Would police brutality fall if we began charging officers with manslaughter?

Police officers can and do get charged with manslaughter.

 

That wasn't what I said. I said that you were the one with the first claim. Meaning you are the one who needs to substantiate your claim. Where have I said that I didn't made and ckaims?

Citation needed.

Again, where's your evidence?

I watched the time stamps you recconended and I don't see how it proves your point about cops today shooting more unarmed people than cop of the 70's and 80's.

 

me too. he sure squandered a unique opportunity. the first president who may have had a scintilla of respect from the thug community couldn't be bothered to tell them to stay in school, pull their damn pants up, stop spraying sperm in every direction making future generations of thugs, and ffs STOP SHOOTING EACH OTHER morning, noon, and night!

of course. the former is called justified force, the latter is called murder.

how stupid. they are not immune. they are just not committing criminal acts as much as you wish, hope, and pray they are.

I don't know what law school you went to, but you should demand your money back.

the thug family should be asking themselves what their little thug did to get hisself capped by da popo. the "guilty party" in the scenario you describe above will be in a pine box. problem solved.

like you and i, police have every right to defend themselves from deadly threats.

when da popo say "take ya hand out ya pockets," YOU TAKE YOUR ******N HANDS OUT OF YOUR ****ING POCKETS. then you don't get dead.

 

Okay, fair enough. And that is exactly why I asked, to let's discuss it, for example how do you interpret what's said for 15 seconds? From about 0:41 - 0:56 and about 1:44 - 1:59?

 

While police do write the reports, there's not much you can hide on camera. If you're justified then you're justified.

 

I didn't hear any mention of cameras there. Plus I was asking you to interpret those complete thoughts.

So can you please give your interpretation of what's said in those two (2) 15 second excerpts?

 

More and more officers and departments are wearing body cams.

That police can make themselves look good in their reports within reason and without breaking the law. That still doesn't provude evidence to your claim that the cops of the 70's and 80's shot less unarmed people than modern day cops.

 

Killing somebody in some cases is justified whether you're police officer or not. So it's not necessarily true that there is evidence of manslaughter.

 

ROFL @ you interpreting what you feel he should have said, instead of you interpreting what he in fact did say.

You are being very deceitful here, in terms of Bo's words in those 15 seconds. And therefore I thank you for displaying the mindset which I needed to see, from you. No wonder you have now, thrice, refused to interpret the 1:44-1:59 audio.

Your dishonesty here, gives a window into why you are the exact type of person who would support an evil agenda such as cops shooting unarmed citizens after "assuming" but never seeing, a gun.

I apologize sir, but your disregard for honesty here leaves me ineligible to continue this discussion with you.


Peace

 

I don't think there's ever been criticism of cops for shooting unarmed suspects who are being violent with said cop.

Killing someone who is unarmed and unviolent, is never justified, and I don't care how paranoid a cop or a civilian is. It is simply not based in, logic, that humans should be killed over an assumption.

 

That seems like almost an passive aggressive tactic. Don’t be violent and cops won’t be violent. Cops need to be trained to know pipes and phones aren’t guns, and should not perceive them as such if a suspect is holding one of them up, especially from a distance. If s cop thinks an iPhone is a gun, they need their vision checked. Remember how cops shot that one guy because he was holding a pipe? Pipes are too round and don’t have enough jagged edges to be perceived as guns

Quentin Tarantino was tight. The murderers have to be called out for who they are. The right might not like it, but it’s the truth.

 

Officers get too many protections. Austrailia gets it, the US just cradles police officers and that how we get these body counts. The US could learn from other countries.

 

No, it wouldn't.

 

#TheLargerIssue #SingleParenting #Fatherlessness #ChildNeglectMaltreatment #MentalHealth #Solutions

Hello, Balto.

https://nypost.com/2017/01/17/this-gun-looks-just-like-an-iphone/

​

Peace.
___
American *(Children)* Lives Matter; Take Pride In Parenting; End Our National Health Crisis; Child Abuse and Neglect; End Community Violence/Fear, Police Anxiety & Educator's Frustrations

 

You don't have to be violent in order for sheathing to be justified. If you wait for someone to become violent it may be too late.

 

Um, I was explaining what the cop the guy quoted meant when he said "we write the reports" between 0:35 and 1:35.

Before you accuse someone of being deceitful, make sure you and the other person are on the same page. I was explaining 0:35-1:35, not the time stamps you just posted. To address your time stamps, I'm frankly not following. He talks about time, distance, and cover and I'm not sure how does that relate to what we're talking about.

How am I being dishonest.

Well, you haven't given any evidence about 70's and 80's cops shooting less unarmed people than modern day cops. Instead you dragged me into another direction trying to explain time stamps of a video that you didn't even post. It seems that I'm nlt the one who is dishonest.

 

Care to give an example?

 

So, who is going to investigate the police?

 

How about an independent councou of defense attouneys?

 

Dude. You're taking your deceit to new, heights, when you consider how you did in fact quote my inquisition as you then disregarded addressing it ---but now you play pretend about what you did do. See, look:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...th-manslaughter.547509/page-3#post-1070015439

 

Yes, someone has to be violent.

Only an evil, wicked, satanic human, will condone the act of cops killing unarmed citizens. Especially, when cops are killing citizens over an "assumption" which often winds up being wrong.

 

so they have to wait until they are killed before they can defend themselves?

Why don't you do the job and wait until you're shot? Before fighting back? Why is it you're so full of insight but to cowardly to do the job?

I don't think police have the ability to know if people are armed or not. They lack omnipotentence they are just people after all

Do you support funding for magical crystal balls? Explain the logistics.

 

Go to 1:44 - 1:59 in the vid below to experience a veracious example of how your stance here is not based in, logic, with respect to Time-Distance-Cover or other safe anti-murder police tactical training purged over the past decade.


...


The gentleman in Phyxius' video here does a great job of veraciously explaining factual truths:

 

I quite honestly don't know what you're trying to get at. You tell me what he said. I watched the timestamps 0:35-1:35 which you asked for in this post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...th-manslaughter.547509/page-3#post-1070011832

0:41-0:56 is a condensed version of what you originally asked for. I stated that police do write the reports, but it's not like they can add or omit anything they please. Whatever they say must corroborate with the evidence.

 

1:44-1:59 is talking about auditory exclusion and how one cop didn't knew about it. The cop (according to the guy in the video. We only have his word to go by) said that he'd wish he had known that sooner. Meaning, according to the guy in the video, that he treated people roughly. Still not sure how does that relate to the subject at hand or how it gives evidence that the cops of the 70's and 80's shot less unarmed people than modern day cops.