Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

[trmac2016]

You are the only one that is pushing a narrative and as well as name calling or labeling. Civilized discussion, you mean if I don't agree with your narrative than you label me. You sir are the class act. Not sure you know how to have a discussion without name calling.


PS: I asked you if you were there at the time of the traffic stop? You didn't answer that question. Soooo...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

You are the only one that is pushing a narrative and as well as name calling or labeling. Civilized discussion, you mean if I don't agree with your narrative than you label me. You sir are the class act. Not sure you know how to have a discussion without name calling.

PS: I asked you if you were there at the time of the traffic stop? You didn't answer that question. Soooo...

Civilized discussion, meaning stop lying about what I have said, stop mudslinging at the victim of an officer-involved shooting and stop bringing up race. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging. I didn't lie about the content of your posts. I didn't sling any mud at Officer Yanez. I didn't bring up race.

As for your question, I wasn't there. Neither were you.

 

[trmac2016]

Just what someone that repeats media lies would say. And I said I wasn't trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. This was a fun debate not s why you would stupe to name calling. Good afternoon.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I guess when you said that Yanez stop the car for in your words, "Driving while black" so you brought race into the conversation. You called me a lier and you talk about mudslinging. You are a remarkable guy, I hope that you have a great night.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

I guess when you said that Yanez stop the car for in your words, "Driving while black" so you brought race into the conversation. You called me a lier and you talk about mudslinging. You are a remarkable guy, I hope that you have a great night.

So, you are referring to this:

PS: All my posts up to this point are based on the assumptions that Officer Yanez's statements are true. We can certainly talk about the other case, i.e., he made this felony stop story up after the fact and Castile was stopped for "driving while black".

This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.

 

[trmac2016]

So, you are referring to this:



This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.

So you saying that I was lying and mudslinging is what your talking about. Because I didn't lie and you were slinging mud by calling me a lier among other things. As far as mudslinging a victim, that is nonsense.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[trmac2016]

How about stop posting about topics that you have no clue about. LEOs these days have little training and a bully attitude, leading them to make stupid decisions, such as driving up to a suspect in a way that their only option is to shoot him, or using a firearm as a "compliance device" leaving them no other option than to shoot upon perceived (not actual) non-compliance, or shooting a person that is not an imminent threat, or just shooting the wrong person.

The rest of your post is just the usual "he had it coming" BS. Not all police shootings are justified, unless you want the bullies in uniform running your neighborhood. The Keith Lamont Scott shooting seems to be justified. The Charles Kinsey shooting was clearly not, neither was the Philando Castile shooting.

I almost forgot about this one where you said I should stop posting about topics that I have no clue about. Nice.

So, you are referring to this:



This was a hypothetical argument, assuming that Officer Yanez's statements aren't true. However, I was leading this entire discussion assuming that Officer Yanez's statements are true. I stated so multiple times. Sorry if you somehow misunderstood that.

This still leaves us with with the lying and mudslinging. Read posts #23 and #34 about the lying and posts #38 and #40 about the mudslinging.

So, no quotes, no rebuttal of my arguments, no apology for making stuff up, just another reply with the same BS: Stop breaking the law and you won't get shot. Should the same apply to police officers then? You see your problem here, right? Charles Kinsey and Philando Castile didn't break any law. The responding officers did and got off the hook.

There are certainly more than the 4 incidents I posted. Most police contacts involve benign traffic stops. The problem is with those contacts that require more training. You seem to ignore the fact that the officers in all these 4 incidents disregarded officer safety. Better training is all about improving officer safety. As a LEO, you should know that!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

So you saying that I was lying and mudslinging is what your talking about. Because I didn't lie and you were slinging mud by calling me a lier among other things. As far as mudslinging a victim, that is nonsense.

You said:

You called the traffic stop an excuse when in fact he stopped the vehicle because it matched the description of a vehicle that left the scene of an armed robbery and the suspect that was shot happened to be known by the officers.

I simply did not called the traffic stop an excuse. You lied about what I said. I explained that in post #31. Proof me wrong by providing a quote from this thread or apologize.

You said:

Fact is that the video on YouTube you don't hear Castile say anything because it didn't start until after the shooting. At least we don't see what happened before, just after. I wonder why.

Insinuating wrongdoing by the passenger recording a video. Why would anyone do that other than for the purpose of mudslinging?

You said:

Also the driver known by police and was identified on video by Yanez before the stop. It is still not clear if he was the suspect or not unless you know something police don't. Did I mention that his gun was on his lap. I hope this will clear things up for you.

I explained why he was known by police and that there is no actual proof of a gun on his lap in post #38. Should that he was known by police somehow imply that he was a career criminal? Was there really a gun in his lap? Pure mudslinging.

Again, Philando Castile did not break any law but was shot and killed anyway. I posted the following:

If Officer Jeronimo Yanez's intent was to stop an armed robbery suspect, then he should have conducted a proper felony stop. He didn't. He conducted a basic traffic stop. My question is, why? Was he so poorly trained that he did't know that you just don't walk up to the driver-side window of an armed robbery suspect? By doing so, he put himself and everyone else in danger. He also limited his options in case something doesn't go according to plan. Well, something didn't go according to plan. He stopped the wrong person, got spooked by something and killed him. Are you telling me that this is not clear evidence of lack of training?

You seemed to have ZERO interest in this. Wonder why?

 

[trmac2016]

You clearly do not want to understand my posts. All 4 examples I posted clearly show piss-poor training and attitude that endangered the lives of officers and others. Not a single gun was pointed at any officer or in the hand of a suspect. In all these cases, the officers actions set themselves up for failure. That is the very definition of piss-poor training and attitude.

PS: I regularly train with current and retired police officers and these discussions come up quite often. Veteran officers understand the difference between a justified shooting and a charlie foxtrot.

You clearly don't want to understand my side either so I guess we are even, it is your opinion that they are acting on piss poor training.

You clearly do not understand what I have been talking about. I also doubt that you are a "16 year veteran police officer", otherwise you would know what I am talking about.

No one says that a LEO should walk away from a situation. However, how about not screwing it up with a piss-poor bully attitude and piss-poor training? Here are some examples:

• Charles Kinsey: An officer shot at a mentally ill person that was not a threat. He missed 3 times. One of the misses hit Charles Kinsey. There was zero justification for any shooting. The officer is still with the force. Other officers who made false statements about the incident were also not charged.
• Philando Castile: Was shot during a traffic stop by an officer who was afraid of his own shadow and put himself into this situation by not following the correct procedures for a felony stop. The shooting will likely be called justified although it was not.
• Tamir Rice: Officers drove up to a suspect of a "man with a gun" call so close that they endangered their own life. If Tamir Rice had a firearm that shoots actual bullets and ill intend, one of those officers would be dead today. Instead, Tamir Rice is dead.
• In Link Removed, an officer jumped in the bed of a truck of a suspected fleeing drunk driver and shot him. The officer endangered his own life and therefore was justified in shooting the driver?

Lastly, a firearm is not a compliance device. The "comply or die" attitude needs to stop as they set police officers up for failure. It is also unlawful. LEOs are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of such piss-poor policies and training. There is a difference between a person that is a danger and is noncompliant and a person that is not a danger. Persons that are not a danger but noncompliant shouldn't be just shot (and potentially killed). Someone who is dead certainly can't comply anymore!

And please, stop with this "you want Police to give their lives before they draw their weapons" BS. No one says that.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

I almost forgot about this one where you said I should stop posting about topics that I have no clue about. Nice.

Is there any point in this? If so, you are free to make any substantial arguments. So far, you haven't. I seems I was right with my assumption. Your first post in this thread that I replied to in this fashion seems to be worth repeating:

Police that see a violation and look the other way are considered cowards. So to say Cops put themselves in positions were they have no choice but kill someone is just foolish. How about stop breaking the law and when caught fighting the Cops. Everytime someone steals, someone else pays. How about stop thinking that society owes you something that you have not earned. It is time to stop allowing bullies from running our neighborhoods and take responsibility for for your actions follow the rules that keep our children safe. Life is not a party, the things that we do or don't do have consciences.

Words of a bully in uniform, apparently.

 

[bofh]

You clearly don't want to understand my side either so I guess we are even, it is your opinion that they are acting on piss poor training.

Understood, you have zero interest in this:

If Officer Jeronimo Yanez's intent was to stop an armed robbery suspect, then he should have conducted a proper felony stop. He didn't. He conducted a basic traffic stop. My question is, why? Was he so poorly trained that he did't know that you just don't walk up to the driver-side window of an armed robbery suspect? By doing so, he put himself and everyone else in danger. He also limited his options in case something doesn't go according to plan. Well, something didn't go according to plan. He stopped the wrong person, got spooked by something and killed him. Are you telling me that this is not clear evidence of lack of training?

Have you any explanation for those shootings or is it just "**** happens" and "comply or die"?

 

[trmac2016]

Wow, there it is. You should have started with that. Cops are human beings and just because a cop does his job makes him a bully. Your priceless, I told you that I have stopped a stolen car and made the driver believe that I stopped them for other reasons because my backup was 20 miles away. It's called diffusing the driver. You were not clear when you talked about Yanez excuse until I mentioned it using traffic stop instead of Officer Yanez. My bad but that doesn't make it a lie, that called misspeaking. You like twisting words to fit your agenda. I will say I've been called many things but never a bully. If anything I'm too nice to be a cop. At least that's what my boss has said many times. I truly hope that you have a great night. Not all Cops are bullies, though I have met a few. This was fun I like a good debate.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[trmac2016]

Understood, you have zero interest in this:



Have you any explanation for those shootings or is it just "**** happens" and "comply or die"?

You kidding right, I keep telling you that cops make mistakes and so do citizens, it is unfortunate that so many end in tragedy as we have seen in the last few months. I do believe that it may be a training issue in some cases, but overall it's complacency. Everyone knows that is a problem over time. Problems can also point to a lack of respect on both side. It doesn't take long for Cops to overreact to anyone who is non-complient. So I do agree with some of your points and wish that I had an answer that would help people understand why cops react they way they do, or why people decide is a good idea to fight the police. I may not agree with everything you say but I would not call you a lier. Not everyone thinks the same, it we did than we would not have crime or war.

I hear both side and your not wrong when you say Yanez should have completed a felony stop, he was not alone at the time. Do I believe that that any of the subjects that were shot deserve it, no. I do know this if he did have gun on his lap on top of his wallet, why would he move his hand towards he wallet. If he had told the officer he had a gun it was his responsibility to inform police and tell them where it is. If he had Yanez would not have told him to get his license. As far as the passenger goes all I was saying is that the video started after the shooting. Most videos start as the cops pull them out. Not trying to imply anything but that is my experience with video. I hope this clears things up for you. I wasn't trying to change your words, I'm not computer wise so I was going by memory. Be well, great debate. Good night sir.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bofh]

Wow, there it is. You should have started with that. Cops are human beings and just because a cop does his job makes him a bully. Your priceless, I told you that I have stopped a stolen car and made the driver believe that I stopped them for other reasons because my backup was 20 miles away. It's called diffusing the driver. You were not clear when you talked about Yanez excuse until I mentioned it using traffic stop instead of Officer Yanez. My bad but that doesn't make it a lie, that called misspeaking. You like twisting words to fit your agenda. I will say I've been called many things but never a bully. If anything I'm too nice to be a cop. At least that's what my boss has said many times. I truly hope that you have a great night. Not all Cops are bullies, though I have met a few. This was fun I like a good debate.

I have been simply just quoting and explaining over and over again my post #23 on this issue. We are at post #51. Glad you finally caught up. I haven't twisted anything. You may just have misunderstood what I meant. It happens.

As I said before:

PS: I regularly train with current and retired police officers and these discussions come up quite often. Veteran officers understand the difference between a justified shooting and a charlie foxtrot.

The common conclusion on a number of these shootings is that they turned out to be a charlie foxtrot because of the lack of training that caused ill-advised decisions.

• Charles Kinsey: Poor marksmanship is just that, piss-poor training, especially when the situation warranted no shooting whatsoever. A mentally ill person who is not an imminent threat and is not complying with orders simply does not become target practice. Missing the intended target and hitting the caretaker is just the icing on the cake for this CF.
• Philando Castile: No police officer in their right mind simply walks up to the driver-side window of an armed robbery suspect. So many officers have been wounded or killed doing that. A few officers, such as Yanez, have inadvertently wounded or killed the wrong person doing that. Philando Castile was innocent, a legal gun carrier and killed due to piss-poor procedure by the officer.
• Tamir Rice: No police officer in their right mind drives up to a suspect of a man with a gun call at 10 feet distance. There is zero officer safety. If the suspects makes any move, the officer has to fire his weapon. The officer is setup for either being killed or prosecuted. Tamir Rice had a gun (real or not does not make any difference). The responding officers set themselves up to shoot and kill Rice with no other alternative.
• In Link Removed: No police officer in their right mind jumps on the truck bed of a fleeing suspected drunk driver. That's just suicide a la Lethal Weapon. The officer could have been easily killed, instead he killed the drunk driver. Joshua Grubb was killed by Officer Tyrel Lorenz because Officer Lorenz watched too many movies and didn't care about anyone's safety.

There is a reason why I mentioned those 4 cases in my post #13. I discussed them with the guys I train with. My post #2, specifically the part in bold, was based on that discussion:

Whether a police shooting was justified depends entirely on the circumstances of the shooting and not on the run-ins with the law of the person shot that the shooting officers din't know about at the time of the shooting. While these prior run-ins may explain the behavior of the person shot, they do not explain the behavior of the person doing the shooting.

Your post is mixing the evidence from the scene that relates to the circumstances of the shooting with the classical smear campaign stuff that Bob Owens from Bearing Arms regularly does, also known as, he had it coming.

The evidence is pointing toward that the shooting was justified, given the current "comply or die" laws. LEOs far too often put themselves into a situation where they have no other option than to shoot as directed by SOP.

 

[bofh]

You kidding right, I keep telling you that cops make mistakes and so do citizens, it is unfortunate that so many end in tragedy as we have seen in the last few months. I do believe that it may be a training issue in some cases, but overall it's complacency. Everyone knows that is a problem over time. Problems can also point to a lack of respect on both side. It doesn't take long for Cops to overreact to anyone who is non-complient. So I do agree with some of your points and wish that I had an answer that would help people understand why cops react they way they do, or why people decide is a good idea to fight the police. I may not agree with everything you say but I would not call you a lier. Not everyone thinks the same, it we did than we would not have crime or war.

I hear both side and your not wrong when you say Yanez should have completed a felony stop, he was not alone at the time. Do I believe that that any of the subjects that were shot deserve it, no. I do know this if he did have gun on his lap on top of his wallet, why would he move his hand towards he wallet. If he had told the officer he had a gun it was his responsibility to inform police and tell them where it is. If he had Yanez would not have told him to get his license. As far as the passenger goes all I was saying is that the video started after the shooting. Most videos start as the cops pull them out. Not trying to imply anything but that is my experience with video. I hope this clears things up for you. I wasn't trying to change your words, I'm not computer wise so I was going by memory. Be well, great debate. Good night sir.

I was just replying based on your comment that implied that you seem to have this opinion:

You clearly don't want to understand my side either so I guess we are even, it is your opinion that they are acting on piss poor training.

I was surprised about that post. You had ample opportunity to explain your position better. Read my post above.

 

[trmac2016]

Cops don't always think before they act hence jumping on a moving vehicle, that is either really heroic or stupid. And I reacted to being called a lier and missed the point. Never said cops are all in control of their impulses. No more than any other person that does a job where they run towards the gun fire, burning buildings/cars and stop random car in the middle of nowhere or inner city. These are not normal people. You've trained with them so you know what I'm talking about. Cops see people at their worst and sometimes things going wrong. Do we need to weed out the bullies? Yes as soon as they show their hand. I look forward to debating other topics in the future. Good night.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[lionsong112]

when you disobey an officer of the law. threaten them. you go down. its simple

 

[Deanimator]

Cops are human beings

So are James Holmes and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

Being a human being doesn't guarantee that you're a decent human being.

Anthony Abbate was a cop (and at least arguably) a human being when he tried to stomp barmaid Karolina Obyrcka to death for refusing to serve him when drunk.

His friends whom he enlisted to intimidate the victim, her employer, co-workers and witnesses were also cops (and at least arguably) human beings.

Do you consider him and them DECENT human beings?

 

[Deanimator]

I guess if everyone was perfect we would not be talking about this. Again it would be great it cops were robots but their not their humans with feeling, families and put their lives on the line everyday at lower pay then the trashman. All I can say is if people would just comply with police commands or simply stop breaking the law. If that would happen training wouldn't be an issue.

With what police commands did James Blake NOT comply?

With what police commands did Akai Gurley NOT comply?

With what police commands did Charles Kinsey NOT comply?

With what police commands did this man NOT comply?

 

[Reba]

There are evil bad cops but that doesn't make all cops evil.

There are heroic good cops but that doesn't make all cops heroic.

The bad cops need to be seriously dealt with.

The good cops should never be lumped in with or condemned with the bad cops.

 

[trmac2016]

Well let us look at this incident closer. This trooper had the same thing happen to him in 5 points and that individual came out with a gun. This one here he was fired and convicted for attempted murder. I am glad that the young man who was shot is ok now. I am also glad that the trooper is not longer a cop.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk