And so it begins

[MyTurn]

People get off for crimes we think they are guilty of all the time. Micheal Jackson got off. Bill Cosby got off. OJ Simpson got off. Someone in the UK recently got off because a judge ruled they had too much potential to go to jail eventhough she admitted to stabbing her BF.

Our justice system is messy and imperfect. Sometimes people like Zimmerman get off eventhough many including myself feel he shouldn't have but we are a nation of laws not vigilante justice.

Lets just explore your thought process here. You say African Americans are getting killed with confrontations with police which is certainly true but it's also true we have a process for that we have internal investigations. We have the DA office. We have grand juries. We now have body cameras. In many cases you mention charges were pursued and the juries found him not guilty.

So lets say you have a conversation with the FOP what exactly does that accomplish? Is there some sort of tactic you want changed because if these people didn't follow police procedures what is there to discuss? Do you think laws need to be changed so it's easier to convict officers?

Honestly, what I would like to see is a pilot program where people in these communities police themselves like we have with Tribal police of course in order for that to happen these people who are bitchin about police brutality would have to get off their arse and put their life on the line to make their community a safer place and not count on someone else to do it.

Your premise is interesting. Because people are found not guilty all the time that nothing should change. If your point is that because a jury did not convict a policeman and therefore the system is working as it should then, well, there's no reasoning with you. You can see multiple videos of policemen shooting unarmed people and come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the system.

I do agree, no meeting with the FOP is going to change anything. There have to be consequences to shooting unarmed people and if you are a policeman there are no consequences. The FOP has no interest in changing that and they would oppose it if it ever was suggested. Because people like you can accept this fact, the system doesn't change so you have black men worried about themselves, friends, and family peacefully protesting by kneeling when worshiping symbols of America. Everyone is complaining about that being disrespectful but somehow a policeman killing a 12 year old for being in a playground with a toy gun is just bad luck.

The ultimate irony of your response is that you turned it around to people being too lazy to police their own community when the protests are about the policeman coming into the community shooting unarmed citizens with no consequences.

[NCRAVEN]

Your premise is interesting. Because people are found not guilty all the time that nothing should change. If your point is that because a jury did not convict a policeman and therefore the system is working as it should then, well, there's no reasoning with you. You can see a multiple videos of policemen shooting unarmed people and come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the system.

I do agree, no meeting with the FOP is going to change anything. There have to be consequences to shooting unarmed people and if you are a policeman there are no consequences. The FOP has no interest in changing that and they would oppose it if it ever was suggested. Because people like you can accept this fact, the system doesn't change so you have black men worried about themselves, friends, and family peacefully protesting by kneeling when worshiping symbols of America. Everyone is complaining about that being disrespectful but somehow a policeman killing a 12 year old for being in a playground with a toy gun is just bad luck.

The ultimate irony of your response is that you turned it around to people being too lazy to police their own community when the protests are about the policeman coming into the community shooting unarmed citizens with no consequences.

Did you see the gun Tamir Rice had?

[MyTurn]

Did you see the gun Tamir Rice had?

Yes but I fail to see how that's relevant. A policeman who has been trained to use a weapon shoots a 12 year old on a playground after hearing no shots, no report of injury, and the only report is that there's a kid pointing a weapon at people. I would expect that someone who has been trained on weapons might have reasoned that a 12 year old a playground might not have a real gun. At the very least a non-lethal form of weapon would have been employed by the officer.

I guess for a counterpoint the officer had already had emotional issues and his handling of weapons was "dismal" as determined by the police so maybe he shouldn't have been a policeman in the first place. At the end of the day it appears he did nothing wrong because he was never convicted.

[NCRAVEN]

Yes but I fail to see how that's relevant. A policeman who has been trained to use a weapon shoots a 12 year old on a playground after hearing no shots, no report of injury, and the only report is that there's a kid pointing a weapon at people. I would expect that someone who has been trained on weapons might have reasoned that a 12 year old a playground might not have a real gun. At the very least a non-lethal form of weapon would have been employed by the officer.

I guess for a counterpoint the officer had already had emotional issues and his handling of weapons was "dismal" as determined by the police so maybe he shouldn't have been a policeman in the first place. At the end of the day it appears he did nothing wrong because he was never convicted.

Doing something wrong and committing a crime are two different

I feel your midst is made up so I won't say much. Ithe seems you have too high of an expectation of police. They're still people who make mistakes.

Cops don't carry guns to (or just to) protect the public, they carry them to protect themselves. Cops responded to a report of a kid pointing a gun at people they show up and Rice starts to pull it out at them. Tamir Rice had what looked like a real gun. If the cop reasoned in his mind that Rice gun might have been a toy or waited to hear shots and he was wrong about that, he doesn't go home. Was he wrong to shoot, well yeah we know that now. But based on the circumstances he had reasonable fear for his life or bodily harm thus it's not a crime to shoot.

[MyTurn]

Doing something wrong and committing a crime are two different

I feel your midst is made up so I won't say much. Ithe seems you have too high of an expectation of police. They're still people who make mistakes.

Cops don't carry guns to (or just to) protect the public, they carry them to protect themselves. Cops responded to a report of a kid pointing a gun at people they show up and Rice starts to pull it out at them. Tamir Rice had what looked like a real gun. If the cop reasoned in his mind that Rice gun might have been a toy or waited to hear shots and he was wrong about that, he doesn't go home. Was he wrong to shoot, well yeah we know that now. But based on the circumstances he had reasonable fear for his life or bodily harm thus it's not a crime to shoot.

A perceived fear of a 12 year old in a playground with no evidence that there is a real gun is not reasonable. The officer gave less than 3 seconds to decide he had to shoot to kill. Then after shooting a 12 year old offered no aid to the victim.

I believe that an officer has right to shoot someone if have reasonable belief they could lose for their life. What line of critical thinking leads an officer to this line of thinking with a12 year old in a playground? What police department lets an emotionally unstable person handle a gun and respond to situations where critical thinking is paramount? Why use lethal force first when so many other options are available?

I know I'm in the minority here and yet I think to my own children and what my reaction would be if they were shot and killed because someones judgement is bad. I can't fault these peaceful demonstrations by the players. There's an obvious problem that isn't being addressed and it's costing lives.

There are too many examples of poor judgement by police leading to killing with no follow up convictions or in many instances consequences at all.

[NCRAVEN]

A perceived fear of a 12 year old in a playground with no evidence that there is a real gun is not reasonable.

Again, did you see a picture of the gun? As a friend of mine said. If my kid was playing with that and a cop shot them, I've failed not the cops

What evidence did the cop have the gun wasn't real?

[MyTurn]

What evidence did the cop have the gun wasn't real?

1.) No evidence of any gun shots
2.) 12 years old
3.) In a playground
4.) No evidence of anyone hurt
5.) No reaction by the victim indicating violence

What evidence did he have that it was a real gun?
1.) Someone called the police saying there was someone in the park pointing a gun.
2.) It looked like a gun

You can't see that that threshold is too low to use lethal force? Especially for someone who is supposed to be trained in how to deal with this sort of situation?

[NCRAVEN]

1.) No evidence of any gun shots
2.) 12 years old
3.) In a playground
4.) No evidence of anyone hurt
5.) No reaction by the victim indicating violence

What evidence did he have that it was a real gun?
1.) Someone called the police saying there was someone in the park pointing a gun.
2.) It looked like a gun

You can't see that that threshold is too low to use lethal force? Especially for someone who is supposed to be trained in how to deal with this sort of situation?

Yeah, none of those are reason the gun wasn't real.

[Upper Deck John]

I think the FOP should let the players use some kind of VR simulator to deal with threats and see if they get a perfect score. After all everyone tells the police what they should have done anyway.

For some reason I'm thinking of the men in black shooting alley with will smith.

[MyTurn]

Yeah, none of those are reason the gun wasn't real.

From this I assume you believe that any time an officer believes there is a person holding a gun they are justified in using lethal force to kill them.

[NCRAVEN]

From this I assume you believe that any time an officer believes there is a person holding a gun they are justified in using lethal force to kill them.

Assume. Yeah don't do that.

[MyTurn]

Assume. Yeah don't do that.

Ok. Then I'll state it as fact and you can point out how I'm wrong. You believe that any time an officer believes there is a person holding a gun they are justified in using lethal force to kill them.