Save a kitty/refuse to ID/get shot dead by cop

[Rhino]

...There is no report of Lawrence having gotten violent with the cops...

You didn't read the links then, or you just chose to ignore them. He became belligerent before the police even arrived. That's why the police were called. He continued that behavior after they arrived, which awarded him with a disorderly conduct arrest. When he resisted arrest, things escalated. That's what normally happens when someone resists arrest. Lawrence created the disturbance that resulted in the cops being charged. He continued that disturbance after their arrival, resulting in a disorderly conduct arrest, which he resisted. That's what caused the situation to become violent. He caused the problem at every step of the process. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Whether or not the violence warranted the fatal shot is still under investigation, but there's nothing in the news reports that we can use to judge that point. And even if there were, news reports are notoriously short on facts and long on supposition in cases like this. But apparently being short on facts and long on supposition doesn't seem to be much of a problem for you here, since your entire premise is based on it. You're normally one of the most reasoned members on this forum. I'm surprised to see you so easily cast reason aside in this case.
.

You people quite literally sicken me.

I'm disappointed to say you make me feel the same way here. Just as so many people like to claim racism whenever a white cop shoots a black person when there's no evidence to support the claim, you have your mind made up beforehand, and you couldn't care less if the facts fit your preconceived notion or not. Very disappointing. Save your ire for cops that truly deserve it, and stop trying to blame officers for acts they haven't committed, or where there is yet no evidence of any such improper acts having been committed.

 

[BluesStringer]

You didn't read the links then, or you just chose to ignore them. He became belligerent before the police even arrived. That's why the police were called. He continued that behavior after they arrived, which awarded him with a disorderly conduct arrest. When he resisted arrest, things escalated. That's what normally happens when someone resists arrest. Lawrence created the disturbance that resulted in the cops being charged. He continued that disturbance after their arrival, resulting in a disorderly conduct arrest, which he resisted. That's what caused the situation to become violent. He caused the problem at every step of the process. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Whether or not the violence warranted the fatal shot is still under investigation, but there's nothing in the news reports that we can use to judge that point. And even if there were, news reports are notoriously short on facts and long on supposition in cases like this. But apparently being short on facts and long on supposition doesn't seem to be much of a problem for you here, since your entire premise is based on it. You're normally one of the most reasoned members on this forum. I'm surprised to see you so easily cast reason aside in this case.
.
I'm disappointed to say you make me feel the same way here. Just as so many people like to claim racism whenever a white cop shoots a black person when there's no evidence to support the claim, you have your mind made up beforehand, and you couldn't care less if the facts fit your preconceived notion or not. Very disappointing. Save your ire for cops that truly deserve it, and stop trying to blame officers for acts they haven't committed, or where there is yet no evidence of any such improper acts having been committed.

And stop trying to give me commands, badgefluffer. Screw you and your all-the-time giving the benefit of the doubt to, in this case, two cops who couldn't figure out how to calm down a citizen enough to have him just walk away with the cat without resorting to gun play. Or better yet, convince the shelter employees to just take the cat and diffuse the situation that way.

You asked earlier why I didn't link to the "original" source. It's because al.com is the web arm of the most liberal newspaper company in the state, probably in all of the Southeast. It covers news from Mobile to up here in Huntsville, and that company has printed lies about very close friends of mine who deigned to stand guard with guns over the grave sites of their family members that were constantly being defaced due to their fame when they were alive. I never link to that site if there's an alternative, because I will never voluntarily drive hits to their site that results in advertising revenue to their company. I saw that link first and went looking for a link that gave a fair hearing of what Lawrence's side would likely be, because it's for damn sure that nothing from al.com or one of its local papers would. No surprise that you soak up every word they say, even when they put words like "belligerent" and "disturbance" in quotations, suggesting some editorial license with whatever they were trying to convey about the facts.

How do you know he was being arresting for a DTP charge? If that's part of al.com's story now, it wasn't on the day I saw it, which was the same day I posted the OP. And speaking of the OP, it addressed every fact alleged in the al.com piece because it was in response to it, and at the bottom line of every fact that blogger addressed was a statement that I wholly agree with, "But that is of no import as he was simply trying to bring a stray cat into an animal shelter," so that's why I picked that blog over al.com's coverage.

I pick my own sources and reject sources that I both distrust and have years of personal experience with. If you don't like it, tough, stick your displeasure with my sourcing where the sun don't shine, and if you don't want to be known as a badgefluffer around here, get off your freakin' knees every time another killing-by-cops story comes up.

My thinking that killings by the state should be the rarest, last-resort type of story anywhere in this country sickens you. That is telling, Rhino, and in and of itself, sickening.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

And stop trying to give me commands, badgefluffer.

Yeah, insisting that we stick to facts really makes me biased.
.

Screw you and your all-the-time giving the benefit of the doubt to, in this case, two cops who couldn't figure out how to calm down a citizen enough to have him just walk away with the cat without resorting to gun play.

Oh, you've got me there! I totally forgot it's always possible to calm down a belligerent, irate person, and that any cop in America who fails to do so is obviously doing something terribly wrong and is deserving of severe punishment. How could I have missed that?!? Are you really listening to what you're saying? I don't discount the possibility that the police did something wrong. I'm merely pointing out the very obvious fact that there is zero evidence suggesting that they did, and a copious amount of evidence showing that Lawrence brought this on himself, at least in the initial stages anyway. And yes, I do give police the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It's called innocent until proven guilty, and it's a rather important precept in a document you used to proclaim high allegiance to.
.

Or better yet, convince the shelter employees to just take the cat and diffuse the situation that way.

Actually I agree that the ID requirement is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you can start a ruckus over it.
.

You asked earlier why I didn't link to the "original" source. It's because al.com is the web arm of the most liberal newspaper company in the state, probably in all of the Southeast. It covers news from Mobile to up here in Huntsville, and that company has printed lies about very close friends of mine who deigned to stand guard with guns over the grave sites of their family members that were constantly being defaced due to their fame when they were alive. I never link to that site if there's an alternative, because I will never voluntarily drive hits to their site that results in advertising revenue to their company. I saw that link first and went looking for a link that gave a fair hearing of what Lawrence's side would likely be, because it's for damn sure that nothing from al.com or one of its local papers would. No surprise that you soak up every word they say, even when they put words like "belligerent" and "disturbance" in quotations, suggesting some editorial license with whatever they were trying to convey about the facts.

And yet, the story that has your knickers all in a twist is based on information from that very source. If they're so reliable, then why are you so upset about a story that is based almost entirely on reporting from al.com? They also had a link to Link Removed, which had the same general information. Is WDHN the most liberal TV station in the state?
.

How do you know he was being arresting for a DTP charge? If that's part of al.com's story now, it wasn't on the day I saw it, which was the same day I posted the OP.

It was disorderly conduct, and it was in all three of the al.com articles that were linked in the story you had in the OP. All three were also dated 12/30 or 12/31, before you started this thread.
Man shot by Dothan police officer outside animal shelter has died | AL.com
Dothan police officer shoots, injures sovereign citizen during altercation outside animal shelter | AL.com
Dothan police officer shoots, injures sovereign citizen during altercation outside animal shelter | AL.com
.

And speaking of the OP, it addressed every fact alleged in the al.com piece because it was in response to it, and at the bottom line of every fact that blogger addressed was a statement that I wholly agree with, "But that is of no import as he was simply trying to bring a stray cat into an animal shelter," so that's why I picked that blog over al.com's coverage.
.
I pick my own sources and reject sources that I both distrust and have years of personal experience with. If you don't like it, tough, stick your displeasure with my sourcing where the sun don't shine, and if you don't want to be known as a badgefluffer around here, get off your freakin' knees every time another killing-by-cops story comes up.

I'm the last person to begrudge anyone being picky over sources. But being picky is a whole different story from being in complete contradiction of the facts. And if you think sticking to the facts makes me biased in any way, you've gone off the deep end. You're the one building the bad reputation, so what you think of me in this regard would only make me laugh if it didn't sadden me to see how far off the reservation you're going.
.

My thinking that killings by the state should be the rarest, last-resort type of story anywhere in this country sickens you. That is telling, Rhino, and in and of itself, sickening.

We finally agree on something. Your thinking of that really does sicken me, because it's wrong. Not once have I even remotely hinted that I don't want killings by the state to be rare. This lie by you is just more evidence of how willing you are to distort the truth and propagate falsehoods to push your personal crusade against cops. Reminds me of a line from a movie. Sell crazy someplace else. We're all full up here.

 

[vernsimpson]

IMHO there are bad people out there in a lot of different places. But thankfully there are a small percentage in most places. From the story in the OP this is an example of one.

But should we tar and feather ALL cops because of a few bad ones? If so, then if a white, black or Hispanic teen or man robs a store, shoots someone or does other crimes then we should say ALL white, black or Hispanic teens or men are criminals!!!

 

[BluesStringer]

And yes, I do give police the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It's called innocent until proven guilty, and it's a rather important precept in a document you used to proclaim high allegiance to.

Oh really? Where's the "benefit of the doubt" for Lawrence? You have taken the word from cops that every single thing they said stands as evidence, "...showing that Lawrence brought this on himself..."

And what you fail to understand (or is it refuse to accept?) is that benefit of the doubt was written to protect The People from malicious prosecution by the state in court, not to protect the state when it turns to gun play against unarmed citizens out on the street. I am certainly under no obligation to take the cops' side just because their reports throw around words like "disorderly" and "belligerent," and neither are you, but you can't help yourself..

Actually I agree that the ID requirement is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you can start a ruckus over it.

What's your evidence that anything other than raised voices and probably some profanity is all the "ruckus" that earned Lawrence a bullet to the gut? Only two words: "disorderly" and "belligerent." There is no report alleging that Lawrence was violent at all.
.

And yet, the story that has your knickers all in a twist is based on information from that very source. If they're so reliable, then why are you so upset about a story that is based almost entirely on reporting from al.com?

I never said they were "reliable," I said that they attempted to give what Lawrence's side of the story would likely be, and they did. I also highlighted the statement that they made several times as a way to bottom-line the point I most agreed with them about, "But that is of no import as he was simply trying to bring a stray cat into an animal shelter, so that's why I picked that blog over al.com's coverage."

As per usual, you read what I say but don't even attempt to actually understand it, and then respond to me with words that originate in your statist's head, not mine.

They also had a link to Link Removed, which had the same general information. Is WDHN the most liberal TV station in the state?

You know what Rhino? Like I said before, screw you and your questioning why I didn't use one source over another. I already told you, I went searching for an alternate source and I picked one that at least had some attempt at objective scrutiny of the overall situation. When have you ever seen me run to mainstream sources as the basis of a thread I've started? You think I'm likely to start now just because of your trying to twist this into a sourcing argument? This is a thread about a cop who, even with a partner, couldn't keep his gun holstered even though there is zero reporting suggesting that the subject was violent. Oh, but the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is investigating, and just as soon as they deliver their findings that Lawrence went for the cops' gun, we can put this suicide by cop case to rest, and I have no doubt at all that WDHN or the Dothan Eagle or al.com will happily print that report as stone-cold righteous and conclusive "evidence," and you will say, "See? I told you so!" Good grief.
.

It was disorderly conduct, and it was in all three of the al.com articles that were linked in the story you had in the OP. All three were also dated 12/30 or 12/31, before you started this thread.
Man shot by Dothan police officer outside animal shelter has died | AL.com
Dothan police officer shoots, injures sovereign citizen during altercation outside animal shelter | AL.com
Dothan police officer shoots, injures sovereign citizen during altercation outside animal shelter | AL.com

So you post two links to the same page because they were linked twice in the OP piece, and then call them two separate articles?

The word "conduct" does not appear anywhere in *either* of the *two* articles you have linked there. The words "disorderly" and "belligerent" appear, but we have no idea if those words were reported by the shelter staff or the cops themselves, or if it did come from the cops and is found to be credible according to witnesses and/or evidence, that it means Lawrence was violent in any way. I am intimately familiar with the disorderly conduct statute in this state because its ambiguity and broadness used to be what cops would turn to to quash open carry here. There are myriad ways to catch a DC charge, and only one mention of violence appears within it, so even if it was a DC charge Lawrence was being arrested for, it doesn't mean he was violent, and if he wasn't, the gun had no business being unholstered. And he'd have to be a freakin' Ninja Warrior before I'd acquiesce to the notion that two cops couldn't subdue him without pulling a gun.

ALA CODE § 13A-11-7 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-11-7: DISORDERLY CONDUCT

(a) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

(2) Makes unreasonable noise; or

(3) In a public place uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or

(4) Without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

(5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or a transportation facility; or

(6) Congregates with other person in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse.

(b) Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §5525.)

That last line-item (6) is also frequently used to quash militia training, with as few as two people getting together to train, but I digress......
.

.....<snipped some more phony concern about my personal state of mind and other BS condescending crap about me being crazy because I vehemently disagree with Rhino's take on cops, statism etc. etc. etc.>....

.

We finally agree on something.

We have agreed on nothing, and you know it. I never agree with automatic, knee-jerk badgefluffers. I consider them the enemy because, in the overwhelming majority of possible interactions with government a citizen might have, it is the enemy of liberty, and the badges you statists fluff enforce the tyranny it imposes. Government is always force, and never benevolence. At its absolute best, it might achieve the status of being negligible, inconsequential or insignificant. That is very rarely the case when its enforcers get involved though, because government provides the imprimatur of legitimacy for its enforcers to commit literal piracy through the use of the implied threat of force for victimless "crimes" that no ostensibly "free" citizen should ever be held to account for.

Call me crazy all you want, badgefluffer, but I see this country for what it has become, not for what it once was or intended to be. None of your statist, badgefluffing clap-trap will change my mind.

Blues

 

[S&W645]

Hey Blues, he came armed with a stray cat. Do you realize how dangerous a weapon that is? Well maybe if it was a Tiger, Lion, or Bobcat. :wink:

I agree with you though. If there was no violence involved on his part, the use of a gun was unjustified. And that DC charge law should have been thrown out in any court long ago as overly broad so not a legal law.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hey Blues, he came armed with a stray cat. Do you realize how dangerous a weapon that is? Well maybe if it was a Tiger, Lion, or Bobcat. :wink:

I agree with you though. If there was no violence involved on his part, the use of a gun was unjustified. And that DC charge law should have been thrown out in any court long ago as overly broad so not a legal law.

For the most part, AL government and/or LE stays out of citizens' lives to an appropriate degree, but our laws are written such that almost any excuse they wish to assert to intrude on our lives can be "justified" under such broad statutes as that one.

As regards open carry, when our revised carry law went into effect in August of '13, a line was added to that same section that says, "(c) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of this section," thus fully legalizing OC by removing the final avenue of harassment that cops could use based on the practice. When I say "fully legalizing," I mean that the law is otherwise silent on the practice except for that one addition, which limits LE discretion, as opposed to "authorizing" something that needs no authorization because of the 2A and AL's Constitution as well. OC requires no permission (permits) here, and never has. With that one line added, it is no longer a legal crap-shoot that a DC charge will stick just for doing what no law prohibits, which should mean in all circumstances, just for doing what is perfectly legal, but because of the broadness of that statute, OC had to be excluded to stop cops from charging people for perfectly legal activity. Strange, but true.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

Oh really? Where's the "benefit of the doubt" for Lawrence? You have taken the word from cops that every single thing they said stands as evidence, "...showing that Lawrence brought this on himself..."

Lawrence gets the benefit of the doubt in the investigation that is ongoing right now. The officers have to prove that the shooting was justified. That's standard procedure. I said in my first post that whether or not the shooting was justified is still under investigation. I repeated it in my second post, and specifically said there's nothing in the news reports that we can use to judge that point. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. It means I'm using common sense and limiting my comments to the facts available.
.

And what you fail to understand (or is it refuse to accept?) is that benefit of the doubt was written to protect The People from malicious prosecution by the state in court, not to protect the state when it turns to gun play against unarmed citizens out on the street. I am certainly under no obligation to take the cops' side just because their reports throw around words like "disorderly" and "belligerent," and neither are you, but you can't help yourself.

And you're apparently failing to read what I wrote again. The only thing I'm failing to understand is why you've reached a judgment based on events or circumstances that so far have not been reported to have happened. You have a problem with me because I insist on sticking with the known facts instead of treating supposition and innuendo as facts as you are doing. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to assume wrongdoing on the part of police until there is at least some evidence that there has been some. So far there isn't. And your irrational hatred and suspicion of all cops does not constitute evidence.
.

What's your evidence that anything other than raised voices and probably some profanity is all the "ruckus" that earned Lawrence a bullet to the gut? Only two words: "disorderly" and "belligerent." There is no report alleging that Lawrence was violent at all.

And "altercation" if you follow the links I posted. Again, I didn't pass judgment on whether the behavior deserved the bullet. I've said all along that is what the state investigation will determine. I said all reports indicate he was responsible for the situation that led to the incident.
.

I never said they were "reliable," I said that they attempted to give what Lawrence's side of the story would likely be, and they did.

You said they were the "web arm of the most liberal newspaper company in the state, probably in all of the Southeast", that they'd printed lies about very close friends of yours, and that you never link to that site. That pretty much paints the picture that you think they're synonymous with dirt. I was being sarcastic when I said you thought they were reliable, because the story you linked in the OP was based almost entirely on information from this 'dirt' source that you hate.
.

I also highlighted the statement that they made several times as a way to bottom-line the point I most agreed with them about, "But that is of no import as he was simply trying to bring a stray cat into an animal shelter, so that's why I picked that blog over al.com's coverage."

Yeah. The blog that was based almost entirely on al.com's (dirt) coverage. That was what I was being sarcastic about.
.

As per usual, you read what I say but don't even attempt to actually understand it, and then respond to me with words that originate in your statist's head, not mine.

I understood it. I even quoted it. But apparently you don't remember it.
.

You know what Rhino? Like I said before, screw you and your questioning why I didn't use one source over another. I already told you, I went searching for an alternate source and I picked one that at least had some attempt at objective scrutiny of the overall situation. When have you ever seen me run to mainstream sources as the basis of a thread I've started? You think I'm likely to start now just because of your trying to twist this into a sourcing argument?

Um, don't look now, but you're the one who started the flap over sources when you went ballistic about al.com in post 22. Fine by me if we stop with that crap. I thought it was pointless to begin with.
.

This is a thread about a cop who, even with a partner, couldn't keep his gun holstered even though there is zero reporting suggesting that the subject was violent.

No, this is a thread about a cop hater on a forum who can't keep his blatant bias holstered even though there is zero reporting suggesting that the officers in this incident did anything wrong whatsoever. If any such evidence ever surfaces, I'll be just as anxious as anyone else to push for the punishment of those officers accordingly. But I'm not going to ridiculously call for punishment of anyone when there's no evidence yet that they've done anything wrong.
.

Oh, but the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is investigating, and just as soon as they deliver their findings that Lawrence went for the cops' gun, we can put this suicide by cop case to rest, and I have no doubt at all that WDHN or the Dothan Eagle or al.com will happily print that report as stone-cold righteous and conclusive "evidence," and you will say, "See? I told you so!" Good grief.

I'm already saying good grief, every time you spout this unsubstantiated and discriminatory BS.
.

So you post two links to the same page because they were linked twice in the OP piece, and then call them two separate articles?

So you ignore the original three links I was trying to repost for your convenience and claim they didn't exist because I made a mistake when pasting them? My apologies for trying to make things convenient for you. They're still in post 12, where they've been all along.
.

The word "conduct" does not appear anywhere in *either* of the *two* articles you have linked there. The words "disorderly" and "belligerent" appear, but we have no idea if those words were reported by the shelter staff or the cops themselves, or if it did come from the cops and is found to be credible according to witnesses and/or evidence, that it means Lawrence was violent in any way. I am intimately familiar with the disorderly conduct statute in this state because its ambiguity and broadness used to be what cops would turn to to quash open carry here. There are myriad ways to catch a DC charge, and only one mention of violence appears within it, so even if it was a DC charge Lawrence was being arrested for, it doesn't mean he was violent, and if he wasn't, the gun had no business being unholstered. And he'd have to be a freakin' Ninja Warrior before I'd acquiesce to the notion that two cops couldn't subdue him without pulling a gun.

So if the article says someone was arrested for murder, does that mean he wasn't arrested because it didn't say "first degree murder"? Give me a break. Try this:
.

Police were preparing to arrest the man on a disorderly conduct charge...

It was in that link you chose to ignore.
.

That last line-item (6) is also frequently used to quash militia training, with as few as two people getting together to train, but I digress......

Okay.
.

We have agreed on nothing, and you know it.

Sure we did. You said your thinking sickened me, and it did.
.

I never agree with automatic, knee-jerk...
.
...clap-trap will change my mind.

I never agree with automatic, knee-jerk cop haters either. And nothing you've said here is going to change my mind. So I guess being stubborn is something we have in common.

 

[phillip69]

sleep is overrated so i looked him up at 230am.

A man who died a few hours after being shot by a dothan police officer

one dead pos, nothing to see here move on. Lol

my god man! You are **sick**!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Twistedcowboy]

Regardless of any of the outcome, the whole situation could have been diffused when the officers got there. They should have just looked at the workers and said "can you just take the cat?" But they didn't. I wasn't there, so I don't know if the shooting was justified. Being unarmed does NOT automatically mean it wasn't justified. Tazing him a couple of times might have done the job. Or he might have been one of those people that tazing doesn't really work on. None of us on this site will ever know for sure. Apparently the shelter doesn't have surveillance?

Sent from my Xoom using USA Carry mobile app