officers were responding to a call that he had brandished his weapon at someone.  They had to respond accordingly, based on that call, rather than a convenience store clerk's after the fact assessment of his mood.  when officers approached him and he did not comply, that does not allow the officers to "validate the truth from fiction", forcing them into action. 

And as always, realizing that most states have laws that require compliance with officers or that in itself is a crime. I have said it many times in these forums, TX law for example says you can get up to a year in jail if you resist (and do not injure the officer which is a felony) arrest even if the arrest is unlawful.

Again, it is simple, you complain in court or in lawsuits, not by fighting with the police. 

[BMTSoulja1]

So what's the justification in SIX shots to the chest?  Kill shots, match add.  AFTER the guy was restrained and subdued... Couldn't have just handcuffed him?  I mean, it was 2 officers...

[team first]

New black panther acting up in Baton Rouge 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[team first]

 

 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

So what's the justification in SIX shots to the chest?  Kill shots, match add.  AFTER the guy was restrained and subdued... Couldn't have just handcuffed him?  I mean, it was 2 officers...

Just two officers? Out of curiosity, how many people have you handcuffed while they were fighting?

I am sure you can share your experience on how two officers, and with very little force, can handcuff a person that does not want to be handcuffed. I can assure you that if this was not a shooting and they used the force needed to get him into custody, you would be complaining of the force used. 

Oh yeah, and the guy was not was subdued. If he would have submitted to the handcuffs, as is required by law no matter the charges, he would have been subdued. I guess you think subdued (and I have never seen any legal bearing of that word) means touching. I can assure you that having a person on the ground and touching him is not him being subdued. At the very least he will be resisting until he gets on his stomach so they can handcuff him behind the back. 

But, I will await your explanation on how easy it is to take someone into custody, by placing both hands behind the back, having them touch or almost touch each other (handcuffs are not very wide) and then holding them there for several seconds in order to place the cuffs on broth wrists and all this while the person continues to struggle by keeping those hands from touching behind the back. The law enforcement community awaits your expertise. 

[baddog]

19 minutes ago, team first said:

 

 

Who are they shouting the obscenities towards, anyone but them?

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

26 minutes ago, team first said:

New black panther acting up in Baton Rouge 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

That wont end well

[baddog]

Could be inciting a riot. What does this do to help? NOTHING!

[team first]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

lot of extra videos 

[NDNation]

Martial Law is coming.

[baddog]

This is not about the man who was shot. 

[BMTSoulja1]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Just two officers? Out of curiosity, how many people have you handcuffed while they were fighting?

I am sure you can share your experience on how two officers, and with very little force, can handcuff a person that does not want to be handcuffed. I can assure you that if this was not a shooting and they used the force needed to get him into custody, you would be complaining of the force used. 

Oh yeah, and the guy was not was subdued. If he would have submitted to the handcuffs, as is required by law no matter the charges, he would have been subdued. I guess you think subdued (and I have never seen any legal bearing of that word) means touching. I can assure you that having a person on the ground and touching him is not him being subdued. At the very least he will be resisting until he gets on his stomach so they can handcuff him behind the back. 

But, I will await your explanation on how easy it is to take someone into custody, by placing both hands behind the back, having them touch or almost touch each other (handcuffs are not very wide) and then holding them there for several seconds in order to place the cuffs on broth wrists and all this while the person continues to struggle by keeping those hands from touching behind the back. The law enforcement community awaits your expertise. 

Don't question my intelligence, please...  I never claimed to be an expert at this.  I'm no police officer.  But at some point, one would only need to use common sense.  I've seen several times just 2 officers restrain 1 man.  Second, the guy was tasered, right?  Third of all, did it require SIX fatal chest shots?  Funny that your long winded bantering never touched on that...

[BMTSoulja1]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Who are they shouting the obscenities towards, anyone but them?

Now I'm not for violence to counteract a violent act, by no means but I do believe that we need to call it for what it is....

[tvc184]

12 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Don't question my intelligence, please...  I never claimed to be an expert at this.  I'm no police officer.  But at some point, one would only need to use common sense.  I've seen several times just 2 officers restrain 1 man.  Second, the guy was tasered, right?  Third of all, did it require SIX fatal chest shots?  Funny that your long winded bantering never touched on that...

I have not questioned your intelligence. You might have a PhD for all I know and that might get you a job at NASA but it won't stop a fight. 

"Common sense" does not enter into the equation. I have seen a single officer restrain a person according to the level of resistance. I have also seen it take 4 officers to take a small woman into custody that was squirming around. Again as I described, touching the hands behind the back for a few seconds of someone that is not willing to do so is not easy and common sense does not enter into it. I was in a fight with a man that took a couple of minutes to get into custody and he was fighting 6 pretty big officers. So much for the one man show.

Oddly, when I saw the four officers fighting a woman, I questioned the need or their ability to do the job. You see at the time I was not a police officer and was doing a ride-along. The officer I was riding with asked me how many people I have arrested and which ones fought. That is exactly what I ask you and that was why. It wasn't until about two years later when I joined a different police department that I found out the folly of my "common sense". 

Did it require 6 shots? Probably not. One or two "might" have worked according to which one(s) were fatal. As I explained in the last day or so (I think in response to Big Girl), the police don't fire a single shot and step back a wait a few seconds to see if it works. Maybe on television but not in real life. Again, it is not a question of intelligence but from experience and training. In the last local police shooting that I watched on very good in-car video on (from two different cars) the officer fired 7 times in about 2 seconds. Were they all needed? Which one or ones was fatal? I can't tell you but when faced with the threat up close, we don't stop to count bullets and call time out to judge effect. Having watched those videos a couple of dozen times I (and probably the officer involved) cannot tell you which rounds might have been fatal. 

If you are going to try and use the number of shots as an indication of anything, then you must be using the "common sense" that some rounds might have been needed but the officer fired "too many". Or perhaps your common sense tells you that 6 shots is proof of intent to break the law? I would be willing to bet that many PhDs would argue that point to the contrary. 

[BMTSoulja1]

19 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I have not questioned your intelligence. You might have a PhD for all I know and that might get you a job at NASA but it won't stop a fight. 

"Common sense" does not enter into the equation. I have seen a single officer restrain a person according to the level of resistance. I have also seen it take 4 officers to take a small woman into custody that was squirming around. Again as I described, touching the hands behind the back for a few seconds of someone that is not willing to do so is not easy and common sense does not enter into it. I was in a fight with a man that took a couple of minutes to get into custody and he was fighting 6 pretty big officers. So much for the one man show.

Oddly, when I saw the four officers fighting a woman, I questioned the need or their ability to do the job. You see at the time I was not a police officer and was doing a ride-along. The officer I was riding with asked me how many people I have arrested and which ones fought. That is exactly what I ask you and that was why. It wasn't until about two years later when I joined a different police department that I found out the folly of my "common sense". 

Did it require 6 shots? Probably not. One or two "might" have worked according to which one(s) were fatal. As I explained in the last day or so (I think in response to Big Girl), the police don't fire a single shot and step back a wait a few seconds to see if it works. Maybe on television but not in real life. Again, it is not a question of intelligence but from experience and training. In the last local police shooting that I watched on very good in-car video on (from two different cars) the officer fired 7 times in about 2 seconds. Were they all needed? Which one or ones was fatal? I can't tell you but when faced with the threat up close, we don't stop to count bullets and call time out to judge effect. Having watched those videos a couple of dozen times I (and probably the officer involved) cannot tell you which rounds might have been fatal. 

If you are going to try and use the number of shots as an indication of anything, then you must be using the "common sense" that some rounds might have been needed but the officer fired "too many". Or perhaps your common sense tells you that 6 shots is proof of intent to break the law? I would be willing to bet that many PhDs would argue that point to the contrary. 

The chest has the most vital organs in the body.  So, you shoot the chest point blank in an effort to restrain or to kill?  Did those two officers feel like their life was in danger even whole they had him on his  back pinned?  Also, how ironic that BOTH of those officer's body cams conveniently didn't record anything....

[Sports10]

On July 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM, tvc184 said:

Based on what? You have no facts at all other than the guy was shot. 

Speculation isn't a fact and the girlfriend's statement isn't a fact. 

What happens when (assuming he had it) the officer's recording is made public? Let's play "what if". What if the officers said give me your driver's license and within a second opens fire with no other commands? Yeah, the officer probably overreacted. What if the officer says give me your license and sees the guy reaching toward the gun and the officer yells "Don't do that!". Then "Stop!! Stop NOW!!" and the guy keeps reaching and then the officer opens fire? What if the officer says give me your license and opens fire within a second but the guy lunged for his weapon?

Does the audio then completely change the scenario? Can the officer be totally wrong when seen one way and completely correct in another.... all changing only on the officer's words and actions? Can even the time frame look bad on the officer if the suspect lunged for a weapon when truthfully, the officer did say give me your license?

As you note, the facts are not out yet you 100% agree that the officer was wrong.

Jumping to conclusions on both sides is equally wrong. 

Looks bad? Sure. Is bad? How do we know at this point?

You evidently misunderstood my post. I said seems like, meaning from what I had seen seemed that way. Also said not all facts are out, so jumping on me makes no sense. Like I said about both instances is facts either way could change how it seems. Get down off your high horse and read what I wrote.

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, Sports10 said:

You evidently misunderstood my post. I said seems like, meaning from what I had seen seemed that way. Also said not all facts are out, so jumping on me makes no sense. Like I said about both instances is facts either way could change how it seems. Get down off your high horse and read what I wrote.

Maybe when you say I "agree 100%" with the MN shooting, you need to choose your words more carefully. 

Of course you did also say "not all the facts were out", I guess meaning that you weren't really 100% sure.... but then... "seems like the cop was the one wrong". 

Yeah, I then had the audacity to ask you based on what. You know, facts? Like I said, the only fact we knew at the time is that the guy was dead and it was from an officer shooting him. Almost nothing else was known. 

Now it at least appears that this had nothing to do with a taillight out but rather being a possible suspect in a recent (I believe just happened) armed robbery. 

I guess that puts me on a high horse for wanting to see what we can prove and you I suppose, needing to choose your words better since it appears what you wrote was not what you meant. 

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

(1) The chest has the most vital organs in the body. (2)  So, you shoot the chest point blank in an effort to restrain or to kill?  (3) Did those two officers feel like their life was in danger even whole they had him on his  back pinned? (4) Also, how ironic that BOTH of those officer's body cams conveniently didn't record anything....

1. The "most" vital organs means what in the scope of things? The chest also has the most places that you can shoot repeatedly without hitting anything vital. There are hundreds of examples of people taking multiple rounds in the chest and living. I had a friend (now deceased) that was an officer that I worked with that shot a guy 6 times with a .45 in the chest at point blank ranges and the guy cut the officer's throat after he was shot. They both survived and the suspect was sentenced to prison. 

2. Shooting is to stop aggression or to restrain, according to the circumstances. 

3. What does pinned have to do with anything? If he gets a hand free and gets to that gun, he can shoot the officers without even drawing it, especially if it is a revolver where he can likely empty it without ever taking it out of the pocket. I have watched two different videos multiple times and cannot tell what happened or if he was reaching or at least had the potential to reach for a gun. 

4. The body cam seems to be the biggest nonsense at all. The news reports say they came off. That is not shocking in the least. They have clips like a cell phone. Go fight with someone and see if a cell phone comes out of its case or the entire case/clip comes off. The police often lose equipment during struggles and about 99% of the time they wish they hadn't. I have lost my baton, gun (twice) and radio just off the top of my head. Also, according to which system is used, the cameras have to be turn on manually. When officers jump out on a man with a gun, I am not so sure that thinking of holding down the "on" button for a few seconds is the most pressing thing on their mind. Where they activated and came off or where they simply not used? I have seen any updates on it but maybe you have more information. You seem to be trying to make the case that lack of body cameras is proof of something. With all the claimed evidence of wrongdoing, why do they even need body cameras in this case? I keep hearing that the two videos made public are enough to show murder. 

I can envision the officers' conversation now and to do so we need to say that they met up while responding to this hot call or at least contacted each other like by cell phone. If it was ironic as you say, that both did not work, we can only assume it was a conspiracy for your innuendo to be accurate. Here we go.......... 

Officer 1: Hey, let's not use our cameras!

Officer 2. Great idea, what are we going to do?

1. Let's toss them on the ground as we are getting out of our cars and say they were lost in the rush to the suspect.

2. Awesome! Let's even turn them on to make it look like we wanted to use them.

1. Great idea. Hey and while we are at it, let's shoot the guy with a Taser but hope it doesn't work, that way you will have an excuse to tackle him.

2. Oh my gosh, you are on your A game today. Let's finish it off by saying that he was going for a gun................. 

[BMTSoulja1]

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

1. The "most" vital organs means what in the scope of things? The chest also has the most places that you can shoot repeatedly without hitting anything vital. There are hundreds of examples of people taking multiple rounds in the chest and living. I had a friend (now deceased) that was an officer that I worked with that shot a guy 6 times with a .45 in the chest at point blank ranges and the guy cut the officer's throat after he was shot. They both survived and the suspect was sentenced to prison. 

2. Shooting is to stop aggression or to restrain, according to the circumstances. 

3. What does pinned have to do with anything? If he gets a hand free and gets to that gun, he can shoot the officers without even drawing it, especially if it is a revolver where he can likely empty it without ever taking it out of the pocket. I have watched two different videos multiple times and cannot tell what happened or if he was reaching or at least had the potential to reach for a gun. 

4. The body cam seems to be the biggest nonsense at all. The news reports say they came off. That is not shocking in the least. They have clips like a cell phone. Go fight with someone and see if a cell phone comes out of its case or the entire case/clip comes off. The police often lose equipment during struggles and about 99% of the time they wish they hadn't. I have lost my baton, gun (twice) and radio just off the top of my head. Also, according to which system is used, the cameras have to be turn on manually. When officers jump out on a man with a gun, I am not so sure that thinking of holding down the "on" button for a few seconds is the most pressing thing on their mind. Where they activated and came off or where they simply not used? I have seen any updates on it but maybe you have more information. You seem to be trying to make the case that lack of body cameras is proof of something. With all the claimed evidence of wrongdoing, why do they even need body cameras in this case? I keep hearing that the two videos made public are enough to show murder. 

I can envision the officers' conversation now and to do so we need to say that they met up while responding to this hot call or at least contacted each other like by cell phone. If it was ironic as you say, that both did not work, we can only assume it was a conspiracy for your innuendo to be accurate. Here we go.......... 

Officer 1: Hey, let's not use our cameras!

Officer 2. Great idea, what are we going to do?

1. Let's toss them on the ground as we are getting out of our cars and say they were lost in the rush to the suspect.

2. Awesome! Let's even turn them on to make it look like we wanted to use them.

1. Great idea. Hey and while we are at it, let's shoot the guy with a Taser but hope it doesn't work, that way you will have an excuse to tackle him.

2. Oh my gosh, you are on your A game today. Let's finish it off by saying that he was going for a gun................. 

Lord....  The glass half empty/half full debate....  Smh...  It's no use.  You'll continue to twist it and turn it to fit your twisted views while the OBVIOUS point and truth stares you right in the face when the video starts rolling.  Smh

If your mentality is how may of the boys in blue's mentality are, then I see that tentions will will remain high and these shootings/kilings will remain the norm.  Sad really.  

[BS Wildcats]

4 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Lord....  The glass half empty/half full debate....  Smh...  It's no use.  You'll continue to twist it and turn it to fit your twisted views while the OBVIOUS point and truth stares you right in the face when the video starts rolling.  Smh

If your mentality is how may of the boys in blue's mentality are, then I see that tentions will will remain high and these shootings/kilings will remain the norm.  Sad really.  

Tensions will always run high when the perp does not comply.  Let the officer do his job without all the "what are you doing this to me for" and the resisting.  If there is no cause for an arrest, you will be your way.  The moment any resistance arises, tensions escalate and that is when something can happen.  

[tvc184]

17 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Lord....  The glass half empty/half full debate....  Smh...  It's no use.  You'll continue to twist it and turn it to fit your twisted views while the OBVIOUS point and truth stares you right in the face when the video starts rolling.  Smh

If your mentality is how may of the boys in blue's mentality are, then I see that tentions will will remain high and these shootings/kilings will remain the norm.  Sad really.  

I have only said that let the facts come out. I have not said a single time that any of the officers involved were innocent. Your response to the incidents is that the officers are wrong until proven innocent and there is no evidence that can prove that. 

Now that is sad. You don't want facts, you want rhetoric.

Approximately 7% of the country are black males. They have killed police officers an average of 40% of the police officers killed each year according to FBI statistics for 6 years (2008-2013 or the last years available) or at almost 600% more than their population. Care to explain how you complain on the number of blacks killed by the police but are very likely to ignore the reasons such deadly confrontations are happening? How does one group kill at 6 times their population and it is almost completely ignored? Try to spin that as a half full glass. 

Feel free to show where any of what I said was twisted.