Black woman shot by police in her home while holding her 5 year old son in one arm

@LJS9502_basic: Seems that way.

It is astounding at how stupid that woman was. Was an intellectual infidel, to think you are morally superior by using a human shield, who is also your kin. Insanely stupid and immoral.

@hillelslovak: I would suspect she had mental problems.

Entirely possible, but it's equally possible that she was just a real piece of shit.

I think the latter is probably most correct. Seems she just wanted to give the cops a hard time and thought she'd be a hero.

Have you seen BLM responding to this? The hypocrisy is astounding. When a cop kill someone under suspicious context, they are quick to judge. This one, the instance where she had a shotgun? No no no, we must reserve judgement until the facts come in. And I bet when they come in, not a word will be spoken of this instance.

@mark1974 said:

Sometimes it turns out ok.

It turn out OK because It's in the public, and everyone is using telepathic to comunicate each other feeling ... such as... "I love you bro", "we ain't no thugs"

... We know what happened, it says it right in the article.. See here is the difference between you and me.. I am not afraid to call out police when it is justified and they screwed up, while at the same time I am not afraid to say that they were justified and did their job.. The fact of the matter this should be praised, they spent several hours trying to deescalate a dangerous person who was holding their 5 year old hostage and threatening them with a shotgun.. It actually doesn't get clearer than this, but even than your not going to admit that they were in the right.. Are you kidding me? Where do you live in which you can completely ignore a court summons as the defendant and the police won't come searching for you? Mexico?

@sSubZerOo: I am not going to praise police for killing any citizen. I can say it was justified but I'm not going to celebrate it. And I would have to know a lot more if I was to say it deffinately needed to happen. It's a serious matter I won't take lightly and make a definitive statement on after reading one article.

No one is praising them for that.. They did their job and tried to deescalate it over SEVERAL HOURS, meaning this was the very last thing they wanted to happened and they tried everything in their power to stop it which is the part I was talking about... And I am calling bs when I see it, you earlier posted a picture of a guy having his gun in the holster.. Trying to make the false equivalency that this is some how the same thing.. That a guy who isn't pointing a gun at a person in a rally of gun nuts where the police where deescalation had to happen and not causing a fire fight.. Than when the police officers seem to have done everything in their power to deescalate it from what information we have, it than turns into "the whole justice system is a mess".. Furthermore you try to say that police officers enforcing warrants on people skipping court hearings is ridiculous? Courts would be pretty worthless if defendants could just ignore them don't you think? No this situation couldn't have anything to do with the person that actually resisted arrest, took hostages, brandished a deadly weapon against police.. This apologism is hilarious. Your basically wanting to blame the system, police officers and any one BUT the person that was openly breaking the law and was using her 5 year old as a hostage..

Let's see if you can be consistent next time when a cop unjustly kills some one, in which your first response will be that you need more information.

@hippiesanta:

Or the fact his gun is still holstered.. He isn't pointing it directly at the person with the safety off, nor taking a hostage, or popping off rounds at the officer.. Or the fact the officer realizes he is in an ENTIRE RALLY OF PEOPLE who are all armed in which any kind of weapons discharge by either side would turn into a blood bath.. This isn't trying to defend this jackass in the picture, but they are not the same thing..

It would appear the police did what they could in this situation and she gave them no choice. I don't know why you think I'm defending her or pointing my finger at the cops I'm not. Anytime anybody shoots anybody I'm going to think it's a tragedy and my concern is going to be with the person killed and the killer is going to need a damn good excuse for it. In this case thus far they seem to. Wether its a cop shooting a civilian or a civilian shooting a cop or a civilian shooting another civilian, my initial concern is going to go with the deceased and the shooter better make a damn good case. It's rather consistent on my end. Where do you see me apologizing for this woman or blaming police? I don't mind you disagreeing with me but don't put words in my mouth.

As far as the picture goes, I think cops are more tolerant of white gun nuts than they are with black gun nuts but feel free to disagree.

As for the bench warrants, most departments do not have the resources to knock on all the doors of people who missed a traffic court date and got a bench warrant. I've heard many stories of people not knowing they had a warrant out and then getting pulled over and getting arrested. I had one for not paying a speeding ticket in Ohio once when I was a teenager. They sent me a letter saying to turn myself in. I most certainly did not and they didn't come looking either. I did however eventually pay it. In her case it seems like there was more to the situation though so who knows?

@mark1974: "As far as the picture goes, I think cops are more tolerant of white gun nuts than they are with black gun nuts but feel free to disagree."

It's either:

They probably think a black person is more likely to attack than a white person.

They hate young black folks.

I definitely think that they think the black person is more likely to attack. And I don't think many of them can tell an upstanding citizen with a gun from a gangbanger and it's due to their prejudice. They understand and relate to the white gun nut but they know nothing about the black man and fear him.

The statistics from the FBI show clearly that black men are far more likely than any other group to attack with guns. I do not see how that is racist, or based in fear or prejudice.

It's true but... A black person can tell the difference between a good law abiding black man and a gang bangin' thug. It's the job of the police to know the difference too but they so often fail. Blindly relying on statistics as a policing method is not the way to act.

And here is the part that bothers me. I think most of them can actually tell the difference but they have an opinion that all black people are potential criminals and their lives are worth less. That is where the racism comes in and I know it is there in a lot of police departments.

@hillelslovak: "The statistics from the FBI show clearly that black men are far more likely than any other group to attack with guns."

I would like to see these stats. And of course stats are manipulated to make certain groups look worse.

I'm black and I can't tell the difference between a good law abiding black man and a gang bangin' thug.

Seriously, how am I supposed to tell the difference? Is the thug gonna be dressed in a pimp jacket with a bunch of gold chains hanging on his neck, or something?

The thug is going to be spending most of his time on the street corner selling drugs and if the police are doing their job they know them well. He is going to have many tell tale signs of general bad attitude about everything and a complete dismissal of authority even though it shows very well who he is. They are nihilists and they don't care. I've seen many, they will throw up gang signs at squad cars and enjoy the chase. The man who says he has a gun in the car as soon as the policeman walks up and is just chillin' with his girl and her baby is a totally different type. Do you live in a city sir? Your idea of a thug seems to come straight out of the seventies. Eighties at best.

It;s the FBI's own studies. The stats are on https://ucr.fbi.gov/

There is an insane amount of stats, and I am not going to root through them again. Black people account for 13% of the population, black men at around 7%, and yet black people account for a much higher rate per capita than any other group.

I keep hearing people saying whites commit more crimes, and then leave out the fact that whites account for a much larger proportion than any other group.

I live in a small city, I've actually known drug dealers and "thugs", and in my experience it's only the really stupid ones who do the things that you say.

A lot of these criminal types specifically go out of their way to look normal for the precise reason that they don't want the cops looking at them.

@hillelslovak: " I am not going to root through them again. "

Again?

Anyway, I'm not going through that since it isn't a direct link to the stats.

Fair enough Mr.Geezer. I mean no disrespect. The ones who act normal must be fooling me too. Most I've known aren't smart enough for that.

And on the other end of the spectrum, I'd wager that most of the people who "look like thugs" probably aren't up to any no-good business and are just putting up an image in order to look cool.

That's not to say that cops shouldn't use visual clues and their own judgement to tell when something looks suspicious. But as far as knowing the difference between a gang-banger and a law-abiding black person? How the heck are they supposed to know if they don't already know who the guy is or haven't already seen suspicious behavior? If a cop pulls someone over at a routine traffic stop, how is the cop supposed to know that that guy isn't carrying enough guns or drugs to put him away for a decade?

I don't know about you but I can tell the difference from a kid with saggy pants and his hat on crooked from a hardened criminal most times.

Police have a job of policing a certain area. They are actually pretty good at knowing who is who and that's why I have a problem. Gangbangers have all been in and out of the legal system since youth. The police will police these very bad neighborhoods and get a certain prejudiced view of black people in general because of their experiences among the worst of them. I have been pulled over and had the cop tell me I was suspicious because I passed by a known crack house. Why is there a known crack house freely operating while he harasses me? There are big problems going on in the ghetto of big cities such as where I live. Our jails are overcrowded and they have to let most of these gangbangers go. Now this is all very different from the small town situation. There you have cops who have no clue and may see black people all pretty much the same. I'm sure many of them are not actually racists so don't get me wrong. There are a lot of different problems happening in this country between police and black people and they are not all the same or have a similar solution.

I'm not arguing any point against you. I'm taking your experience and trying to learn from it and giving you mine.

@mark1974: So, wait...you can tell a gangbanger because he's hanging out on a street corner, but suddenly it's wrong for him to suspect you for going by a known crack house? You don't see the irony there?

Sure, passing by a known crack house doesn't mean you're involved in drugs, but neither does standing on a street corner. Either way, a lot of activity around crack houses IS drug related and a lot of people hanging out on street corners ARE slinging drugs. Why exactly should the cop be able to look at that guy and instantly identify him as a drug dealer, while you shouldn't raise any suspicion? I mean, how the hell is the cop gonna know that you're not involved in drugs when you're driving by a known crack house?

I'm just saying...for someone who has a problem with police looking at a black guy and just seeing a criminal, you seem to be AWFULLY confident in your ability to just look at a dude and know whether or not he's a gangbanger. And then you're somehow appalled when police do some visual stereotyping and the dude is innocent? Again...you really don't see the irony here?

And this is a genuine question. I don't live in the worst neighborhood, but there's quite a bit of drug activity on my block. Every once in a while someone will get shot. There are drug dealer, drug addicts, and hookers all over the place. And yet, I don't know who's a criminal. I see people walking down the street all the time, and there's absolutely no way for me to know if they're walking back home after buying crack or simply walking back home from the corner store after buying a pack of cigarettes. Sure, there are definitely signs that can make one suspicious, especially if it's a repeated pattern of behavior. But you're giving cops WAY too much credit if you expect them to just be able to look at a guy and tell whether he's an innocent person or a criminal. How the hell are they supposed to know?

agree. There were about a million different ways to handle this, and they chose the worst one.

The lady made a terrible terrible choice, but law enforcement must be held to a higher standard and they should have acted differently. I mean with a potential three hostages (the man, 1 year old, and 5 year old) and an armed woman, wouldn't you just back away?

And all because of a traffic violation.

Police: What do you want!?
Woman: I...I don't want to pay my parking ticket!
Police: Is that it? Really? OK, fine...50 bucks, poof gone. No worries. Can you send the people out?
Woman: Sure.

I know that's unrealistic but surely even striving a little bit for that kind of resolution, instead of the violent one that actually happened, is worthwhile.

I won't start a whole gun debate, but I truly think that cops have been taught to reach for the gun too quickly. I mean did they even assess the situation? Contact a negotiator? Was the women holding the gun at her kid or just holding it in general? I mean there are so many factors that go into any and all situations that occur around us you can't just reach for the gun when you're in the business of life saving and law enforcement.

We all make mistakes. Some of us make huge mistakes. Few of us make colossal mistakes. That still doesn't mean we forfeit our lives, not immediately.

The cops fired first...

You could argue the kid's life was not in danger until the police showed up a lot more easily than you could argue the mother put the kid's life in danger.

Not saying she was in the right, or deserves to be a martyr...but there's a grey area here that a lot of people are not seeing. There's probably a lot more to the situation than we know, but I just think it is tragic that the default action for a cop in the US is to reach for a weapon, more often than not a lethal one.

Hopefully this "martyr" gets dropped before she becomes a bigger deal.

OMFG! I can't believe the media is trying so hard to paint the cops as, once again, the bad guys even in a case so cut and dry like this. Even more sad that some folks are dense enough to eat what they give them...

Uh...no. Bullshit. According to the story, the mom was ALREADY on the floor with a shotgun in one hand and the kid in the other when the cops first entered. So it's not like they went in guns blazing and she grabbed the gun in self defense. YES, she was the one who put the kid's life in danger. She was the one who had a warrant out for her arrest, grabbed a shotgun and held her kid hostage, and then specifically told the cops that she was going to kill them while the kid was right there. Assuming that the details of the story are correct, she was respnsible for all of this.

That is, unless you think there's a reasonable argument that it was the cops who put the kid in harm's way simply for showing up at all.

@tocool340: "Even more sad that some folks are dense enough to eat what they give them..."

I can say the same about you.

And what exactly do you mean by that?

I'm going to keep this simple. In my example the cops should be raiding the "known" crack house instead of pulling drivers over who pass it.

Second, the cops know the gang bangers because they see them daily and have arrested them many times. Yes there are going to be times they aren't sure about someone. Examples like the incedent that caused the beer summit shouldn't happen because it was obvious that professor was not a gang banger.

I don't have anymore to say on the subject as I have explained my view and don't enjoy going around in circles.

Yeah... she's a psycho.

Then I have to ask why you're so quick to demonize the police without full information? Seems a double standard dude.

@LJS9502_basic: I already addressed that above but I will repeat here. It's not about defending or demonizing police or people who were killed. When someone is shot my first concern is if it was justified. Killing someone is a terrible thing and I'm always going to look at the shooter suspiciously at first. It's not about taking sides. It's about making sure there was no alternative beyond a shadow of a doubt. Murder should not be as common and easily dismissed as it is. I would sooner give the deceased the benefit of the doubt before the shooter. Then we look at the facts and make sure it was just.

I've read enough of your comments here though to know you tend to jump the gun on a few occasions......pun not intended.

@LJS9502_basic: Like I said, I give the deceased the benefit of the doubt and look at the shooter suspiciously. When the facts are known, if they are ever known, I adjust my thinking accordingly.

Ah so the opposite of our country's legal system. I hope you're never picked for a jury. If so....mention that to them during selection.

@LJS9502_basic: Are you actually understanding me? You want me to jump to the conclusion shootings are always just? I said I adjust my thinking after I get all the info. Can you put your concerns in a statement I can clearly understand after taking what I said into account?

@tocool340:

You probably also based your opinions on what the media feeds you.

No I want you to keep an open mind and not think the victim was innocent every single time.

The media causes most of the problems by not reporting truth only racial overtones.

@LJS9502_basic: But I dont! The proof of that is in this very thread were I have stated that it was likely the victims fault!

I'm talking about more than this thread. And your own words.....

Which is the opposite of our legal system as I said.

@LJS9502_basic: "The media causes most of the problems by not reporting truth only racial overtones."

The media has too much influence on people's lives.

The media is a big lie.

Ah but the media has the influence because people give it to them....

@LJS9502_basic: "Ah but the media has the influence because people give it to them...."

lol, I actually wonder how far back in history this goes.

The thread title is incredibly misleading. TC should write for MSNBC or Fox News!

For starters, I'm pretty freaking sure that the cops CAN'T just decide to raid a known crackhouse. Not legally, in any case. They kind of need a warrant in order to raid someone's home like that.

And secondly, I've already told you that a LOT of these criminals make a point of not drawing attention to themselves, and many of them don't even have a criminal record. You do realize that all of these criminals were doing crimes BEFORE they got caught, right? Which means that at some point, every single one of them (even the stupid ones) was a criminal with no arrest record.