MHWilliams
Member
No, that's a perfectly valid reason for an officer to pull you over. (EDIT: Just saw your edit.)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cincinnati braces for footage release in campus cop killing (Up: Murder charge)
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
No, that's a perfectly valid reason for an officer to pull you over. (EDIT: Just saw your edit.)
"He was black. That's a good enough reason right there!"
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Hahaha so petty. He says in the video smell it because he didn't open it. God damn the defense force
Idiot.
captainnapalm
Member
Yeah, agree with all this. Absolutely the system needs to change. And in no way are the cop's actions justified. I hope he is arrested, tried and punished.
Joel Was Right
Member
No, I think its important to have an open discussion where people can reason and respond. Holding the police officers responsible and being able to point out flashpoints in a video are not mutually exclusive. It would be dishonest for anyone to dismiss factors like refusal to get out of the car, put out a cigarette or running away as factors in such incidents; the argument that officer was at fault is strong enough.
I pretty much agree with that. The only thing that's a short term solution. It doesn't stop the core problem with lies with the police. I really don't know how that's going to be fix because it takes people lots a people admitting there's a problem.
If the thread about experiences with racism was any indication. Many people care but then others don't care or had the "what about x". Derailing conversation and that's probably what would happen in real life if anyone tried to do anything. Just halted due sidetracks and tangents.
speculawyer
Member
AlcoholicGAF, help us. What kind of alcohol is that? BTW, gin is generally clear, right?
I'm not saying the police officer wasn't a murderer everyone. But why didn't he comply? Let us ponder this.
AlcoholicGAF, help us. What kind of gin is that?
Someone posted a picture earlier in the thread. That gin is more clear than what's in that bottle.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I think the bottle is pretty much a red herring given that the officer showed no signs that he thought the guy was drunk. And if the guy WAS drunk, I have a feeling today's press conference would have brought that up, and charges might not have been filed against the officer.
foodtaster
Banned
Haha, so true.
I'm very familiar with open container laws. We don't have the evidence and therefore can't determine whether the bottle was sealed, but it was clearly untouched and even the cop didn't mention alcohol.
It's already been mentioned, but many states don't require a front license plate. Even other cops admitted it's a shaky traffic stop reason.
And most importantly, he doesn't start the car until the cop tries to open the door. Was he trying to flee? Maybe, but why? Have they released whether he had any warrants or a suspended license? If he's clean why feel the need to flee other than the (now warranted) terror from the cop trying to get at him?
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
It doesn't really matter why he was acting suspiciously. Nothing in that video warranted the officer pulling out his gun, let alone using it.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Barton
E: 2 Slow
blankempathy
Member
You can clearly see him using his hands to gesture as hes talking. Does the cop get annoyed? yes. Listen to his tone. Look at the way he gestures when he has to tell him why he pulled him over after being asked by the driver again. After he repeatedly asks the driver to produce a license.
Opened bottle of alcohol in a car is illegal I think in all states. At least people are saying its opened. Driving without a license is also a red flag. Is he scared because of run ins in the past? probably I mean didn't this guy have a rap sheet?. Does the cop know that? No. Like I said its a sad situation all around. The cop completely fucked up though and nothing justifies the murder of an unarmed man at point blank. However to people trying paint this simply as a case of a cop looking to murder someone is ridiculous. Its never black and white. Only takes seconds to take a routine stop to murder.
Correct. No one is saying otherwise.
speculawyer
Member
Whoa. So what the fuck is in that bottle? Pee?
foodtaster
Banned
It's sarcasm/mocking.
No, I'm not, or at least not intentionally. I understand that you meant evidence for a statistical analysis, and you're right, I shouldn't have said proof when I meant evidence.
You're still wrong, though.
Here's a toy model: imagine there are good cops and bad cops. Good cops have a 0% chance of killing you unreasonably. Bad cops have a 5% chance to unreasonably kill every lone black male they detain.
In this toy model, you still have those 30 million traffic tickets you talked about. But they don't show any correlation between compliance and living because we know there is no such correlation in this model -- the two variables are completely independent. All they prove is that a) most people comply with cops and b) most people don't get murdered by cops. Nothing about the intersection! If you're a black guy, and you get pulled over, compliance or not, it's all about not rolling a 1.
I don't think I suggested that. In fact I explicitly stated I believe the opposite.
The point I have been trying to make since my first post in the thread is this:
There's a certain chance that a cop will kill you because they perceive it as rational -- if you are crazy, waving a loaded weapon, etc. So yeah, obviously it makes sense to minimize the chance that cops will rationally consider you a danger, and that includes compliance, yes.
But if you're black, there's an additional chance that they will kill you irrationally, just for being black.
Since the chance of being killed for being black is not rationally motivated, no changes in behavior can minimize it.
Compliance may reduce your odds of getting killed -- but it doesn't necessarily reduce your odds of getting killed for being black.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yup, that's murder.
SimpleGamer
Member
I don't think that's gin lol. Gin is clear I believe
AlcoholicGAF, help us. What kind of alcohol is that? BTW, gin is generally clear, right?
Comply with what? The murderer never said "Get out the vehicle." You've probably never even watched the video. The murderer tells him to take his seatbelt off, then opens the door. That's not police protocol. Then he reaches into the car and puts his foot on the fucking window frame as he needlessly draws his gun.
Stop looking for bullshit that isn't there.
Or, as he said, air freshener.
foodtaster
Banned
It's pretty obvious if you watch the video, the victim asks the officer to smell it, meaning it's not what it looks like.
Correct.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
OK, now I'm getting some satisfaction imagining that is a Trucker Bomb and the Cop sniffing it at some point as they were processing the crime scene.
This was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding that would never have happened if that black guy had just followed the laws, and that officer's instructions.
MHWilliams
Member
Those statements worry about a facet of the problem, instead of the problem.
The problem is in such a discussion, people will take your honest and reasoned discussion of flashpoints as reasons the officer is justified in their actions. The reason these statements are derailing to this and similar threads is because the officer being at fault is in contention, or at least it's treated as such by many in law enforcement, in public, on the internet, and within this forum. Were we to progress from the firm and complete understanding that the officer is completely at fault for the murder of another human, than sure, we can talk. I'm not particularly seeing that.
It is equally dishonest to ignore that, especially given the outcomes of this and previous situations.
That can be taken as a potential endpoint of such a statement.
We need to ponder and reflect on why this victim did not comply with this officer which resulted in his getting shot. I'm not saying it wasn't straight, undeniable murder, but surely there is a lesson to gleen from the baffling behavior of the driver that in any other sensible country would not have resulted in murder. But surely you could agree that his actions were at least partly responsible for his own death.
/sarcasm
UltimaPooh
Member
And this is it.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Oh, man... you're going to feel so embarrassed about this when you actually read the thread.
I'm probably going to be the only one saying this right now...
but we should just replace human cops. It's done. The era of human cops is over. It's clear that human judgment coupled with human paranoia and aggression is boiling over into a bad mix of lost societal trust in the institution and growing (and largely justified) societal paranoia at cops.
Tags like the largest gang in the world ring true again and again. The degree of skill, patience, knowledge required to successfully fulfill the role is simply something that is too unavailable at the kind of market rates that those roles can command.
And filling the rest of the spots with under talented, power hungry bullies and psychopaths really does the institution nor the greater public much good if any at all.
I mean, the reality of law enforcement is that... public trust and faith in their work is absolutely critical towards their function. There simply aren't enough cops around to deal with a society that has gone lawless. But here they are continuously eroding that trust with their overriding policies that have the end result of imprisoning and harming at higher rates.
We're coming into an era where drone technology is getting cheaper and more effective. Visual and information processing functions are improving. In a decade, we'll have autonomous drones available at the prices of hundreds to thousands of dollars (less really). At that point, just replacing all walking and general on duty cops with more expendable drones might provide a better outcome for all of us. Greater deterrence. Greater expendability means that they can adopt something other than shoot first and ask questions later approach, and also use less lethal weapons with greater precision.
Some human cops can be retained - but ensure that they're talented, well trained, community minded individuals that can help with broader picture stuff.
All these civilian killings, stop and frisk, etc... that's all symptomatic of poorly trained law enforcement given way too much leeway. And that's largely a result of the paranoid fear based mindset in the US that wants politicians to be 'tough on crime', instead of 'effective on crime'.
but we should just replace human cops. It's done. The era of human cops is over. It's clear that human judgment coupled with human paranoia and aggression is boiling over into a bad mix of lost societal trust in the institution and growing (and largely justified) societal paranoia at cops.
Tags like the largest gang in the world ring true again and again. The degree of skill, patience, knowledge required to successfully fulfill the role is simply something that is too unavailable at the kind of market rates that those roles can command.
And filling the rest of the spots with under talented, power hungry bullies and psychopaths really does the institution nor the greater public much good if any at all.
I mean, the reality of law enforcement is that... public trust and faith in their work is absolutely critical towards their function. There simply aren't enough cops around to deal with a society that has gone lawless. But here they are continuously eroding that trust with their overriding policies that have the end result of imprisoning and harming at higher rates.
We're coming into an era where drone technology is getting cheaper and more effective. Visual and information processing functions are improving. In a decade, we'll have autonomous drones available at the prices of hundreds to thousands of dollars (less really). At that point, just replacing all walking and general on duty cops with more expendable drones might provide a better outcome for all of us. Greater deterrence. Greater expendability means that they can adopt something other than shoot first and ask questions later approach, and also use less lethal weapons with greater precision.
Some human cops can be retained - but ensure that they're talented, well trained, community minded individuals that can help with broader picture stuff.
All these civilian killings, stop and frisk, etc... that's all symptomatic of poorly trained law enforcement given way too much leeway. And that's largely a result of the paranoid fear based mindset in the US that wants politicians to be 'tough on crime', instead of 'effective on crime'.
UltimaPooh
Member
NickFire
Member
There is nothing to be gained by people going to a message board and screaming "victim blamer", something else, etc. to anyone pointing out everything that could have happened differently and trying to engage in an actual discussion as opposed to agreeing with a single point of view. If the purpose of these threads is to simply condemn the cop every time, and express sympathy for the victim, then call them petitions instead of discussions.
Big Baybee
Member
I can't believe what's happening in here.
MHWilliams
Member
I thought about bringing that up, but I'm interested into digging up why people are so focused on compliance as a deterrent. In and of itself, that's an element of facism, but to say that openly would have people running from the word.
So why the absolute focus on compliance instead of the errors of the officer leading to the murder?
Everything can happen differently. That's a pretty open concept. You can see my posts in past threads as to whether I blame the cop every time, so frankly I'll chalk that up to a strawman, or something not aimed at me despite your reply.
What's the actual discussion that you intend to have? Please let me in on your thoughts.
EDIT: Let me ask the question such statements tip-toe around: Do you believe this man was responsible, in any way, for his murder?
so instead of cops killing black people, we'll have metal gears killing black people
what
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Or it could be that we just don't need to discuss irrelevant topics in a thread about a person murdering another person for no reason.
Anyone who's been on the Internet long enough sees all of these same patterns in discussions of injustice. Don't pretend the distractions and victim blaming aren't often disingenuous and revealing.
Because it goes along the narrative that black people are to blame for 'our problems'.
hawkshockey11
Banned
2nd degree murder has two types, intentional and reckless. And the intent only needs to be determined at the moment in time the person pulls the trigger. Even if it wasn't "intentional" it can still be done in a reckless manner which signifies a complete disregard for human life.
blankempathy
Member
Not embarrassed about being wrong. I got here around page 20. If it wasn't opened then it wasn't opened. If it wasn't gin it wasn't gin.
I figured it was legal somewhere.
Yes sorry I'm looking at the whole incident instead of just saying fuck pigs hes a murderer and was looking for someone to kill. Funny because I never once said that he wasn't guilty of the pointless killing the guy at point blank range. Yet i feel like I have to repeat that in every sentence because If I don't then apparently I'm a murdering cop defender. Amazing.
foodtaster
Banned
There's nothing to play devil's advocate about. He told the cop to smell it and even gave it to them. What you're saying is like playing devil's advocate arguing that the Sun is the Moon.
UltimaPooh
Member
Why are we talking about whats in the container?
It's not important to what happened and is only there to begin victim blaming or painting the victim in a bad light.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked