ELEMENTS OF THE WHOLE TRUTH: How many people get shot and killed...

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2020

...while minding their own business?:
For our money, Gene Robinson's column in the Washington Post was the early day's most interesting read.

He ends his column with an insinuation we'll briefly consider below. Midway through, he makes a statement which, given the current climate, almost represents a type of concession:
ROBINSON (6/16/20): Drunken driving is a very serious offense. The police officers were absolutely right to respond, and they had a duty to make sure that Brooks didn’t drive off and put the lives of innocent motorists or pedestrians in jeopardy...

Brooks was clearly in the wrong, and the officers had the right to take him into custody.
Robinson's fuller presentation is much more nuanced. That said, within the current climate, it almost counts as a concession when he says that the officers who responded last Friday night "had the right to take him into custody."

Why do we say that almost counts as a concession? Partly because of a range of comments we've seen on cable TV. Partly because of a long comment thread at Slate we read through yesterday afternoon.

For ourselves, we said yesterday that, if we had our druthers, we'd prefer to see someone in that situation driven home and given a summons. (Presumably with his car impounded, though we also don't like to see that.) We also said that we'd make the presumption that the attempt to arrest Brooks was a "by the books" attempted arrest.

Last night, we saw William Bratton speaking with Brian Williams. Bratton is the former police chief in each of our two largest cities, New York City and Los Angeles, with Boston making it three.

Bratton is very highly placed; also, he isn't crazy, nuts, dumb or insane. After the mandated reams of tribal narrative from Williams, Bratton referred at one point to what happened last Friday night in Atlanta.

More specifically, he referred to what happened "as soon as [the officers] attempted to make an arrest, which under their protocols is what they're required to do" (our emphasis.)

We don't know if Bratton's statement was accurate, but he seemed to be saying that the officers were required to make an arrest in the situation they encountered. We mention this because, in that long comment thread at Slate, one commenter after another seemed to think that it was left to the officers' judgment whether to make an arrest, with many insisting that they wouldn't have arrested a white person in that same circumstance.

For ourselves, we'd prefer to see fewer people arrested in various circumstances. That said, we'd also prefer to see fewer people offering assessments about extremely important matters where they may not be in full command of the full range of facts.

Later in Robinson's column, we'd have to say that he was possibly omitting some parts of the truth, by which we mean the whole truth. He was also adding speculations to his account of the truth—to the whole truth as it's now being told within our own tribal tents.

We're not saying that any such omissions by Robinson were knowing or intentional. We're just saying that we were struck by parts of what he said:
ROBINSON: Taking Brooks’s life isn’t a reasonable response to [his attempt to flee]. It’s as senseless—and as racist—as Derek Chauvin’s decision to lean on George Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds.

[...]

How often are white Americans killed by police for falling asleep in their cars at fast-food restaurants? Or for paying for items in a store with a bogus $20 bill, as Floyd allegedly did? Or for minding their own business in their own homes, like Breonna Taylor, who was shot to death during a no-knock raid? Dylann Roof, a white supremacist, murdered nine innocent African Americans at Mother Emanuel AME Church, and police managed to capture him alive. Brooks wounded a police officer’s pride and appears to have been executed for it.
Robinson said the killing of the late Rayshard Brooks was a racist act. Somehow, he also felt he was able to say that it resulted from one officer's wounded pride.

Beyond that, Robinson asked a very good question, and he mentioned some well-known names. More specifically, he asked how often "white Americans" are killed by police in certain kinds of circumstances.

Robinson's suggested answer is obvious—not very often! Last evening, Williams led with this same messaging-point in his segment with Bratton.

For reasons we'll explain tomorrow, we thought Robinson's reference to the late Breonna Taylor was especially striking. So too with his more general reference to people being shot and killed by police officers while "minding their own business in their own homes."

We'll flesh those points out tomorrow. For today, we'll only say that we're all inclined to narrow our accounts of the truth at times of high emotion and tribal conflict. We'll stand with the traditional idea that presentation of the "whole truth" may be especially important at times as awful as these.

That said, also this—as we read Robinson's column, we thought again of what we saw Jelani Cobb say last week.

How often are "white people" shot and killed by police? That's what Robinson sardonically asked in this morning's column.

Robinson's suggested answer was fairly obvious. Last week, though, for whatever reason, we saw Cobb say this:
COBB (6/10/20): One other point that I have been making a lot, I have been making all the time, is that one of the reasons that this problem has been allowed to persist is that people have the perception that this is a black and brown problem.

But if you were to discard all of the incidents involving black and brown people, what you would find is, there are a heck of a lot of white people, unarmed white people, who are killed by police each year.

We have a fundamental problem with policing in this country, whose most extreme violent forms are witnessed in how we see black and brown people treated by law enforcement.
For Cobb's fuller statement, see yesterday's report.

We were struck by several parts of Cobb's remarks. For starters, we were struck by his claim that "there are a heck of a lot of white people, unarmed white people, who are killed by police each year."

We're not sure we'd agree with that statement, but we understand what he was talking about. We were also struck by his claim that we have "a fundamental problem with policing in this country," a problem which may extend beyond the treatment of "black and brown people."

Indeed, we were even struck by Cobb's statement about the way we "witness" this problem, though for us this comment suggested an ongoing state of affairs which Cobb likely didn't mean.

Robinson asked some very good questions in this morning's column. He asked a good question about the late Breonna Taylor. More broadly, he asked a good question about people being shot and killed by police officers "while minding their own business in their own homes."

That said, we think there are significant parts of "the whole truth" which Robinson was leaving out. Especially at times like these, the whole truth has never been popular—but Cobb almost seemed to suggest that we should put missing parts of the whole truth them back in.

We agree with Cobb on that point. We also know that, at times like these, the whole truth has never been popular.

We humans may tend to pick and choose. We're inclined to present "our truth."

Tomorrow: How many people get killed?

77 comments:

  1. "We're not sure we'd agree with that statement, but we understand what he was talking about."

    What?? You're "not sure you'd agree", dear Bob? Ha-ha.

    You appear to be acting like a character from 1984, performing crimestop ("stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought").

    Also, what's the point of your oh so so deeep analysis of wokie drivel, dear Bob?

    We all know that wokie drivel is dembottery. It has no meaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mao is even calling Somerby a "dembot" at this point.
      Ha ha. Siding with the racist cops isn't going to help you, Bob.

      Delete
    2. Mao,
      Will you be attending Trump's klan bake in Tulsa this weekend? If so, bring some bleach to drink, the virus numbers are rising in OK.

      Delete
    3. Are you looking for a reliable and powerful spell caster to bring back your ex or stop a divorced? Email (doctor0lovespell@gmail. com)USA/UK ETC...  

      I am Amber Rosa from FLORIDA, When I eventually found testimonies about this spell caster Dr.Love0, how he helped many people to get their lovers and broken homes back, i contacted him too,because I was absolutely desperate to get my lover back. Life without my lover was a real mess for me and my kids. i wanted a dramatic change and I thought love spell could be the solution. After discussing the resolution with Dr Love0, he gave me hope that he will restore my relationship. I felt confident that he will actually make my lover to return home and he did! It’s fantastic what this great spell caster have done for me, his help is priceless! I don't know what I would have done without Dr.Love0, He does his job so well he is organized and highly functional, i believe he is the best spell caster i can count on when it comes to all kinds of spell, I am so happy that my lover return back home. If you need help, contact him right now through these details below:Email: (doctor0lovespell@gmail. com)or visit his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/Lovespellthatworkfastusa check his blogs: https://doctorlovespell0.blogspot.com/  or check website:  https://doctor0lovespell.wixsite.com/lovespell

      Delete
  2. This policing problem isn't going to go away just because Somerby admits that unarmed white people are sometimes shot by police too. In CA, recent cases of white people being shot include mentally people and homeless, in other words, members of the underclass. Not exactly the best argument that racism doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Straw man = the cops shouldn't have made an arrest for being drunk in a car (at Wendy's). They should have let him go.

    Real issue = the cops should have arrested him without injuring him, especially not fatally.

    Real issue = should suspects be shot in the back while running away, especially for non-violent crimes?

    Real issue = was it necessary to taser him, in addition to subduing him in order to arrest him? When should taser be used?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Straw man = the cops shouldn't have made an arrest for being drunk in a car (at Wendy's). They should have let him go.

      Hardly a straw man. Given the heightened tension, they should have let him go. He’s drunk and on foot, a threat to nobody. The cops have his car, and they know who he is. Where’s he gonna go? By morning, he’d have had an arrest warrant out for him on drunk driving, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, and fleeing. But he’d be alive.

      Real issue = the cops should have arrested him without injuring him, especially not fatally.

      Ya think?

      Real issue = should suspects be shot in the back while running away, especially for non-violent crimes?

      This isn’t an open question. It was answered in Tennessee v Garner, 471US1 (1985).

      Real issue = was it necessary to taser him, in addition to subduing him in order to arrest him?


      Are you sure this is a “real issue”? From the video, it seems that Brooks grabbed a taser from the holster of one of the cops. I don’t think they’d tasered him.

      Delete
    2. Other accounts "from the video" suggest that one of the cops let go of him to go for his taser and that's when he broke away from them.

      Delete
    3. Oh, well, I'm glad you pointed that out, 'cause "suggest that one cop tried to go for his taser" is clearly the same as "tasered him."

      Delete
    4. "Presumably, dear dembot, the cops are trained how to do it."

      Well, if we're making presumptions, I presume you are nothing more than a typical Right-wing bigot, who has no problem with coward cops shooting perps in the back as long as the perp is black.

      Delete
    5. I stand corrected. The NYT put together a video timeline using video from cellphones, cop bodycams, and security cameras. Their conclusion is that the Rolfe, the cop who shot Brooks, had used his taser on Brooks shortly before he killed Brooks.

      Delete
  4. Why has Somerby stopped filtering out the spam again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When did he start? I don't think he reads the comment section. (Why would he?) So I doubt he knows about the spam.

      Delete
    2. There is a setting in Blogspot

      Delete
    3. There are settings to restrict who can comment, require a reCAPTCHA response from commenters, or implement comment moderation. I don't believe TDH has ever employed those measures, and absent them, the only way to know about the spell casters and the Bombay packers and movers is to read the comments.

      Why would Somerby do that? I wouldn't.

      Delete
  5. So, because some white people are killed by cops, that means we shouldn't make a fuss when it happens to black people? I don't see the logic of that, but it seems to be what Somerby means when he says that we aren't being told the "whole truth". Every article about an unarmed black person being killed by cops must now include a mandatory paragraph explaining that white unarmed people are sometimes also shot by cops.

    What an ass Somerby is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 10:32, the whole blown up to huge proportions narrative is that there is an epidemic of white racist cops who are killing unarmed black men, (even to the extent that a big narrative is being advanced that police departments should be abolished). If similar things are happening to white men, that would undercut the narrative that this is evidence of this huge racism problem with police. Cobb seems to have made the same point - is he an "ass" also?

      Delete
    2. How many white people have to be killed before you decide this is nothing, not a real problem? Ten a month, 20, 30? How many lives before they all start mattering to you? If black people were treated the same as white people, then it would still be a problem that cops are killing unarmed citizens. It is an additional problem for blacks because they are brought into contact with police more often, thus exposing them to greater danger.

      What if the cop who responded to the white lady (Cooper) who called the cops on the birdwatcher, had been trigger happy? The fact that he got a cop called on him while breaking no law, would have exposed him to greater danger than the white birdwatcher who was not the subject of a 911 call.

      All things are not equal, so use of violence is not equal either.

      When cops feel more threatened by black people than by white people, there will be a greater impact of police violence on black people. When cops hold negative stereotypes of black people, there will be greater exposure to police violence for black people. When there is a policy to stop and frisk, to give breath tests, to search cars, to use no-knock warrants, and so on, more for black people than for white people, there is greater exposure to police violence.

      Somerby has a history of arguing the non-liberal side of nearly every issue while claiming to be liberal. I think that makes him a huge ass. I don't know Cobb and I don't plan to read everything he has written in order to find out. But I will say that you have made yourself a considerable ass here.

      Delete
    3. "the whole blown up to huge proportions narrative is that there is an epidemic of white racist cops who are killing unarmed black men"

      Well, as long as those "white" cops will have to interact with those "black" men, this is going to keep happening, for sure. It's just statistically inevitable.

      The only logical solution is total segregation. No contacts, no crossing over "black"/"white" boundaries.

      This is the only way to ensure that a "white" cop on duty will never have to deal with a "black" suspect.

      Everyone will have to decide if they are "white" or "black", move to their designated area, and forget about all this.

      Delete
    4. "this is going to keep happening, for sure. It's just statistically inevitable"

      Not if the white cops don't have guns. This doesn't happen in other countries, for example.

      Delete
    5. Meh. Racist "white" social workers are bound to lecture poor "black" criminals to death.

      Delete
    6. I don't know Cobb and I don't plan to read everything he has written in order to find out.

      Imagine my surprise. But Sparky, ya had me at "don't know." The rest was just talking past the close.

      Delete
    7. Mao is really sweating the end of white supremacy.
      I knew that whole shtick about hating the Establishment was 100% Grade A bullshit, but he dropped that mask to join the rest of the racists in the Republican Party in a heartbeat.

      Delete
  6. When you're having 10 million arrests and something like 15 million police encounters a year, you know, ten of these incidents could very easily happen, maybe -- 20, twice a month. Maybe you could have two of them a month. If we treat these the way we treat them now, without context, this country is not going to survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, when you look at the importance of a single life among the billions of people who swarm this planet, what does one or two lives a month matter? On this logic, why have traffic rules or hospitals, why bother educating anyone, why bother organizing food supply, why evacuate from a hurricane? Why not treat people like ants?

      And David thinks this is a great comment!

      Delete
    2. @11:17 Today's headline

      2 dead, 31 wounded in Chicago weekend shootings

      A man was killed early Saturday in Humboldt Park, while a 12-year-old boy was wounded in the same neighborhood later that night.


      Go ahead a criticize police errors, but don't forget that this sort of thing is the reality inner city blacks must cope with. Ask yourself two questions
      1. How should we deal with these murders?
      2. Will the steps you favor make the problem worse?

      Delete
    3. Police were obviously unable to prevent these shootings but perhaps a greater investment in anti-poverty and community building would have, social services. That is why people are talking about diverting money from police budgets toward preventative programs that demonstrably reduce crime as well as other human suffering.

      And if you think that this crime excuses what the police have done, you are very wrong.

      Delete
    4. David loves the police extortion racket. He even calls it "The Ferguson Effect".

      Delete
    5. @12:09 and @12:27 - You are talking about police extortion and police excuses. I am talking about preventing blacks from being murdered. It's ironic that the slogan "Black Lives Matter" more or less means "Black Lives DON'T Matter, when a black person is killed by another black person."

      Delete
    6. Don't be ridiculous.

      Delete
    7. Anti-poverty programs worked but were confounded by the effects of lead (see Kevin Drum's analyses). Cities that have tried defunding police by shifting resources toward community support are showing strong benefits from doing so. Suggesting that we do more of this isn't "police extortion" or "police excuses" so perhaps David didn't carefully read 12:09's comment.

      I find it interesting that coca growers are having financial problems because of greatly reduced demand for drugs. Gang and drug problems have been at the core of Chicago's murder statistics but that should change along with reduced demand for drugs. It has long been said that the so-called War on Drugs should have involved efforts to reduce demand, not greater policing on the supply side. We have never really done that before. If so, David's black-on-black murder stats may become obsolete and what will he use to avoid acknowledging racism then?

      Delete
    8. @1:23 - you wrote, "Cities that have tried defunding police by shifting resources toward community support are showing strong benefits from doing so." If the benefits you refer to include fewer murders, then I'm all for it. Can you provide links showing your assertion?

      Delete
    9. We know that when police try to extort the public by not dong their jobs because some want to hold them accountable, violent crime and murder rates rise (as David's post mentioned).

      Defunding them might be the best option at this point.

      Delete
    10. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

      Here's what happened after Camden disbanded its police force.

      Delete
    11. "Before its police reforms, Camden was routinely named one of the most violent cities in the US.
      Now, seven years after the old department was booted (though around 100 officers were rehired), the city's crime has dropped by close to half. "

      Delete
    12. Yes, Camden did a terrific job. They replaced their corrupt police department with a better police department. The new police department performed their jobs better in many ways. However, police were not eliminated. In fact, I read somewhere that the new police department was bigger than the old one.

      Delete
    13. Yes, they did David.
      I'm not surprised it worked better than the cops' extortion racket you were touting earlier.

      Delete
    14. @4:49c- "touting"? When your dentist says that you'll get cavities if you don't brush your teeth, that's warning, not touting.

      Delete
    15. David,
      Thank you for clarifying that you are not in favor of the police using extortion to skirt accountability. It would have been clearer if you hadn't been so politically correct, and called "extortion" "the Ferguson Effect".

      Delete
    16. See
      No, Camden, New Jersey Didn’t Defund The Police. It Increased Them

      the Camden County Police Department (CCPD) has received ample resources, including tens of millions of dollars per year....

      Camden has used the funding not just to beef up the police force, but to equip it with sophisticated crime-fighting technology. As Matt Taibbi detailed in a December 2013 feature for Rolling Stone, Camden installed a massive surveillance apparatus, replete with more than 100 high-tech cameras covering the entire city, a mobile 30-foot patrol crane, dozens of microphones for identifying gunshot locations to within a few meters and pointing cameras to escape routes, and “Minority Report-style” scanners for reading license plates and generating warnings. Even civilians work as crime analysts to “patrol” the city virtually and direct uniformed officers from a robust command center.


      https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/no-camden-new-jersey-didnt-defund-the-police-it-increased-them/

      Delete
    17. @7:10 PM - while you worry about precision of wording, here's what's actually happening.

      Murders continue to surge in NYC with 38 killings in the last four weeks

      A bloody four-week stretch has helped drive murders up by more than 25% across New York compared to a year ago, according to NYPD statistics.

      The city saw 38 killings over the past four weeks compared to 19 over the same time frame last year.


      BTW, didn't murders increase by 100%, rather than more than 25%?

      Delete
    18. Hey concern troll, Google demonetized The Federalist for publishing the same phony, conspiracy-laden trash you cite so readily.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176

      Your concern is noted, now FO.

      Delete
    19. @9:25 - In the old days, liberals opposed censorship. Today's liberals celebrate censorship. Are you happy that a number of people have been fired for criticizing BLM?

      Delete
    20. David,
      You'll get no argument from me that banning white supremacists from social media is censoring conservatives.

      Delete
  7. From Atrios:

    "I doubt Trump knew the symbolism of his planned white power rally in Tulsa on Juneteenth, not because I put him above such a thing, but because his brain is pudding, he knows nothing, and he wouldn't get it even if it was explained to him. But Miller knew, of course, because he watches TV shows about superheroes like the rest of us.

    Likewise shifting it a day wasn't caving into goodness, it was because someone not named Miller explained that if he did it on that day it would, at this particular moment (though not any other), overshadow the coverage of Trump."

    And Somerby thinks we need more discussion about racism, or more focus on white shootings or something...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder if Somerby might connect his former ranting about black-white educational achievement gaps with the current protests.

    He has pointed out the gaps and claimed that liberals don’t really care about them, or about black kids.

    Almost 60 years after the passage of Civil Rights, it seems that black folks are still languishing in conditions that haven’t really improved. That is at least partially what is fueling the present anger, and it isn’t just directed at conservatives or Republicans, but also at Democrats and liberals, at society in general. That represents a certain amount of agreement with Somerby’s position on achievement gaps.

    Somerby asks how many people were killed, and praises Cobb for mentioning that white people are also killed by police. But those questions are irrelevant to the people specifically protesting the way blacks are treated and how that treatment arises from history. Viewing the protests and/or the media coverage as purely “tribal” obscures these real grievances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "protesting the way blacks are treated"

      'Treated', eh? It's like you're talking about some farm or zoo animals, or pets, dear dembot.

      And how are you 'treated'? Acceptable? Enough food in the bowl? Getting groomed every month and walked twice a day? Wouldn't you like to be treated better?

      Delete
    2. It has to be simulated in order to know.

      Delete
  9. "Donald Trump says he can accept the Supreme Court’s decision on LGBT rights, despite conservative outrage. "

    What choice does he have? Notice how he phrases this, as if he had veto power.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From Daily Kos:

    "And when each person infects less than one new person, the epidemic begins to fizzle. Keep that up for even a few weeks, and the numbers can be driven to nearly zero. That’s what happened in China, and in North Korea, and in many other countries.

    The opposite happened in the United States. COVID-19 exploded, killing at least 118,000 people and infecting millions. And now, months into the epidemic in America, with states insistent on reopening no matter what, evidence shows that there is a single measure that is highly effective in slowing the spread of the virus. A single step that can be taken that could save thousands of lives, genuinely push down the number of cases, and make reopening and a return to something close to “normal” practical without requiring a human sacrifice. So why won’t Republicans wear a f#cking mask? "

    ReplyDelete
  11. "How many people get killed?"

    The Washington Post has been keeping a record of this since 2015.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Disappointed. Scholarly studies show that there is no bias in police killing blacks. That's not hard to find, but it is not at all discussed. Also, Robinson asserts that this killing was wrong and racially motivated. Was it? The victim fired a taser at an officer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Per WaPo, the cops have killed 3416 people between 2017 and now. 1398 (40%) were white, and 755 (22%) were black. Do you need the racial demographic data for the US?

      Likely, firing a taser at a cop while running away from him doesn't qualify for execution. This per SCOTUS.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, firing a taser at a cop while running away from the cop doesn't call for an "execution." It's not a capital offense. I do believe that tasers can inflict serious injuries, depending on the circumstances - you can look it up. The cop was fired, harsher penalty in itself than has often been the case in other situations where deadly force has been used. If a white cop uses deadly force against a black guy, it could be that "racism" was a determinative factor; but the contrary could also be the case. I don't know this cop, just like most of us. How has he interacted with blacks in the past? what was going through his mind at the time? It seems like he f***ked up here, with dire consequences. Theoreticaaly, the cop should not be railroaded with criminal prosecution based on a big outcry; he should be treated impartially. Seemingly, if the victim hadn't grabbed the taser and then ran away, pointing it at the cop[, he'd still be alive, though obviously he didn't deserve to be "executed" for doing that. Is it a case of bad judgment on the cop's behalf, or malevolent racism? I wonder how we can draw so many conclusions based on the limited knowledge that we have?

      Delete
    3. "Is it a case of bad judgment on the cop's behalf, or malevolent racism?"

      Hmm, what happened the "good judgment" possibility?

      What is a cop supposed to do when the perp with a rap sheet a mile long (which they probably already knew at the time) is firing a taser at him? To take a hit, then get up and leave, and later ask the department for a new taser?

      If that's your solution, then yes, in your world the cops aren't needed.

      Also, "execution"? Can't write even a short comment without dembottery, eh?

      Delete
    4. Mao, I said it "seems he "f***ked up" here. Is that take on it inadmissible?

      Delete
    5. "I wonder how we can draw so many conclusions based on the limited knowledge that we have?"

      There is a video

      Delete
    6. Please adjust for violence when looking at stats, as has been done in https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

      Delete
    7. If tasers could cause serious injuries, the police would be fired all over this country for using them on people in custody.

      I think you are confusing the use of tasers with excited delerium.

      These police were never in danger of getting seriously injured by a taser. Any cop will tell you they are mostly harmless.

      Delete
    8. Studies that are easy to find, yet Paul cites to none in support of his/her/its sweeping conclusion.

      Derp.

      Delete
    9. "If tasers could cause serious injuries, the police would be fired all over this country for using them on people in custody."

      Presumably, dear dembot, the cops are trained how to do it.

      You know, hairdressers use scissors on their clients all over this country, and yet if a drunk violent criminal attacks you with a pair of scissors, I'd recommend you drop your zombie "logic" and shoot him. And aim for center mass, dear dembot.

      Delete
    10. Presumably, dear dembot, the cops are trained how to do it."

      Well, if we're making presumptions, I presume you are nothing more than a typical Right-wing bigot, who has no problem with coward cops shooting perps in the back as long as the perp is black.

      Delete
    11. But we already know that you're a dembot, my dear dembot. That was a completely superfluous confirmation.

      Delete
  13. They could have let the guy go. The cops had the car. They probably already had his name and address. Eventually he would have gone home. They could have arrested him there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Or https://theconversation.com/a-new-look-at-racial-disparities-in-police-use-of-deadly-force-98681

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not really sure the cop f**d up. There may be clear criteria for allowing a cop to fire in such circumstances. I would not be surprised to see him not only get off, but successful file a lawsuit for getting terminated. Of course as I said, I'm not a lawyer. There certainly is a mob mentality right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, there are clear criteria, as determined by SCOTUS. The shooting must be necessary to prevent the escape of someone who has committed a crime and poses a signifiant threat of death or serious physical harm.

      There was no reason to believe either that Brooks (whom the cops knew to be drunk and without his own weapon) couldn’t have been chased down or that a taser presented a significant threat. In fact, cops advertise that tasers are benign instruments of control.

      Of course as I said, I'm not a lawyer.

      Of course, and neither am I. Didn’t stop me from looking up the law, however.

      There is a double mob mentality — one held by numerous cops, and the one held by the protesters and those watching cops abuse their authority.

      I don’t mean to dismiss the difficulty of dealing with a violent, late-night arrest gone wrong, and the adrenalin-influenced reaction to having a weapon in play, but judgment and law will be considered in the harsh light of day.

      Delete
    2. "I'm not a lawyer."

      You couldn't even make it past the LSAT.

      Delete
  16. I want to use this great opportunity to thank Dr love for helping me to get my girlfriend back after 7 months of breakup. My girlfriend breakup with me because he see another boy at his working place and told me he is no longer interested in me and live me in pain and heart break. I seek for help on the internet and i saw so many good talk about this great spell caster Dr love and I contacted him also and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell for me which i use to get back my girlfriend within the period of 48 hours and i am so grateful to him for the good work he did for me,that is why i also want to let everyone who is in need of help out there to also seek help from him so he can help.His email;(drloveteple@gmail.com ) or whatsapp: +2347010538590

    ReplyDelete
  17. Are you looking for a way to restore back your broken relationship? If yes help has come your way i got a testimony online about Dr.Nana how he helped someone to get back his ex wife and i contacted him for help also, I am so happy that right now my husband is back to me with so much love and happiness with the help of Dr.Nana if you need help in getting your ex or to fix your relationship back, you can contact him he will help you just the same way he helped me brought back my husband after 1 year of separation contact him today and be happy in your relationship you can email him on nanakwakuspiritualist@gmail.com Call or WhatsApp +2349029905501 webpage https://lovespellsite.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  18. I want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help.
    For more details about Dr Emu visit his Website: http://emutemple.website2.me/

    ReplyDelete