It’s not a serious question and you fucking know it.
And don’t tell me about jumping in. I was in this conversation before you were asshole.
So you naturally assume they are lying.
Look, cops are not always the good guys, I know that. But in some cases the victims of police violence aren’t good guys either. This case reads like a nut who couldn’t get over being jilted. Allow some time before you start convicting either.
Takes one to know one. Nyah Nyah. Feel better know.
Keep fighting for that Blue Wall Scuzz, just the text time you say not to be that guy, have the guts to admit, you’re exactly that fucking guy.
So, everyone is just going to sling insults back and forth, but ignore what really happened in this case? Do I need to lock the thread for a cooling off period?
I am skeptical of what they’re saying unless there’s actual physical proof that supports it. I hope the forensics report 100% confirms what they’re saying. The dead suspect definitely sounds like a piece of crap, but the press conference also mentioned he was studying to become a police officer. Either way, an innocent woman is dead. Could she have been saved? Possibly, we’ll never know.
I know encounters with the police can sometimes result in violence but I’d prefer that this only happens when absolutely necessary. And when shit goes awry, I’d prefer that the police force and officers are 100% honest about what happened. There are way too many exceptions to mean I automatically trust the police though.
I’d say wait till we get the ballistics back, but it’s not like that’s actually reliable.
Still if the kidnapper’s gun was a different caliber than the officer’s that would be hard to mess up or hide.
In that NY incident, the robber had a fake gun and police killed one of their own and shot another by accident? Stories like this just make me worry about all the vigilante wannabes out there, with their concealed weapons, just itching to draw it and take out a bad guy. We’ve continually witnesses professionals screwing things up, accidentally killing innocents, etc, yet so many people want to arm teachers and the general public. Insane.
And this is why in the eyes of many Cops no longer get the benefit of the doubt when there is a fatal shooting.
On the Serial podcast the host interviewed a retired Cleveland police officer. According to the officer, that Tamir Rice - a 12 year old killed for holding a toy gun - got shot and killed was entirely the fault of Tamir Rice. “He was a man in a child’s body,” “He didn’t come from a loving background,” and on and on. In his view - and I imagine not only in the view of other police officers but the courts as well - the police are always justified in shooting someone. Always. The blame always lies with the victim.
Yup. This is why intense scrutiny and second guessing the police narrative for any shooting is justified.
Because the cops will lie about it. And unless you have solid video evidence otherwise, they get away with it.
Which is why body and car cams should be mandatory, and any fatal incident where the camera is disabled or the footage unavailable should be automatic termination. No exceptions, no excuses.
The problem is that the body and car cam footage keeps uncovering all the shenanigans that cops have been getting away with for years. Their effectiveness has prevented their 100% implementation across the country.
Or they decide to keep the footage for themselves so they can use it when it makes them look good and hide it when it shows them abusing power or breaking the law. Tons of places put laws that camera footage from body and car cams are under control of the police and never available to the general public.
Oh sure, both very true statements.
Which is why the decision to release or not release the footage should not be up to the departments. Mandatory disclosure into the public record. Full transparency and accountability enshrined into law.
To expand a bit on that, there is a management principle that touches the same concept.
The person who orders something should not be he same person paying the bills for that something. So if your company orders a computer the person who orders it from the vendor does not also pay that bill. Because that enables all kinds of fraud and theft.
So it is here. By allowing the person whom the footage is of to determine what is and is not released? It enables all sorts of abuse.
Right, you’re talking about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX compliance. Huge in the accounting world.
Indeed I am! And I deal with SOX all the time in my work, and it’s not even accounting related.
Flat out planting shit too, right there, on camera, and people still defend them.
Black kids don’t get to be kids.
https://twitter.com/stjbs/status/1096490090426257408
https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-police-shooting-affidavit-confidential-13620120.php?t=e45e3142bc&utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Mobile)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
They bury the lede pretty hard here.
But now, more questions are emerging; in two different interviews from his hospital bed, Goines named two different informants, according to the warrant.
When investigators went to talk to them, both informants said they’d worked for Goines – but not on that case. So the investigators got a full list of all the confidential informants who worked for Goines, and they all denied making a buy at the Tuttle house 0r “ever purchasing narcotics from Rhogena Nicholas or Dennis Tuttle.”
In the original warrant - the one used to justify the raid - Goines wrote that he watched the buy and, along with Bryant, identified the substance as heroin. But when investigators went back to talk to Bryant, he admitted that he’d actually just retrieved two bags of heroin from the center console of Goines’ car, at the instruction of another officer.
Though he then took the two bags of drugs for testing to determine that they were heroin, he eventually admitted that he had never seen narcotics in question before retrieving them from the car. That, the investigator noted, contradicts the search warrant affidavit filed before the raid, which indicates that Bryant “recognized the substance purchased by the CI as heroin.”
So, cop lists 2 CIs, neither helped on this case. He said another officer personally witnessed the buy, other officer says he never saw the drugs from the “buy” until he got them out of the other cop’s car.