The man is deceased because he made the decision to resist being arrested and changed the dynamic of his encounter from orderly and procedural to chaotic and unpredictable. No doubt he would still be alive if he had peacefully surrendered.
brah ...
Don't look now brah, but we agree on something.
His having a warrant nobody knew about has nothing to do with the interaction.
The man is deceased because he made the decision to resist being arrested and changed the dynamic of his encounter from orderly and procedural to chaotic and unpredictable. No doubt he would still be alive if he had peacefully surrendered.
brah ...
To some extent i agree with your point, but here's the issue...the cops are doing a job, a stressful one, no doubt, but they should be trained for these situations. We don't know where the citizen's head is at...maybe he's a psychopathic killer, or maybe he had a really bad day, wife left him, dog died, parents died...he's not trained for that situation. Point is, you can't expect a citizen to act rationality when pulled over. The cops job is to protect and serve...priority should be do no harm. They took the job voluntarily, knowing the risks, knowing today they could have this encounter. It was wrong for the citizen to run, It is more wrong for a cop to escalate that wrong, especially with something lethal.
That is the argument of someone reaching for straws and denying the real problem. Are you even interested in solving the black communities problems or arguing about the semantics of which warrant should be applied for this particular stop. Which warrant? Are these the questions we are asking? In other words, thats weak sauce brah.
Are you really that clueless, or just trying to keep the conversation going? If you're suggesting "he's a bad kid and had it coming", then you're totally missing the point (as is the dude in the video). The cop DID NOT KNOW of the other warrant. It's not semantics, it's facts. Your assumption in posting that video was "look, a black guy says he had it coming... the media needs to report the whole story". NP...but then keep the story to the facts. The 2nd warrant absolutely speaks to his character, but it doesn't have anything to do with him getting shot that night....brah.
The man is deceased because he made the decision to resist being arrested and changed the dynamic of his encounter from orderly and procedural to chaotic and unpredictable. No doubt he would still be alive if he had peacefully surrendered.
That is the argument of someone reaching for straws and denying the real problem. Are you even interested in solving the black communities problems or arguing about the semantics of which warrant should be applied for this particular stop. Which warrant? Are these the questions we are asking? In other words, thats weak sauce brah.
Are you really that clueless, or just trying to keep the conversation going?
If you're suggesting "he's a bad kid and had it coming", then you're totally missing the point (as is the dude in the video). The cop DID NOT KNOW of the other warrant. It's not semantics, it's facts.
Your assumption in posting that video was "look, a black guy says he had it coming... the media needs to report the whole story". NP...but then keep the story to the facts. The 2nd warrant absolutely speaks to his character, but it doesn't have anything to do with him getting shot that night....brah.
He has at one time or the other had 2 warrants against him at least. The one cited was not active, it was the other one. Again, got it. (I heard you twice the first time, this is not making him a more sympathetic figure).
The process isn't about sympathy and unknowns...it's about guilt and the law. A non-active warrant has NOTHING to do with what happened. You can't complain that the media is pointing to the air freshener and ignoring his open warrant, while simultaneously citing the wrong warrant. You either want factual reporting and opinions based on those facts or you are biased.
That is the argument of someone reaching for straws and denying the real problem. Are you even interested in solving the black communities problems or arguing about the semantics of which warrant should be applied for this particular stop. Which warrant? Are these the questions we are asking? When you mistake the warrant because there are multiples, perhaps that points to the broader narrative we are trying to make? In other words, thats weak sauce brah.
He has at one time or the other had 2 warrants against him at least. The one cited was not active, it was the other one. Again, got it. (I heard you twice the first time, this is not making him a more sympathetic figure).
The process isn't about sympathy and unknowns...it's about guilt and the law. A non-active warrant has NOTHING to do with what happened. You can't complain that the media is pointing to the air freshener and ignoring his open warrant, while simultaneously citing the wrong warrant.
You either want factual reporting and opinions based on those facts or you are biased.
Oh ok, he has had at least 2 warrants against him and he cited the wrong one. Got it.
No...it doesn't work that way. He had 1. Got it?
He has at one time or the other had 2 warrants against him at least. The one cited was not active, it was the other one. Again, got it. (I heard you twice the first time, this is not making him a more sympathetic figure).
sirdroseph wrote: A bit of fact-checking on your morning video link carpet bombing... The warrant referenced in this video was NOT active when he was pulled-over, it was a different warrant for possession of a firearm without a permit and running away from an officer. I'm not suggesting this was a good kid and that he wasn't looking for trouble, but the primary assumption here is incorrect.
Oh ok, he has had at least 2 warrants against him and he cited the wrong one. Got it.
A bit of fact-checking on your morning video link carpet bombing...
The warrant referenced in this video was NOT active when he was pulled-over, it was a different warrant for possession of a firearm without a permit and running away from an officer.
I'm not suggesting this was a good kid and that he wasn't looking for trouble, but the primary assumption here is incorrect.
