I like how me essentially asking "Did she really need to die?" is being heard as "**** THE POLICE! BLM and only BLM! KILL WHITEY"
I'm not going to apologize for venturing into territory that is not black or white. Likewise, I don't think I ever said she didn't deserve what was coming her way. I just think maybe there could have been a different way to handle it.
Why don't people ever think about the best case scenario? The outcome that should have happened if the world were perfect (I know the world is not perfect). Is it a defense mechanism? Do you guys not want to feel even a little bad for the woman, so you respond rabidly to the outcome and say "Oh she deserved it, bitch had it coming!"
I mean best-case scenario, they would have backed off, she'd have relaxed, someone would come and talk to her...or maybe they go in with SWAT and take her out non-lethal like. I don't know man, I just think this kid is an orphan now (if he is like the majority of young black males, his dad is absent) and that's sad.
Oh, I do not feel bad for this woman AT ALL. Not in the slightest, and here's why. The traffic stop video (don't know if you saw it, but if you haven't, give it a watch because it could have changed your outlook on the situation) showed her being vehemently defiant when all the cops wanted to do was give her a ticket. After then deciding that the car needed to be towed because of lack of registration and insurance, she refused to cooperate and ignored every single one of the MANY opportunities the cops gave to her, non violently I may add. To make matters worse, she instructed her five year old son to fight the cops should they ask him to get out of the car.
She wanted to die at the hands of the police, and it took a stand off lasting hours for her to get her wish. She wouldn't let her son down, wouldn't put the gun down and had the shotgun trained on the officer. There was no other outcome for this situation and when the cop was threatened with the shotgun, it was his life or hers. The only way for this end makes that the best case scenario. And it's sad that the kid is without a mother, yes, BECAUSE of her mother.
I like how me essentially asking "Did she really need to die?" is being heard as "**** THE POLICE! BLM and only BLM! KILL WHITEY"
I'm not going to apologize for venturing into territory that is not black or white. Likewise, I don't think I ever said she didn't deserve what was coming her way. I just think maybe there could have been a different way to handle it.
Why don't people ever think about the best case scenario? The outcome that should have happened if the world were perfect (I know the world is not perfect). Is it a defense mechanism? Do you guys not want to feel even a little bad for the woman, so you respond rabidly to the outcome and say "Oh she deserved it, bitch had it coming!"
I mean best-case scenario, they would have backed off, she'd have relaxed, someone would come and talk to her...or maybe they go in with SWAT and take her out non-lethal like. I don't know man, I just think this kid is an orphan now (if he is like the majority of young black males, his dad is absent) and that's sad.
Oh, I do not feel bad for this woman AT ALL. Not in the slightest, and here's why. The traffic stop video (don't know if you saw it, but if you haven't, give it a watch because it could have changed your outlook on the situation) showed her being vehemently defiant when all the cops wanted to do was give her a ticket. After then deciding that the car needed to be towed because of lack of registration and insurance, she refused to cooperate and ignored every single one of the MANY opportunities the cops gave to her, non violently I may add. To make matters worse, she instructed her five year old son to fight the cops should they ask him to get out of the car.
She wanted to die at the hands of the police, and it took a stand off lasting hours for her to get her wish. She wouldn't let her son down, wouldn't put the gun down and had the shotgun trained on the officer. There was no other outcome for this situation and when the cop was threatened with the shotgun, it was his life or hers. The only way for this end makes that the best case scenario. And it's sad that the kid is without a mother, yes, BECAUSE of her mother.
So the best case scenario for an uncooperative woman is a death sentence? How about just backing off from her property, and then returning with a better plan? Like he suggested, send in the SWAT if they have to, whatever it takes to keep her alive. It's becoming almost comical how Americans are so trigger-happy that they think murder is the only solution to everything.
And where did you even get that story from? Oh right, the police. The fact that they shut down her social media accounts during the stand-off obviously means there's something that they're hiding. We don't know what really happened during the stand-off, other than the police's version of events. And knowing how many times US police have outright lied about incidents like these in the past, there's no reason to trust their version of events this time either. We won't know the real truth about what really happened until this matter is settled in court.
@Jag85: yeah I was trying to say something along those lines, but for the most part people just say she deserved to die, then call you crazy and a conspiracy theorist when you suggest that maybe the cops didn't exactly do things right and might be trying to cover their ass. I did just find out she was trying to get herself killed so that kind of changes things, but still...
But you know there's never been a corrupt cop before, and people with power (the power to kill, imprison, and otherwise make your life hell) and deadly weapons are generally responsible with them...
@Jag85: if it goes to court the traffic stop video will doom anyone who takes it that far. That woman was a terrible person in general, and dangerously stupid, should not have been allowed to raise a child.
@JustPlainLucas: yeah I heard about that (didn't see it), sounds pretty bad.
Ah well she got her wish. If she wanted to die like that, forget what I said earlier lol.
Just because she was out of her mind and troubled and had a death wish doesn't stop it from being a tragedy. Why are we so flippant with people's lives? It's conceivable that she could have been helped psychologically and lived a positive life and did good things sometime in the future. I know she was wrong and I know why they killed her and can even agree with it. But we need to be better than to just say, "oh well, another dead idiot."
People in this thread can now pretend I have a problem with the police actions in this case and tell me how wrong I am for things I've never said.
@Jag85: if it goes to court the traffic stop video will doom anyone who takes it that far. That woman was a terrible person in general, and dangerously stupid, should not have been allowed to raise a child.
In other words, you're suggesting that all terrible and stupid people should be murdered... This is why the rest of the world sees gung-ho America as a joke.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
You think a solo barricaded individual is at the same level as a child being taken hostage at gunpoint.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
You think a solo barricaded individual is at the same level as a child being taken hostage at gunpoint.
Korryn Gaines' son describes fatal shooting in video
Police: Gaines' child was not a hostage
Since Gaines' child was not a hostage in this incident, and citing Maryland regulations, police said there are no audiotapes of the negotiations with Gaines. Police said the FBI defines "hostage" as a person held to fulfill a demand, and a threat of harm unless the demand is met.
@Stevo_the_gamer: She wasn't threatening to kill her own child. She was recklessly endangering him obviously. But I think you are purposely being dishonest in calling him a hostage because you don't want the two cases compared. All implications of police being racist must be vehemently refuted, right? And I don't even think they were racist in this case. but compare it to a case with a white person and people get defensive.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
You think a solo barricaded individual is at the same level as a child being taken hostage at gunpoint.
Korryn Gaines' son describes fatal shooting in video
Police: Gaines' child was not a hostage
Since Gaines' child was not a hostage in this incident, and citing Maryland regulations, police said there are no audiotapes of the negotiations with Gaines. Police said the FBI defines "hostage" as a person held to fulfill a demand, and a threat of harm unless the demand is met.
Trying to pander to semantics does not dismiss glaring differences in terms of critical incident level.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
You think a solo barricaded individual is at the same level as a child being taken hostage at gunpoint.
Korryn Gaines' son describes fatal shooting in video
Police: Gaines' child was not a hostage
Since Gaines' child was not a hostage in this incident, and citing Maryland regulations, police said there are no audiotapes of the negotiations with Gaines. Police said the FBI defines "hostage" as a person held to fulfill a demand, and a threat of harm unless the demand is met.
Trying to pander to semantics does not dismiss glaring differences in terms of critical incident level.
You made a false allegation. That's not just mere "semantics".
@Jag85: Wrong doing by police must be refuted no matter what. You are talking to an actual police officer. He is never going to admit to wrong doing by any officer ever. It's the thin blue line thing.
@Stevo_the_gamer: She wasn't threatening to kill her own child. She was recklessly endangering him obviously. But I think you are purposely being dishonest in calling him a hostage because you don't want the two cases compared. All implications of police being racist must be vehemently refuted, right? And I don't even think they were racist in this case. but compare it to a case with a white person and people get defensive.
Clear threats directed at her son isn't necessary. Her actions presented a clear and immediate danger to the child (GBI/Death). Indeed, she wouldn't allow her son to leave even if he wanted too or at the request of Law Enforcement to calm the waters. There is nothing dishonest about calling a barricaded individual with a child a hostage situation. I think it's veryreasonable officers at the time of the incident had a reasonable belief that it was a hostage situation, or something akin to such, especially when they made the call to enter the home because of the level of danger presented to the child. Officers at that time will observe the totality of the circumstances, and use that to make decisions based on a rapidly evolving critical incident. They do not have the luxury to sit back and analyze for extended periods of time, especially when a very young child is at risk of GBI/death.
Trying to pander to semantics does not dismiss glaring differences in terms of critical incident level.
You made a false allegation. That's not just mere "semantics".
I don't find it false at all based on a reasonable officer standard at that time - hostage, or legally speaking via penal code, false imprisonment is an extremelyserious felony, and presents a clear and immediate danger to the one involved. You're juxtaposing that to an elderly man who barricaded himself in a house with no one else inside?
@Stevo_the_gamer: Hey, I'm not going to second guess them in this one. It is what it is. Why did they give that other guy that Jag85 mentioned three days? Why were those Bundy nuts in Oregon allowed to carry on for so long. Crazy black people never seem to get that kind of treatment.
@Jag85: did he point his gun at the police? Because if it is shown this moron actually pointed her gun at the police, then it can safely be ruled a suicide. After watching the traffic stop vid, I have little reason to believe she didn't.
Your example of the other incident is very different in more ways than just the skin color of the citizen involved. Had the man in your example been in clear sight of a police officer and pointed a gun at them, he'd have been shot and killed.
"One of the officers fired at her, she returned fire, and the remaining officers fired at her and killed her. Her son was struck by one of the rounds, but the injury is expected to be non-life threatening."
It was the police who fired at her first, not the other way around. Even if she did make verbal threats that she'd shoot if they didn't back off, it was the police that initiated the shooting, knowing full well that the child would be caught in the crossfire. And he was injured as a result of the shooting initiated by the police. If they really cared about the child's safety, then they could've backed off, waited for the right moment when the child isn't with her, and then went after her. But instead, they refused to back off, and instead shot her with the child in her arms. And in the end, the child was injured as a result of the police's actions. It was the police's actions that put the child at risk in the first place.
And considering how the police was shooting at her, with the child in her arms, and she was shooting back at them, it would only be logical to conclude that it was the police's bullets that injured the child, not the mother's. So that only makes it worse, since they not only murdered the mother, but they also injured the child.
"One of the officers fired at her, she returned fire, and the remaining officers fired at her and killed her. Her son was struck by one of the rounds, but the injury is expected to be non-life threatening."
It was the police who actually fired at her first, not the other way around. Even if she did make verbal threats that she'd shoot if they didn't back off, it was the police that initiated the shooting, knowing full well that the child would be caught in the crossfire. And he was injured as a result of the shooting initiated by the police. If they really cared about the child's safety, then they could've backed off, waited for the right moment when the child isn't with her, and then went after her. But instead, they refused to back off, and instead shot her with the child in her arms. And in the end, the child was injured as a result of the police's actions. It was the police's actions that put the child at risk in the first place.
No shit? I may change my opinion of the way it was handled and give some of these posters an actual reason to argue with me if that is true.
The cops must have been racist and sexist, obviously.
How would we know? Plenty of people are. It's not unlikely but there is also no reason I can see to think so. Don't let people complaining about legit cases of cops being racist or even sexist color you ideas about all cases and the opinions people may form about it. Are you one of those people mad about political correctness by chance? I've been learning things about that fascinating topic today and was just wondering.
The cops must have been racist and sexist, obviously.
How would we know? Plenty of people are. It's not unlikely but there is also no reason I can see to think so. Don't let people complaining about legit cases of cops being racist or even sexist color you ideas about all cases and the opinions people may form about it. Are you one of those people mad about political correctness by chance? I've been learning things about that fascinating topic today and was just wondering.
Sarcasm, my man. More annoyed by PC then anything. Politically correct. Why is political in front of correct? You're either correct or incorrect.
It seems to be more of an American problem though, with bits and pieces finding it's way into other places like Canada and Australia, but their type of attitude is not as easily tolerated. "Toughen up" and "grow up", are terms the majority seems to give those whiners. Funny, how it's the other group calling anti-pc people to "grow up" and "toughen up". It wasn't the anti-pc that wanted safespaces in universities in order to save their feelings. Listen, if someone is being a racist and saying racist things, they deserved to be called out on it. It's just being used way too much unnessarily just to halt discussion or to hurt someone's reputation.
The cops must have been racist and sexist, obviously.
How would we know? Plenty of people are. It's not unlikely but there is also no reason I can see to think so. Don't let people complaining about legit cases of cops being racist or even sexist color you ideas about all cases and the opinions people may form about it. Are you one of those people mad about political correctness by chance? I've been learning things about that fascinating topic today and was just wondering.
Sarcasm, my man. More annoyed by PC then anything. Politically correct. Why is political in front of correct? You're either correct or incorrect.
It seems to be more of an American problem though, with bits and pieces finding it's way into other places like Canada and Australia, but their type of attitude is not as easily tolerated. "Toughen up" and "grow up", are terms the majority seems to give those whiners. Funny, how it's the other group calling anti-pc people to "grow up" and "toughen up". It wasn't the anti-pc that wanted safespaces in universities in order to save their feelings. Listen, if someone is being a racist and saying racist things, they deserved to be called out on it. It's just being used way too much unnessarily just to halt discussion or to hurt someone's reputation.
Sarcasm! Of course! Brilliant.
I think the politically correct and anti politically correct are both annoying. It's a weird time we live in. A time of change I suppose. Do you think the USA has more of an influence on the Australians than on the English? I can see the Canadians. Seems interesting but I may be getting it wrong. I'm in America and we have serious racial problems here. It's gotten so much better but can still be ugly at times. Black people are mad and White people are worried about losing their traditional advantage in our society and are suspicious of Black people. Everyone feels slighted right now. How's England doing? Why do I think you are from England, that is stuck in my head for some reason, is it true?
"One of the officers fired at her, she returned fire, and the remaining officers fired at her and killed her. Her son was struck by one of the rounds, but the injury is expected to be non-life threatening."
It was the police who fired at her first, not the other way around. Even if she did make verbal threats that she'd shoot if they didn't back off, it was the police that initiated the shooting, knowing full well that the child would be caught in the crossfire. And he was injured as a result of the shooting initiated by the police. If they really cared about the child's safety, then they could've backed off, waited for the right moment when the child isn't with her, and then went after her. But instead, they refused to back off, and instead shot her with the child in her arms. And in the end, the child was injured as a result of the police's actions. It was the police's actions that put the child at risk in the first place.
And considering how the police was shooting at her, with the child in her arms, and she was shooting back at them, it would only be logical to conclude that it was the police's bullets that injured the child, not the mother's. So that only makes it worse, since they not only murdered the mother, but they also injured the child.
Law Enforcement firing first is irrelevant to the facts surrounding the circumstances. If an individual points a gun at me, or anyone else for that matter, or presents him or herself in a manner that presents GBI/death to others, I do not have to wait to return fire. I can initiate, I must initiate per the law.
We are not privy to the facts and the investigation will provide insight on the line of thinking involved but one can reasonably argue that there was an exigent circumstance demanding an immediate response where they could have felt if they waited any further that GBI/death could come to the child.
You have yet to explain how an elderly man barricading himself in a home is parallel to this current situation.
I think the politically correct and anti politically correct are both annoying. It's a weird time we live in. A time of change I suppose. Do you think the USA has more of an influence on the Australians than on the English? I can see the Canadians. Seems interesting but I may be getting it wrong. I'm in America and we have serious racial problems here. It's gotten so much better but can still be ugly at times. Black people are mad and White people are worried about losing their traditional advantage in our society and are suspicious of Black people. Everyone feels slighted right now. How's England doing? Why do I think you are from England, that is stuck in my head for some reason, is it true?
Oh yes, Australia is very Amercanized as is Canada. I'm from Canada (not from England and never been there) and moving to Australia there has been no culture shock or anything. Different accents and people drive on the left. Other than those difference, attitudes are very similar to one another. There is racism in Australia and Canada, directed more towards Aboriginals. I'm not saying people, in general, are racist but I've seen it. And there are recent examples in the news.
Racist cartoon draws praise and criticism in Australia Ottawa launces inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous woman
Anyway, not to get too off-topic. I mean no disrespect, but I do not envy you. Troubled times indeed.
.... Your trying to reason with a person who is insinuating that the police were sent there with the specific reason to assassinate her..
yeah it's pointless to argue with me, I've been so unreasonable in saying these things I never actually said.
But really, between the fluoride in our water controlling our brains and our true leaders, the subterranean lizard folk (long may their reign be!)...is it really so far fetched to think the cops are corrupt? OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE!
And therein is the problem with some viewpoints. Yes some cops are corrupt. However if you continue to look at incidents with that mindset then you're going to see what you want to see and not reality.
@JustPlainLucas: yeah I heard about that (didn't see it), sounds pretty bad.
Ah well she got her wish. If she wanted to die like that, forget what I said earlier lol.
Just because she was out of her mind and troubled and had a death wish doesn't stop it from being a tragedy. Why are we so flippant with people's lives? It's conceivable that she could have been helped psychologically and lived a positive life and did good things sometime in the future. I know she was wrong and I know why they killed her and can even agree with it. But we need to be better than to just say, "oh well, another dead idiot."
People in this thread can now pretend I have a problem with the police actions in this case and tell me how wrong I am for things I've never said.
She was flippant with her own life....and that of her child by the way....why should ANYONE feel sorry for her? I know I don't.
"One of the officers fired at her, she returned fire, and the remaining officers fired at her and killed her. Her son was struck by one of the rounds, but the injury is expected to be non-life threatening."
It was the police who fired at her first, not the other way around. Even if she did make verbal threats that she'd shoot if they didn't back off, it was the police that initiated the shooting, knowing full well that the child would be caught in the crossfire. And he was injured as a result of the shooting initiated by the police. If they really cared about the child's safety, then they could've backed off, waited for the right moment when the child isn't with her, and then went after her. But instead, they refused to back off, and instead shot her with the child in her arms. And in the end, the child was injured as a result of the police's actions. It was the police's actions that put the child at risk in the first place.
And considering how the police was shooting at her, with the child in her arms, and she was shooting back at them, it would only be logical to conclude that it was the police's bullets that injured the child, not the mother's. So that only makes it worse, since they not only murdered the mother, but they also injured the child.
That's what happens WHEN YOU POINT GUNS AT COPS. You cannot fault someone for protecting themselves. Honestly it's sad that people think that's okay.
.... Your trying to reason with a person who is insinuating that the police were sent there with the specific reason to assassinate her..
yeah it's pointless to argue with me, I've been so unreasonable in saying these things I never actually said.
But really, between the fluoride in our water controlling our brains and our true leaders, the subterranean lizard folk (long may their reign be!)...is it really so far fetched to think the cops are corrupt? OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE!
And therein is the problem with some viewpoints. Yes some cops are corrupt. However if you continue to look at incidents with that mindset then you're going to see what you want to see and not reality.
I think that is an excellent point. It works both ways too. People who always think black people are criminals and think the police are nothing but a bunch of fine patriotic upstanding Americans who can do no wrong and we should give constant praise to and honor, are going to see things the way they want to as well.
And therein is the problem with some viewpoints. Yes some cops are corrupt. However if you continue to look at incidents with that mindset then you're going to see what you want to see and not reality.
I think that is an excellent point. It works both ways too. People who always think black people are criminals and think the police are nothing but a bunch of fine patriotic upstanding Americans who can do no wrong and we should give constant praise to and honor, are going to see things the way they want to as well.
I wait for the evidence myself....then I form a conclusion. I'm not giving one side or the other a free pass.
@JustPlainLucas: yeah I heard about that (didn't see it), sounds pretty bad.
Ah well she got her wish. If she wanted to die like that, forget what I said earlier lol.
Just because she was out of her mind and troubled and had a death wish doesn't stop it from being a tragedy. Why are we so flippant with people's lives? It's conceivable that she could have been helped psychologically and lived a positive life and did good things sometime in the future. I know she was wrong and I know why they killed her and can even agree with it. But we need to be better than to just say, "oh well, another dead idiot."
People in this thread can now pretend I have a problem with the police actions in this case and tell me how wrong I am for things I've never said.
She was flippant with her own life....and that of her child by the way....why should ANYONE feel sorry for her? I know I don't.
I feel sorry for every last person involved in the incident. But that's me. I'm a people person.
And therein is the problem with some viewpoints. Yes some cops are corrupt. However if you continue to look at incidents with that mindset then you're going to see what you want to see and not reality.
I think that is an excellent point. It works both ways too. People who always think black people are criminals and think the police are nothing but a bunch of fine patriotic upstanding Americans who can do no wrong and we should give constant praise to and honor, are going to see things the way they want to as well.
I wait for the evidence myself....then I form a conclusion. I'm not giving one side or the other a free pass.
I feel the same way. Of course people with an agenda on here don't believe me for some reason. I guess it's because I believe there actually is a problem with many of these cases. The majority here have sided with the police in every one of these we have discussed. Except for the one about the therapist maybe. But siding with the police is not controversial in this forum. Concern about racism is very frowned upon.
"One of the officers fired at her, she returned fire, and the remaining officers fired at her and killed her. Her son was struck by one of the rounds, but the injury is expected to be non-life threatening."
It was the police who fired at her first, not the other way around. Even if she did make verbal threats that she'd shoot if they didn't back off, it was the police that initiated the shooting, knowing full well that the child would be caught in the crossfire. And he was injured as a result of the shooting initiated by the police. If they really cared about the child's safety, then they could've backed off, waited for the right moment when the child isn't with her, and then went after her. But instead, they refused to back off, and instead shot her with the child in her arms. And in the end, the child was injured as a result of the police's actions. It was the police's actions that put the child at risk in the first place.
And considering how the police was shooting at her, with the child in her arms, and she was shooting back at them, it would only be logical to conclude that it was the police's bullets that injured the child, not the mother's. So that only makes it worse, since they not only murdered the mother, but they also injured the child.
Law Enforcement firing first is irrelevant to the facts surrounding the circumstances. If an individual points a gun at me, or anyone else for that matter, or presents him or herself in a manner that presents GBI/death to others, I do not have to wait to return fire. I can initiate, I must initiate per the law.
We are not privy to the facts and the investigation will provide insight on the line of thinking involved but one can reasonably argue that there was an exigent circumstance demanding an immediate response where they could have felt if they waited any further that GBI/death could come to the child.
You have yet to explain how an elderly man barricading himself in a home is parallel to this current situation.
The difference here is, like you said earlier, there is a child present in the scene. The police's actions in this case was extremely wreckless, putting the child in harm's way like that.
The exigent circumstance you presented does not hold up to scrutiny. If the exigent circumstance was that they were concerned about the safety of the child, then that argument fell apart the moment they shot the gun in the child's direction, and caused collateral damage as a result, injuring the child in the process. If she was too mentally unstable and erratic, then the safer option would've been to back off, and return with more officers and a better action plan on how to deal with the situation, in order to secure the safety of the child. But instead they decided to "shoot first, ask questions later".
The argument you are using to justify why the two scenarios turned out differently (the white male alive, the black female dead) is because there was a child present in the black female's case, but the fact is that if the presence of the child really was the issue, then the events would not have turned out as they did, because the actions that the police took only caused more harm to the child.
The argument you are using to justify why the two scenarios turned out differently (the white male alive, the black female dead) is because there was a child present in the black female's case, but the fact is that if the presence of the child really was the issue, then the events would not have turned out as they did, because the actions that the police took only caused more harm to the child.
You don't know that. For all you know, she could've murder/suicided with the kid. After all, if she only intended for HERSELF to die, then wtf was she doing with the kid there? She could have easily told the kid to wait in a closet and kept him out of this shit. For all anyone knows, she might rather have the kid die than for the police to get their hands on him, and that the only reason the kid is even alive is because the police DIDN'T back off.
I clicked the link and I ain't surprised that someone would say the kid was coached up to defend his mother.
That's actually entirely possible.
Regardless, it's not as if this information is particularly useful. Even if the police somehow were in the wrong (which it certainly doesn't seem like), it's not like they could ever be held accountable based solely on the account of a five year old kid who very well may have misremembered details and/or had a strong incentive to lie about the details.
Furthermore, if the narrative is that the police should've backed off and come back later because there was a kid in harm's way, then it doesn't exactly help that argument by stating that the kid was indeed hiding.
The difference here is, like you said earlier, there is a child present in the scene. The police's actions in this case was extremely wreckless, putting the child in harm's way like that.
The exigent circumstance you presented does not hold up to scrutiny. If the exigent circumstance was that they were concerned about the safety of the child, then that argument fell apart the moment they shot the gun in the child's direction, and caused collateral damage as a result, injuring the child in the process. If she was too mentally unstable and erratic, then the safer option would've been to back off, and return with more officers and a better action plan on how to deal with the situation, in order to secure the safety of the child. But instead they decided to "shoot first, ask questions later".
The argument you are using to justify why the two scenarios turned out differently (the white male alive, the black female dead) is because there was a child present in the black female's case, but the fact is that if the presence of the child really was the issue, then the events would not have turned out as they did, because the actions that the police took only caused more harm to the child.
A substantial difference, wouldn't you say?
That is inaccurate. A weapon may be discharged at a suspect if there is reasonable belief that the suspect presented him or herself as a credible threat to the safety of officers and/or others. Backing off from a mentally unstable (unpredictable) individual when a child is in immediate danger of GBI/death is not a feasible, nor reasonable, option. Of course, we're not privy to the specific facts that would present itself there such as, but not limited too, body language/gestures, language, erratic movement. All important variables in an evolving scenario.
There was a clear and unmistakable danger being presented to the child which necessitates/compels an immediate response from Law Enforcement. Again, Law Enforcement must make quick decisions on already rapidly evolving scenarios. It's very tragic that the child was injured, but the situation could have fared much worse if the suspect was allowed to further her dangerous endgame - whatever that may have been.
You are race pandering in order to indulge a narrative. There are a variety of other sites to humor such silliness, I do not think you'll find Gamespot's community as inviting to follow you down that rabbit hole.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
Always bringing race up. The facts show more white people are shot by police than black while committing less violent crimes which are when you most likely have a confrontation with police so that should make you rest easier since you want cops shooting white people.
Also there was no hostage and nowhere did it say he pointed a gun at police. So the cases aren't comparable. Bias everywhere. And that is why racism exists. Perceived racism is just as damaging as racism itself.
@PSP107: it's happened before, sadly. The possibility exists. Note I am saying the possibility exists, not that's what happened. Kids are coached, and adults lie.
An armed man who barricaded himself inside his home on Melrose Parkway in police custody after a 67-hour standoff.
...This was an armed white man, who barricaded himself in his home with weapons, and threatened the police, yet the police did everything in their power, for three days, to keep him alive... And yet when a black woman did the same shit, the police murdered her, after just a couple of hours.
This is why Black Lives Matter exists. The US criminal justice system is racially biased against blacks. When black and white people commit the same crimes, or are suspected of the same crimes, blacks are given extremely harsh punishments while whites are given a slap on the wrist.
Always bringing race up. The facts show more white people are shot by police than black while committing less violent crimes which are when you most likely have a confrontation with police so that should make you rest easier since you want cops shooting white people.
Also there was no hostage and nowhere did it say he pointed a gun at police. So the cases aren't comparable. Bias everywhere. And that is why racism exists. Perceived racism is just as damaging as racism itself.
Aren’t more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no.
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).
But as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.
U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.
Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.
And, when considering shootings confined within a single race, a black person shot and killed by police is more likely to have been unarmed than a white person. About 13 percent of all black people who have been fatally shot by police since January 2015 were unarmed, compared with 7 percent of all white people.
In response to these statistics, critics of police reform — often political conservatives and police unions — typically argue that the reason more black men and women are shot and killed by police is that black Americans commit more violent crime.
...
Despite these arguments, police reform advocates and researchers as well at The Post’s own analysis has consistently concluded that there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.
A 2015 study by a University of California at Davis researcher concluded there was “no relationship” between crime rates by race and racial bias in police killings. A report released last week by the Center for Policing Equity, which reviewed arrest and use-of-force data from 12 police departments, concluded that black residents were more often targeted for use of police force than white residents, even when adjusting for whether the person was a violent criminal.
“We’ve been hearing these arguments going around without any data or any evidence from folks who are saying that police are killing so many people — particularly black people — because they say black people are in high-crime communities and potentially involved in criminal activity,” Samuel Sinyangwe, a data analyst and activist with Campaign Zero — a policy-oriented activist collective associated with the Black Lives Matter protest movement — told the Huffington Post in December.
In a report covering 2015 data, Campaign Zero compared violent crime rates of 50 major cities to the rate at which police officers killed people, concluding that there was no correlation.
As part of its data effort, The Posttracks the “threat level” of each person who is shot and killed by a police officer: Were they shooting at the officer? Were they threatening the officer? Were they fleeing?
Overall, the majority of the people who have been shot and killed by police officers in 2015 and 2016 were, based on publicly available evidence, armed with a weapon and attempting to attack the officer or someone else.
But an independent analysis of The Post’sdata conducted by a team of criminal-justice researchers concluded that, when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are no more likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.
[Study finds police fatally shoot unarmed black men at disproportionate rates]
The study also sought to answer whether officers were more likely to shoot and kill someone who is unarmed if the shooting happened to occur in a high-crime area. They concluded that is not the case.
“The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black,” said Justin Nix, a criminal-justice researcher at the University of Louisville and one of the report’s authors, said in April. “Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”
“This just bolsters our confidence that there is some sort of implicit bias going on,” Nix said. “Officers are perceiving a greater threat when encountered by unarmed black citizens.”
Racial disparities in the rate of police shootings do not mean, though, that criminal-justice experts are not concerned about how many people are being killed by police officers — including white people.
Statistics kept by the FBI have never counted more than 460 police shootings in a single year. However, The Post’sdatabase chronicled 990 fatal police shootings in 2015, and 494 of those people were white.
Among them are several cases that drew national headlines. Two officers will face trial for the shooting of 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis, 2015’s youngest police-shooting victim. The family of Zachary Hammond, who was shot and killed by officers in Seneca, S.C., received a $2.15 million settlement.
The difference here is, like you said earlier, there is a child present in the scene. The police's actions in this case was extremely wreckless, putting the child in harm's way like that.
The exigent circumstance you presented does not hold up to scrutiny. If the exigent circumstance was that they were concerned about the safety of the child, then that argument fell apart the moment they shot the gun in the child's direction, and caused collateral damage as a result, injuring the child in the process. If she was too mentally unstable and erratic, then the safer option would've been to back off, and return with more officers and a better action plan on how to deal with the situation, in order to secure the safety of the child. But instead they decided to "shoot first, ask questions later".
The argument you are using to justify why the two scenarios turned out differently (the white male alive, the black female dead) is because there was a child present in the black female's case, but the fact is that if the presence of the child really was the issue, then the events would not have turned out as they did, because the actions that the police took only caused more harm to the child.
A substantial difference, wouldn't you say?
That is inaccurate. A weapon may be discharged at a suspect if there is reasonable belief that the suspect presented him or herself as a credible threat to the safety of officers and/or others. Backing off from a mentally unstable (unpredictable) individual when a child is in immediate danger of GBI/death is not a feasible, nor reasonable, option. Of course, we're not privy to the specific facts that would present itself there such as, but not limited too, body language/gestures, language, erratic movement. All important variables in an evolving scenario.
There was a clear and unmistakable danger being presented to the child which necessitates/compels an immediate response from Law Enforcement. Again, Law Enforcement must make quick decisions on already rapidly evolving scenarios. It's very tragic that the child was injured, but the situation could have fared much worse if the suspect was allowed to further her dangerous endgame - whatever that may have been.
You are race pandering in order to indulge a narrative. There are a variety of other sites to humor such silliness, I do not think you'll find Gamespot's community as inviting to follow you down that rabbit hole.
It depends on whose version of the story you believe, the police's version or the child's version.
According to the child's version of events, it does not appear the mother posed any threat or danger to her child, but it was the police that posed a threat/danger to the child.
The police's immediate response meant actually getting the child caught in the crossfire, and potentially killing him if the bullet hit him in the wrong place. It appears the reason the police shot her is because she verbally threatened to shoot them if they didn't get off her property, not because they had any concern for the child's safety. If they were concerned about the child's safety, then they would not be escalating the situation and trying to violently confront her in the child's presence. If the child came out unharmed, then you might have an argument. But the fact that the child came out injured, and the child says it was the police who shot him, goes against the police narrative that they were concerned about his safety.
Questioning racial motivations is justified in this case, considering how an armed white man came out alive from a similar barricade situation after police negotiated with him for three days, yet police never attempted anything of the sort with an armed black woman in a similar barricade situation, but shot her dead and injured her child after just a couple of hours. That's enough circumstantial evidence to question the possibility of racism being a factor in this case. What would be "silliness" is to deny any possibility of racism ever being a factor, which appears to be the knee-jerk reaction every time something like this happens.
The difference here is, like you said earlier, there is a child present in the scene. The police's actions in this case was extremely wreckless, putting the child in harm's way like that.
The exigent circumstance you presented does not hold up to scrutiny. If the exigent circumstance was that they were concerned about the safety of the child, then that argument fell apart the moment they shot the gun in the child's direction, and caused collateral damage as a result, injuring the child in the process. If she was too mentally unstable and erratic, then the safer option would've been to back off, and return with more officers and a better action plan on how to deal with the situation, in order to secure the safety of the child. But instead they decided to "shoot first, ask questions later".
The argument you are using to justify why the two scenarios turned out differently (the white male alive, the black female dead) is because there was a child present in the black female's case, but the fact is that if the presence of the child really was the issue, then the events would not have turned out as they did, because the actions that the police took only caused more harm to the child.
A substantial difference, wouldn't you say?
That is inaccurate. A weapon may be discharged at a suspect if there is reasonable belief that the suspect presented him or herself as a credible threat to the safety of officers and/or others. Backing off from a mentally unstable (unpredictable) individual when a child is in immediate danger of GBI/death is not a feasible, nor reasonable, option. Of course, we're not privy to the specific facts that would present itself there such as, but not limited too, body language/gestures, language, erratic movement. All important variables in an evolving scenario.
There was a clear and unmistakable danger being presented to the child which necessitates/compels an immediate response from Law Enforcement. Again, Law Enforcement must make quick decisions on already rapidly evolving scenarios. It's very tragic that the child was injured, but the situation could have fared much worse if the suspect was allowed to further her dangerous endgame - whatever that may have been.
You are race pandering in order to indulge a narrative. There are a variety of other sites to humor such silliness, I do not think you'll find Gamespot's community as inviting to follow you down that rabbit hole.
It depends on whose version of the story you believe, the police's version or the child's version.
According to the child's version of events, it does not appear the mother posed any threat or danger to her child, but it was the police that posed a threat/danger to the child.
The police's immediate response meant actually getting the child caught in the crossfire, and potentially killing him if the bullet hit him in the wrong place. It appears the reason the police shot her is because she verbally threatened to shoot them if they didn't get off her property, not because they had any concern for the child's safety. If they were concerned about the child's safety, then they would not be escalating the situation and trying to violently confront her in the child's presence. If the child came out unharmed, then you might have an argument. But the fact that the child came out injured, and the child says it was the police who shot him, goes against the police narrative that they were concerned about his safety.
Questioning racial motivations is justified in this case, considering how an armed white man came out alive from a similar barricade situation after police negotiated with him for three days, yet police never attempted anything of the sort with an armed black woman in a similar barricade situation, but shot her dead and injured her child after just a couple of hours. That's enough circumstantial evidence to question the possibility of racism being a factor in this case. What would be "silliness" is to deny any possibility of racism ever being a factor, which appears to be the knee-jerk reaction every time something like this happens.
Unfortunately, I cannot believe the child's version because of the previous videos where the mother practically brainwashes her child into believing the cops really want to kill them. Of course the child will not tell a story that favors the police. Yes, you can also argue that by that logic, you can't take the police's word for it either due to the history of racially motivated shootings.
However, just because a black woman who pointed a shotgun at an officer was killed by a white cop doesn't mean it HAS to be racially motivated. Maybe she cocked the shotgun back and made a threatening motion with the gun and that understandably would be reason enough to shoot first. If she never made a threatening gesture with the gun (no idea if she did or not) they might have kept talking (and it was at least six, not just a couple hours) and a resolution could have been achieved. Her past videos alluded to not being wanting a peaceful resolution, though. Her history of anti-police was on display. It was only going to end in violence.
As for Norfolk, the guy just so happened to be white, but he was also in his '70s. They may not have felt he was as an immediate threat as a young woman would have been thinking sharper and be faster on the draw. Reading that article you linked earlier also did not indicate if the man actually pointed a gun at anyone, just saying he was armed. And most importantly, as others have pointed out, he was by himself. He posed no danger to anyone except himself while being in that house. With Gaines, a child was involved and that caused an immediate response. Ultimately, it would have ended much quicker if we're to suspect racial motivation here, as they would have just gone in and shot her the moment they arrived and heard she had a weapon.
It depends on whose version of the story you believe, the police's version or the child's version.
According to the child's version of events, it does not appear the mother posed any threat or danger to her child, but it was the police that posed a threat/danger to the child.
The police's immediate response meant actually getting the child caught in the crossfire, and potentially killing him if the bullet hit him in the wrong place. It appears the reason the police shot her is because she verbally threatened to shoot them if they didn't get off her property, not because they had any concern for the child's safety. If they were concerned about the child's safety, then they would not be escalating the situation and trying to violently confront her in the child's presence. If the child came out unharmed, then you might have an argument. But the fact that the child came out injured, and the child says it was the police who shot him, goes against the police narrative that they were concerned about his safety.
Questioning racial motivations is justified in this case, considering how an armed white man came out alive from a similar barricade situation after police negotiated with him for three days, yet police never attempted anything of the sort with an armed black woman in a similar barricade situation, but shot her dead and injured her child after just a couple of hours. That's enough circumstantial evidence to question the possibility of racism being a factor in this case. What would be "silliness" is to deny any possibility of racism ever being a factor, which appears to be the knee-jerk reaction every time something like this happens.
Keep in mind that an "interview" by family members of a five (5) year old is by no means a credible source of material. There's reasons why detectives have CPS/child social worker experts assist them in investigations when interviewing very young children. A critical incident can be very traumatizing coupled with his injury, death of mother (assuming he cognitively understands such an outcome), and the rapidly evolving events. His mind cannot effectively process it nor understand what was going on; be it myopically or across the bigger picture. Children can be easily coached, or mislead by family members - I see it all the time. It's pushed to the point where children can (and are) be effectively brainwashed to justify their very own physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
It's a probable scenario, and LEOs at that time were prepared for that, as their special enforcement detail team are specifically trained in that manner. You have a ticking time-bomb with a mentally ill and unstable woman; armed with a weapon who had no disregard for her own safety, safety of her child, nor the safety of law enforcement. Police must make a decision - rapidly - in order to proceed to handle this and save a child's life who was in immediate danger of GBI/death. Again, there's more specific facts in the scenario which need to be present to better evaluate the overall picture (don't lose the forest among the trees) and the investigation will pan that out.
No, you are looking for a narrative that isn't present based purely on perceived racism. Pandering to such silliness is the reason why we face such divisiveness within the country. It's the reason why someone refuses to take responsibly for actions and lash out that the reason they were stopped was because of the color of their skin and not the conscious decision making they made. You are part of the problem.
@Stevo_the_gamer: he will just ignore all the ways those two cases are very different again and say "but this white guy wasn't shot". Jag has shown himself to be completely incapable of utilizing any sort of critical thinking or logic in this thread.
He is going to see what he wants to see no matter what.
People on here(thankfully only looks like 2...) actually said the police should of backed off.... With a child and gun in the hands of a mentally unstable person some of you actually thought they should just back off..
It depends on whose version of the story you believe, the police's version or the child's version.
According to the child's version of events, it does not appear the mother posed any threat or danger to her child, but it was the police that posed a threat/danger to the child.
The police's immediate response meant actually getting the child caught in the crossfire, and potentially killing him if the bullet hit him in the wrong place. It appears the reason the police shot her is because she verbally threatened to shoot them if they didn't get off her property, not because they had any concern for the child's safety. If they were concerned about the child's safety, then they would not be escalating the situation and trying to violently confront her in the child's presence. If the child came out unharmed, then you might have an argument. But the fact that the child came out injured, and the child says it was the police who shot him, goes against the police narrative that they were concerned about his safety.
Questioning racial motivations is justified in this case, considering how an armed white man came out alive from a similar barricade situation after police negotiated with him for three days, yet police never attempted anything of the sort with an armed black woman in a similar barricade situation, but shot her dead and injured her child after just a couple of hours. That's enough circumstantial evidence to question the possibility of racism being a factor in this case. What would be "silliness" is to deny any possibility of racism ever being a factor, which appears to be the knee-jerk reaction every time something like this happens.
Keep in mind that an "interview" by family members of a five (5) year old is by no means a credible source of material. There's reasons why detectives have CPS/child social worker experts assist them in investigations when interviewing very young children. A critical incident can be very traumatizing coupled with his injury, death of mother (assuming he cognitively understands such an outcome), and the rapidly evolving events. His mind cannot effectively process it nor understand what was going on; be it myopically or across the bigger picture. Children can be easily coached, or mislead by family members - I see it all the time. It's pushed to the point where children can (and are) be effectively brainwashed to justify their very own physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
It's a probable scenario, and LEOs at that time were prepared for that, as their special enforcement detail team are specifically trained in that manner. You have a ticking time-bomb with a mentally ill and unstable woman; armed with a weapon who had no disregard for her own safety, safety of her child, nor the safety of law enforcement. Police must make a decision - rapidly - in order to proceed to handle this and save a child's life who was in immediate danger of GBI/death. Again, there's more specific facts in the scenario which need to be present to better evaluate the overall picture (don't lose the forest among the trees) and the investigation will pan that out.
No, you are looking for a narrative that isn't present based purely on perceived racism. Pandering to such silliness is the reason why we face such divisiveness within the country. It's the reason why someone refuses to take responsibly for actions and lash out that the reason they were stopped was because of the color of their skin and not the conscious decision making they made. You are part of the problem.
Likewise, police officers present at the scene are not reliable witnesses either, since they will all be biased towards the officer who shot her. So it comes down to choosing between the police officers and the child, both of whom are questionable witnesses.
Again, the child was most likely shot by the police. If the police were concerned about the safety of the child, then they would not have shot the child. This case would require further investigation into what actually happened, preferably by a third-party that isn't from the local police department (who will try to defend their own), and possibly be taken to court, to get to the bottom of this.
When there is statistical data showing a repeated pattern of US police disproportionately shooting dead blacks (and Hispanics) at a rate several times higher than whites, then it would only be logical to look into the possibility of racial motivations being a factor in this discrepancy. Denying any possibility of racial motivations being a factor in these shootings would not only be "silliness", but irrational, in light of the statistical evidence. And finally, whatever divisiveness and issues exist within your country is of no personal concern to me. I'm not American, so it makes no difference to me.
Log in to comment