I’m Done With The NFL Probably Forever

[Scoots1994]

So whats the excuse for shooting at and pistol whipping kids aged 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16?

Read on Twitter

The 9 year old is a major reach, but I've known some really scary teens so I wouldn't automatically condemn a cop for shooting at a "kid". Still I'd much rather police not resort to violence so much.

[Scoots1994]

Whats the excuse for pipe bombing protesters?

Read on Twitter

My Mom, Brother, and Sister and her family all live just north of Portland what the hell is going on there? Seems like both sides are going crazy from the headlines.

[Bald Bull]

So whats the excuse for shooting at and pistol whipping kids aged 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16?

Read on Twitter

The 9 year old is a major reach, but I've known some really scary teens so I wouldn't automatically condemn a cop for shooting at a "kid". Still I'd much rather police not resort to violence so much.

wow. a kid was pistol whipped over a traffic violation, and you're making excuses.

If cops are so terrified that they become trigger happy with every interaction, no matter what law broken, they need to get the **** off the force, they're not cut out for it. With all due respect, "He might be dangerous" is a bull excuse to justify this ****. Cops who are so ready to escalate EVERY situation, are a huge reason their job is so dangerous. Their escalations put their lives at risk as much as anything.

Here's another one, the person who called the cops is begging to stop cause the kids aren't who they called the cops for. The cops just pull up "Oh look, black kids" and instantly assume they did something wrong. But there's an excuse for this to, right?

Read on Twitter

[Scoots1994]

So whats the excuse for shooting at and pistol whipping kids aged 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16?

Read on Twitter

The 9 year old is a major reach, but I've known some really scary teens so I wouldn't automatically condemn a cop for shooting at a "kid". Still I'd much rather police not resort to violence so much.

wow. a kid was pistol whipped over a traffic violation, and you're making excuses.

If cops are so terrified that they become trigger happy with every interaction, no matter what law broken, they need to get the **** off the force, they're not cut out for it. With all due respect, "He might be dangerous" is a bull excuse to justify this ****. Cops who are so ready to escalate EVERY situation, are a huge reason their job is so dangerous. Their escalations put their lives at risk as much as anything.

Here's another one, the person who called the cops is begging to stop cause the kids aren't who they called the cops for. The cops just pull up "Oh look, black kids" and instantly assume they did something wrong. But there's an excuse for this to, right?

Read on Twitter

I didn't make excuses for what they did. I think the major issue is training and direction. The police are taught that a dead civilian is better than an injured cop, and a dead civilian is better than an injured civilian, and they are not taught "reasonable force" anymore. It doesn't take maniac cops to go over the line when the line is painted so far past where it should be.

Much like most of these things, I don't know all the specifics but it certainly looks bad, and the police should not react with violence as much as they do.

[CrimsonCrew]

So whats the excuse for shooting at and pistol whipping kids aged 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16?

Read on Twitter

The 9 year old is a major reach, but I've known some really scary teens so I wouldn't automatically condemn a cop for shooting at a "kid". Still I'd much rather police not resort to violence so much.

The bigger issue for me, if accurate, is the report that they were running away from the police. Cops should only fire their weapons -especially in a residential area - as a last resort, to save their own life or someone else's. There's no indicate whatsoever that they believed these kids were armed or posed a threat to them or others. Not enough information at this time to evaluate this, and this article is clearly shaded in one direction, but I'd have some questions....

[Scoots1994]

The bigger issue for me, if accurate, is the report that they were running away from the police. Cops should only fire their weapons -especially in a residential area - as a last resort, to save their own life or someone else's. There's no indicate whatsoever that they believed these kids were armed or posed a threat to them or others. Not enough information at this time to evaluate this, and this article is clearly shaded in one direction, but I'd have some questions....

I agree. We clearly have police resorting to guns far too quickly. I also question why they are so quick to deploy assault weapons in day to day responses. I think there is a real issue with the proliferation of higher end weaponry in the police. I don't think the regular beat police should be un-armed as they are in some countries, but a 6 shot revolver would I suspect result in far fewer uses of the gun.

Shooting someone in the back can be justified for defending the public, but they better have very clear and direct evidence that person is going to go attack someone else before they shoot them in the back.

I met a guy yesterday and asked him in conversation if he knew how to drive a manual transmission car since we were talking about me teaching my daughter how to drive. It was at that point I realized just how hard it is to tell someone's age (and I have a license to server liquor which means I supposedly have "training") ... he said "I just turned 14" ... I was amazed. I was standing across from a 6' tall man with facial hair who just turned 14. It's experiences like that and dealing with gang members that make me willing to at least say we need more information when the police shoot a 16 year old. Unfortunately we often find the we don't agree with the police in their assessment of the threat when we do get that information (like when police shoot kids with orange toy guns).

[I_am_1z]

The bigger issue for me, if accurate, is the report that they were running away from the police. Cops should only fire their weapons -especially in a residential area - as a last resort, to save their own life or someone else's. There's no indicate whatsoever that they believed these kids were armed or posed a threat to them or others. Not enough information at this time to evaluate this, and this article is clearly shaded in one direction, but I'd have some questions....

I agree. We clearly have police resorting to guns far too quickly. I also question why they are so quick to deploy assault weapons in day to day responses. I think there is a real issue with the proliferation of higher end weaponry in the police. I don't think the regular beat police should be un-armed as they are in some countries, but a 6 shot revolver would I suspect result in far fewer uses of the gun.

Shooting someone in the back can be justified for defending the public, but they better have very clear and direct evidence that person is going to go attack someone else before they shoot them in the back.

I met a guy yesterday and asked him in conversation if he knew how to drive a manual transmission car since we were talking about me teaching my daughter how to drive. It was at that point I realized just how hard it is to tell someone's age (and I have a license to server liquor which means I supposedly have "training") ... he said "I just turned 14" ... I was amazed. I was standing across from a 6' tall man with facial hair who just turned 14. It's experiences like that and dealing with gang members that make me willing to at least say we need more information when the police shoot a 16 year old. Unfortunately we often find the we don't agree with the police in their assessment of the threat when we do get that information (like when police shoot kids with orange toy guns).

It's so strange that people such as yourself are quick to side with police regardless of the circumstances.

[Scoots1994]

The bigger issue for me, if accurate, is the report that they were running away from the police. Cops should only fire their weapons -especially in a residential area - as a last resort, to save their own life or someone else's. There's no indicate whatsoever that they believed these kids were armed or posed a threat to them or others. Not enough information at this time to evaluate this, and this article is clearly shaded in one direction, but I'd have some questions....

I agree. We clearly have police resorting to guns far too quickly. I also question why they are so quick to deploy assault weapons in day to day responses. I think there is a real issue with the proliferation of higher end weaponry in the police. I don't think the regular beat police should be un-armed as they are in some countries, but a 6 shot revolver would I suspect result in far fewer uses of the gun.

Shooting someone in the back can be justified for defending the public, but they better have very clear and direct evidence that person is going to go attack someone else before they shoot them in the back.

I met a guy yesterday and asked him in conversation if he knew how to drive a manual transmission car since we were talking about me teaching my daughter how to drive. It was at that point I realized just how hard it is to tell someone's age (and I have a license to server liquor which means I supposedly have "training") ... he said "I just turned 14" ... I was amazed. I was standing across from a 6' tall man with facial hair who just turned 14. It's experiences like that and dealing with gang members that make me willing to at least say we need more information when the police shoot a 16 year old. Unfortunately we often find the we don't agree with the police in their assessment of the threat when we do get that information (like when police shoot kids with orange toy guns).

It's so strange that people such as yourself are quick to side with police regardless of the circumstances.

Where did I do that? Is saying that it's possible that the right choice in a hypothetical situation can have the police shooting someone who is not an adult the same as saying that it's ALWAYS the right decision? Is your world so black and white that every situation fits the same action? Do you believe that the first headline version of every story reflects all the nuance involved so you can draw concrete final decisions from them?

Let me try again ... the police are horribly trained, over-armed, over-staffed, over-used, and largely disconnected from the people they are supposed to protect and serve. Having said that I don't believe they are always wrong, just wrong far too often.

[I_am_1z]

I agree. We clearly have police resorting to guns far too quickly. I also question why they are so quick to deploy assault weapons in day to day responses. I think there is a real issue with the proliferation of higher end weaponry in the police. I don't think the regular beat police should be un-armed as they are in some countries, but a 6 shot revolver would I suspect result in far fewer uses of the gun.

Shooting someone in the back can be justified for defending the public, but they better have very clear and direct evidence that person is going to go attack someone else before they shoot them in the back.

I met a guy yesterday and asked him in conversation if he knew how to drive a manual transmission car since we were talking about me teaching my daughter how to drive. It was at that point I realized just how hard it is to tell someone's age (and I have a license to server liquor which means I supposedly have "training") ... he said "I just turned 14" ... I was amazed. I was standing across from a 6' tall man with facial hair who just turned 14. It's experiences like that and dealing with gang members that make me willing to at least say we need more information when the police shoot a 16 year old. Unfortunately we often find the we don't agree with the police in their assessment of the threat when we do get that information (like when police shoot kids with orange toy guns).

It's so strange that people such as yourself are quick to side with police regardless of the circumstances.

Where did I do that? Is saying that it's possible that the right choice in a hypothetical situation can have the police shooting someone who is not an adult the same as saying that it's ALWAYS the right decision? Is your world so black and white that every situation fits the same action? Do you believe that the first headline version of every story reflects all the nuance involved so you can draw concrete final decisions from them?

Let me try again ... the police are horribly trained, over-armed, over-staffed, over-used, and largely disconnected from the people they are supposed to protect and serve. Having said that I don't believe they are always wrong, just wrong far too often.

Do you really think you're bringing anything that's thought provoking to the conversation with your hypotheticals? It's really a slap in the face to us that are trying to advance the discussion. You're bringing up variables we're all aware of and consider for any event that we have knowledge of through a secondary source.

Again, it's strange people such as yourself are quick to take the police's side. We know citizens lie, we know cops are citizens, yet we hold a cop's word above that of a citizen because it's their sworn duty to protect. Although, we've seen entire depts cover for each other. There are many retired cops that say they've witnessed corruption within the force but kept their mouth shut. They are just like any other citizen. You see a video in 1080p of cops with drawn guns on black children, people vouching for the children, and you've read the news story up to this point, but your first response is, "Much like most of these things, I don't know all the specifics but it certainly looks bad, and the police should not react with violence as much as they do." Which reads a whole lot like, "Despite the mounting evidence, I'm not willing to be upset with black kids getting firearms drawn on them by the police because I don't have have ALL the details." This sort of thing may work in the court of law, but when that's your initial reaction it leads people to believe you might have a prejudice towards a certain group of people.

[Scoots1994]

It's so strange that people such as yourself are quick to side with police regardless of the circumstances.

Where did I do that? Is saying that it's possible that the right choice in a hypothetical situation can have the police shooting someone who is not an adult the same as saying that it's ALWAYS the right decision? Is your world so black and white that every situation fits the same action? Do you believe that the first headline version of every story reflects all the nuance involved so you can draw concrete final decisions from them?

Let me try again ... the police are horribly trained, over-armed, over-staffed, over-used, and largely disconnected from the people they are supposed to protect and serve. Having said that I don't believe they are always wrong, just wrong far too often.

Do you really think you're bringing anything that's thought provoking to the conversation with your hypotheticals? It's really a slap in the face to us that are trying to advance the discussion. You're bringing up variables we're all aware of and consider for any event that we have knowledge of through a secondary source.

Again, it's strange people such as yourself are quick to take the police's side. We know citizens lie, we know cops are citizens, yet we hold a cop's word above that of a citizen because it's their sworn duty to protect. Although, we've seen entire depts cover for each other. There are many retired cops that say they've witnessed corruption within the force but kept their mouth shut. They are just like any other citizen. You see a video in 1080p of cops with drawn guns on black children, people vouching for the children, and you've read the news story up to this point, but your first response is, "Much like most of these things, I don't know all the specifics but it certainly looks bad, and the police should not react with violence as much as they do." Which reads a whole lot like, "Despite the mounting evidence, I'm not willing to be upset with black kids getting firearms drawn on them by the police because I don't have have ALL the details." This sort of thing may work in the court of law, but when that's your initial reaction it leads people to believe you might have a prejudice towards a certain group of people.

I think it's important to push back on absolutes when they are not absolute. If you think reason is a slap in the face that's not something I can fix for you.

Again, do you believe the police are always wrong? Do you want there to be no police? Did I say anything about the police or citizens lying? Did I say that police don't have corruption? Did I say I'm okay with the police shooting people?

I have said repeatedly that I think the police system and our justice system are completely broken, can you not agree with that? Does that mean to you that everyone involved and every decision they make must also be wrong?

[CrimsonCrew]

Where did I do that? Is saying that it's possible that the right choice in a hypothetical situation can have the police shooting someone who is not an adult the same as saying that it's ALWAYS the right decision? Is your world so black and white that every situation fits the same action? Do you believe that the first headline version of every story reflects all the nuance involved so you can draw concrete final decisions from them?

Let me try again ... the police are horribly trained, over-armed, over-staffed, over-used, and largely disconnected from the people they are supposed to protect and serve. Having said that I don't believe they are always wrong, just wrong far too often.

Do you really think you're bringing anything that's thought provoking to the conversation with your hypotheticals? It's really a slap in the face to us that are trying to advance the discussion. You're bringing up variables we're all aware of and consider for any event that we have knowledge of through a secondary source.

Again, it's strange people such as yourself are quick to take the police's side. We know citizens lie, we know cops are citizens, yet we hold a cop's word above that of a citizen because it's their sworn duty to protect. Although, we've seen entire depts cover for each other. There are many retired cops that say they've witnessed corruption within the force but kept their mouth shut. They are just like any other citizen. You see a video in 1080p of cops with drawn guns on black children, people vouching for the children, and you've read the news story up to this point, but your first response is, "Much like most of these things, I don't know all the specifics but it certainly looks bad, and the police should not react with violence as much as they do." Which reads a whole lot like, "Despite the mounting evidence, I'm not willing to be upset with black kids getting firearms drawn on them by the police because I don't have have ALL the details." This sort of thing may work in the court of law, but when that's your initial reaction it leads people to believe you might have a prejudice towards a certain group of people.

I think it's important to push back on absolutes when they are not absolute. If you think reason is a slap in the face that's not something I can fix for you.

Again, do you believe the police are always wrong? Do you want there to be no police? Did I say anything about the police or citizens lying? Did I say that police don't have corruption? Did I say I'm okay with the police shooting people?

I have said repeatedly that I think the police system and our justice system are completely broken, can you not agree with that? Does that mean to you that everyone involved and every decision they make must also be wrong?

I don't want to speak for Bald Bull, but I would say the distinction here is that he wasn't speaking in generalities. He was talking about a specific case. You're the one who replied using generalities. Could there be an excuse for pistol whipping a 15-year-old? Sure. Does there appear to be one here? It's hard to say definitively based on what we know, but probably not. The cops had already shot at unarmed children running away from them, so "resisting" them at that point seems awfully reasonable to me.

[CrimsonCrew]

The bigger issue for me, if accurate, is the report that they were running away from the police. Cops should only fire their weapons -especially in a residential area - as a last resort, to save their own life or someone else's. There's no indicate whatsoever that they believed these kids were armed or posed a threat to them or others. Not enough information at this time to evaluate this, and this article is clearly shaded in one direction, but I'd have some questions....

I agree. We clearly have police resorting to guns far too quickly. I also question why they are so quick to deploy assault weapons in day to day responses. I think there is a real issue with the proliferation of higher end weaponry in the police. I don't think the regular beat police should be un-armed as they are in some countries, but a 6 shot revolver would I suspect result in far fewer uses of the gun.

Shooting someone in the back can be justified for defending the public, but they better have very clear and direct evidence that person is going to go attack someone else before they shoot them in the back.

I met a guy yesterday and asked him in conversation if he knew how to drive a manual transmission car since we were talking about me teaching my daughter how to drive. It was at that point I realized just how hard it is to tell someone's age (and I have a license to server liquor which means I supposedly have "training") ... he said "I just turned 14" ... I was amazed. I was standing across from a 6' tall man with facial hair who just turned 14. It's experiences like that and dealing with gang members that make me willing to at least say we need more information when the police shoot a 16 year old. Unfortunately we often find the we don't agree with the police in their assessment of the threat when we do get that information (like when police shoot kids with orange toy guns).

Some thoughts on this.

Generally agreed on police use of firearms. I will say, I think in this case the police were almost certainly more likely to fire their guns recklessly in an residential area because it was a predominantly black, poor neighborhood. No way they would have done something that dangerous in an upscale, white neighborhood. And that's part of the institutional racism that's baked into this country.

That said, I don't think there's any reason to give the police a six-shot revolver. I don't think they need an assault rifle in every car, but the problem is the first shot, not the sixth or tenth or fifteenth. Often, when the shooting starts, they just empty their magazine anyway (maybe that's an argument for a ten-round magazine rather than 18, though), and revolvers are a headache to reload compared to a magazine-fed semi-auto. Maybe a compromise is to limit the magazine in the gun to 10 rounds, but permit larger magazines in the belt so they are adequately equipped if **** gets real, but that would be extremely hard to enforce, and I wouldn't expect patrol cops to abide by it.

Re: defense of others, I think that's a legitimate use of force. I actually didn't have a huge problem with the shooting of Mario Woods in SF several years ago - purely from the standpoint of police actions; I think it was tragic that a man lost his life, of course. I don't recall the finer details at this point, but my recollection is that he had already stabbed someone, the police tried to contain him, but he moved at them with the knife and they unloaded on him. Now, in an ideal situation, they might have either talked him down (he suffered from mental illness) or used less force, but at least at that point, I don't think SFPD had tasers, which would have been the easiest way to attempt to disarm him. I guess someone could have tried to disarm him with a baton or by going hands on, but it's a lot to ask a cop to go hand-to-hand with a guy with a knife unless it's a last resort. They also couldn't very well just let him walk away (this differs from Laquan McDonald in Chicago who had a knife but wasn't near other people and was not heading toward the police when shot). I think the police should impose themselves between a physical threat and innocent people, and if necessary use force to maintain that position. That's part of the job. But someone running away from the police, not clearly toward someone else, and not clearly armed? I don't see how that's ever good defense of others or self defense.

[Scoots1994]

Do you really think you're bringing anything that's thought provoking to the conversation with your hypotheticals? It's really a slap in the face to us that are trying to advance the discussion. You're bringing up variables we're all aware of and consider for any event that we have knowledge of through a secondary source.

Again, it's strange people such as yourself are quick to take the police's side. We know citizens lie, we know cops are citizens, yet we hold a cop's word above that of a citizen because it's their sworn duty to protect. Although, we've seen entire depts cover for each other. There are many retired cops that say they've witnessed corruption within the force but kept their mouth shut. They are just like any other citizen. You see a video in 1080p of cops with drawn guns on black children, people vouching for the children, and you've read the news story up to this point, but your first response is, "Much like most of these things, I don't know all the specifics but it certainly looks bad, and the police should not react with violence as much as they do." Which reads a whole lot like, "Despite the mounting evidence, I'm not willing to be upset with black kids getting firearms drawn on them by the police because I don't have have ALL the details." This sort of thing may work in the court of law, but when that's your initial reaction it leads people to believe you might have a prejudice towards a certain group of people.

I think it's important to push back on absolutes when they are not absolute. If you think reason is a slap in the face that's not something I can fix for you.

Again, do you believe the police are always wrong? Do you want there to be no police? Did I say anything about the police or citizens lying? Did I say that police don't have corruption? Did I say I'm okay with the police shooting people?

I have said repeatedly that I think the police system and our justice system are completely broken, can you not agree with that? Does that mean to you that everyone involved and every decision they make must also be wrong?

I don't want to speak for Bald Bull, but I would say the distinction here is that he wasn't speaking in generalities. He was talking about a specific case. You're the one who replied using generalities. Could there be an excuse for pistol whipping a 15-year-old? Sure. Does there appear to be one here? It's hard to say definitively based on what we know, but probably not. The cops had already shot at unarmed children running away from them, so "resisting" them at that point seems awfully reasonable to me.

I didn't realize using generalities would be so misunderstood.

Certainly nobody should ever shoot unarmed people who are running away.

[CalamityX12]

Ok.... but my eyes are hovering!

(Lost power for a week, thank you stupid storm)