Another black man shot by police in USA

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Another black man shot by police in USA

Page 19 of 60 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 9.48am
Originally posted by 7mins This is why we shouldn't use terms like "murder" and "executions" when talking about people being shot by police. Trial by media, whips up emotions... Now we have 8 men dead I think its viable, when the context calls for it. Shooting a man, restrained by two other officers, is a murder and conducted in an execution style. It should anger people, when the police act in this way. When its just been reported on the 'police facts', its just swept under the carpet. The US has a massive problem with firearms, and shootings, which it seems to not want to ever address. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Jul 16 9.48am

Originally posted by 7mins

This is why we shouldn't use terms like "murder" and "executions" when talking about people being shot by police. Trial by media, whips up emotions... Now we have 8 men dead

I think its viable, when the context calls for it. Shooting a man, restrained by two other officers, is a murder and conducted in an execution style.

It should anger people, when the police act in this way. When its just been reported on the 'police facts', its just swept under the carpet.

The US has a massive problem with firearms, and shootings, which it seems to not want to ever address.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 18 Jul 16 10.43am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think its viable, when the context calls for it. Shooting a man, restrained by two other officers, is a murder and conducted in an execution style. It should anger people, when the police act in this way. When its just been reported on the 'police facts', its just swept under the carpet. The US has a massive problem with firearms, and shootings, which it seems to not want to ever address. If he was restrained.... How did the police see the gun? To me it looks like he had one arm free, used that to reach for the gun, police saw it, and shot him. I believe (like his cousin) that he was trying to ditch the gun... With him being on probation, he knew he would be going jail if found with firearm. You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right? So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all. If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that?
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 18 Jul 16 10.43am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think its viable, when the context calls for it. Shooting a man, restrained by two other officers, is a murder and conducted in an execution style.

It should anger people, when the police act in this way. When its just been reported on the 'police facts', its just swept under the carpet.

The US has a massive problem with firearms, and shootings, which it seems to not want to ever address.

If he was restrained.... How did the police see the gun?
To me it looks like he had one arm free, used that to reach for the gun, police saw it, and shot him. I believe (like his cousin) that he was trying to ditch the gun... With him being on probation, he knew he would be going jail if found with firearm.

You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right?

So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 12.09pm
Originally posted by 7mins If he was restrained.... How did the police see the gun? To me it looks like he had one arm free, used that to reach for the gun, police saw it, and shot him. I believe (like his cousin) that he was trying to ditch the gun... With him being on probation, he knew he would be going jail if found with firearm. You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right? So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all. If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that? I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it. Rather than speculate on what may or may not have been the intentions of those involved, including the dead man, I think this kind of incident, is reflective of the problem of police authority on the use of force and the political benefits inherent in protecting the force from their actions. Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission. What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers. By not conducting reasonable independent oversight of police power and authority, the US has found itself embroiled in a nightmarish situation where trust in the police and the state authority has disintegrated. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 18 Jul 16 12.09pm

Originally posted by 7mins

You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right?

So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that?

I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it.

Rather than speculate on what may or may not have been the intentions of those involved, including the dead man, I think this kind of incident, is reflective of the problem of police authority on the use of force and the political benefits inherent in protecting the force from their actions.

Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission.

What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers.

By not conducting reasonable independent oversight of police power and authority, the US has found itself embroiled in a nightmarish situation where trust in the police and the state authority has disintegrated.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 18 Jul 16 4.17pm
Originally posted by 7mins If he was restrained.... How did the police see the gun? To me it looks like he had one arm free, used that to reach for the gun, police saw it, and shot him. I believe (like his cousin) that he was trying to ditch the gun... With him being on probation, he knew he would be going jail if found with firearm. You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right? So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all. If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that? You know the police confiscated the CCTV footage from the shop, which recorded the whole incident, without a warrant or explanation - if they had acted within the law, why on earth would they do that? The footage only reached the public because the shop owner pocketed his phone after recording the incident. If the police have nothing to hide, why would they confiscate the footage? Just answer me that?
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 18 Jul 16 4.17pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by 7mins

You know the police were aware they were being filmed, right?

So you think, the police turn up, notice they're being filmed, then decide to murder the man while being filmed? Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

If the gun was in the dudes pocket, and he was being restrained...how did the police see it? Just answer me that?

You know the police confiscated the CCTV footage from the shop, which recorded the whole incident, without a warrant or explanation - if they had acted within the law, why on earth would they do that?

The footage only reached the public because the shop owner pocketed his phone after recording the incident.

If the police have nothing to hide, why would they confiscate the footage? Just answer me that?

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 18 Jul 16 4.18pm
Originally posted by 7mins I'm talking about the two men shot in the states. Words like "war" "execution" and "murder" make things far far worse. What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder?
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 18 Jul 16 4.18pm

Originally posted by 7mins

I'm talking about the two men shot in the states.
Words like "war" "execution" and "murder" make things far far worse.

What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder?

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 18 Jul 16 5.29pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder? Are you judge and jury?? You seem to have made your mind up. Edited by 7mins (18 Jul 2016 5.32pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 18 Jul 16 5.29pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder?

Are you judge and jury?? You seem to have made your mind up.

Edited by 7mins (18 Jul 2016 5.32pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 18 Jul 16 5.31pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it. Rather than speculate on what may or may not have been the intentions of those involved, including the dead man, I think this kind of incident, is reflective of the problem of police authority on the use of force and the political benefits inherent in protecting the force from their actions. Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission. What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers. By not conducting reasonable independent oversight of police power and authority, the US has found itself embroiled in a nightmarish situation where trust in the police and the state authority has disintegrated. But, you have labelled them executioners? How can you do that if you don't know the facts?
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 18 Jul 16 5.31pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it.

Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission.

What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers.

But, you have labelled them executioners? How can you do that if you don't know the facts?

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 5.31pm
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder? oh dear it's not your day is it flower An unlawful Killing verdict can returned by an inquest (in this country at least) where the suspect/s are unknown, and the reason for the death is against criminal law. Edited by dannyh (18 Jul 2016 5.33pm) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 5.31pm

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

What do you call an unlawful killing if not a murder?

oh dear it's not your day is it flower

An unlawful Killing verdict can returned by an inquest (in this country at least) where the suspect/s are unknown, and the reason for the death is against criminal law.

Edited by dannyh (18 Jul 2016 5.33pm)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

nairb75 Baltimore 18 Jul 16 6.55pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger did not create racial tensions, he is the result of them. He is also a politician and politicians play to the converted as well as prospective voters. The Trump hysteria from liberals is as laughable in itself as Trumps policy promises. trump is giving license to crazies acting out their craziness. similar to how hate crime increased since brexit - there's not a legitimacy to acting on those impulses when a major party candidate endorses hatred and violence.
Alert a moderator to this post

nairb75

Baltimore 18 Jul 16 6.55pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

did not create racial tensions, he is the result of them. He is also a politician and politicians play to the converted as well as prospective voters.
The Trump hysteria from liberals is as laughable in itself as Trumps policy promises.

trump is giving license to crazies acting out their craziness. similar to how hate crime increased since brexit - there's not a legitimacy to acting on those impulses when a major party candidate endorses hatred and violence.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 18 Jul 16 6.58pm
Originally posted by nairb75 trump is giving license to crazies acting out their craziness. similar to how hate crime increased since brexit - there's not a legitimacy to acting on those impulses when a major party candidate endorses hatred and violence. Trump is a symptom of years of failed politics
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 18 Jul 16 6.58pm

Originally posted by nairb75

Trump is a symptom of years of failed politics

Alert a moderator to this post

blackpalacefan 18 Jul 16 7.02pm
Originally posted by nairb75 trump is giving license to crazies acting out their craziness. similar to how hate crime increased since brexit - there's not a legitimacy to acting on those impulses when a major party candidate endorses hatred and violence. I don't think the man has helped. Anything but, many aspects of what he embodies are the worst of us. I see it as more of a feedback loop than him being either the cause or a symptom though. That and Americans often seem to become so polarised anyway, with people looking to best embody a particular belief system rather than think for themselves.
Alert a moderator to this post

blackpalacefan

18 Jul 16 7.02pm

Send a Private Message to blackpalacefan

Originally posted by nairb75

I don't think the man has helped. Anything but, many aspects of what he embodies are the worst of us. I see it as more of a feedback loop than him being either the cause or a symptom though. That and Americans often seem to become so polarised anyway, with people looking to best embody a particular belief system rather than think for themselves.

Alert a moderator to this post

7mins In the bush 18 Jul 16 7.07pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it. Rather than speculate on what may or may not have been the intentions of those involved, including the dead man, I think this kind of incident, is reflective of the problem of police authority on the use of force and the political benefits inherent in protecting the force from their actions. Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission. What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers. By not conducting reasonable independent oversight of police power and authority, the US has found itself embroiled in a nightmarish situation where trust in the police and the state authority has disintegrated. I'm genuinely not trying to dig you out, but you contradict yourself. You say you don't know if the suspect managed to get hold of the gun, then say he was offering no threat? You can't say if he was or wasn't a viable threat. You can't therefore say it was murder or execution, you can't say if he was properly restrained, you can't say if he intended to kill the officers or simply ditch the gun (as his own cousin believes) This trial by media is dangerous, people telling lies so often, people take them as truths. Now we have 8 police officers dead... and those who claim that the police are murderers, when questioned about the details of the incident... they respond "I don't know" What we do know is... Suspect tasered Suspect then wrestled to the floor Officer becomes aware he was armed Warning is shouted at suspect Police officer shoots suspect
Alert a moderator to this post

7mins

In the bush 18 Jul 16 7.07pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I don't know, maybe they saw it, or felt it.

Whenever the state kills a citizen, or seriously wounds one, an independent enquiry should be conducted. Not by the media, civil rights groups, the authorities etc but a fully independent commission.

What I do know, is that a restrained man, was shot to death by a police officer, when there was no apparent direct threat, to either the firing officer, the public or the two officers.

I'm genuinely not trying to dig you out, but you contradict yourself. You say you don't know if the suspect managed to get hold of the gun, then say he was offering no threat?
You can't say if he was or wasn't a viable threat. You can't therefore say it was murder or execution, you can't say if he was properly restrained, you can't say if he intended to kill the officers or simply ditch the gun (as his own cousin believes)

This trial by media is dangerous, people telling lies so often, people take them as truths. Now we have 8 police officers dead... and those who claim that the police are murderers, when questioned about the details of the incident... they respond "I don't know"

What we do know is...

Suspect tasered
Suspect then wrestled to the floor
Officer becomes aware he was armed
Warning is shouted at suspect
Police officer shoots suspect

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 19 of 60 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Another black man shot by police in USA

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors