On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:41:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 11:23 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:04:55 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 7:03 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:23 -0500, Muggles wrote:


Yup , I was wrong and I apologize . I kinda vaguely knew there was another
thread , but I wasn't reading it . I wanna see the cop's bodycam video ...
--
Snag

Cool, like I said in my response, I figured you had not seen all the
other posts.


The cop was wrong to use deadly force.




That is your opinion. Until all of the facts are known you will have only an opinion. Nothing more.

It's ALWAYS been "my" opinion. Why "my" opinion bothers anyone, is just odd.

However, if I thought my life was in danger I would do everything in my power to eliminate that danger. Period.


Many people would do exactly that and worry about what the law says
about it later.

LE is trained to enforce the "laws" enacted by the
jurisdiction they serve, so, they are held to a much higher standard.

Again, your opinion.



You don't agree that LE is trained to enforce the laws, or they should
be held to a higher standard?

I agree they are trained to enforce the laws. What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life at risk. That must be considered during any
investigation.

On 8/31/2016 11:53 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:41:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 11:23 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:04:55 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 7:03 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:23 -0500, Muggles wrote:


Yup , I was wrong and I apologize . I kinda vaguely knew there was another
thread , but I wasn't reading it . I wanna see the cop's bodycam video ...
--
Snag

Cool, like I said in my response, I figured you had not seen all the
other posts.


The cop was wrong to use deadly force.




That is your opinion. Until all of the facts are known you will have only an opinion. Nothing more.

It's ALWAYS been "my" opinion. Why "my" opinion bothers anyone, is just odd.

However, if I thought my life was in danger I would do everything in my power to eliminate that danger. Period.


Many people would do exactly that and worry about what the law says
about it later.

LE is trained to enforce the "laws" enacted by the
jurisdiction they serve, so, they are held to a much higher standard.

Again, your opinion.



You don't agree that LE is trained to enforce the laws, or they should
be held to a higher standard?


I agree they are trained to enforce the laws.

OK ...

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 1:13:12 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 11:53 AM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:41:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 11:23 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:04:55 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/30/2016 7:03 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:23 -0500, Muggles wrote:


Yup , I was wrong and I apologize . I kinda vaguely knew there was another
thread , but I wasn't reading it . I wanna see the cop's bodycam video ...
--
Snag

Cool, like I said in my response, I figured you had not seen all the
other posts.


The cop was wrong to use deadly force.




That is your opinion. Until all of the facts are known you will have only an opinion. Nothing more.

It's ALWAYS been "my" opinion. Why "my" opinion bothers anyone, is just odd.

However, if I thought my life was in danger I would do everything in my power to eliminate that danger. Period.


Many people would do exactly that and worry about what the law says
about it later.

LE is trained to enforce the "laws" enacted by the
jurisdiction they serve, so, they are held to a much higher standard.

Again, your opinion.



You don't agree that LE is trained to enforce the laws, or they should
be held to a higher standard?


I agree they are trained to enforce the laws.

OK ...

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.


And what evidence do you have that the cop did not follow his training
and dept guidelines? NONE


Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.


Do you need a PHD to know that it's a crime to not pull over when a
cop is trying to stop you? I think everyone else here figures that's
common sense and if you're too dumb to understand that, you shouldn't
be driving. Plus this perp had special training, his several other
encounters with police that resulted in resisting, interfering, etc.


It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?

--
Maggie

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:10 -0500, Muggles wrote:

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?

Absolutely not. You've asked that question several different ways and I've answered it the same each time.
Give it a ****ing rest!

On 8/31/2016 2:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:10 -0500, Muggles wrote:

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?


Absolutely not. You've asked that question several different ways and I've
answered it the same each time.

What I've actually done is analyze the process by which reasonable
expectations for performance by highly trained LE would be, and why
those expectations that I've stated previously are accurate.

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.

On 8/31/2016 2:50 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.


When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.


IOW's, you don't have a decent well supported argument to support your
point of view.


--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:10 -0500, Muggles wrote:

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?


Absolutely not. You've asked that question several different ways and I've
answered it the same each time.

What I've actually done is analyze the process by which reasonable
expectations for performance by highly trained LE would be, and why
those expectations that I've stated previously are accurate.

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

--
Maggie

You have absolutely no basis for concluding that LE didn't live up to their training in this incident. The cop tried to pull over a speeder. It turned
into a high speed felony pursuit, that ended with both cars damaged, the
cop car smoking, the perp's car spun out. That's what appears to have
happened from the very limited info. What happened in the period
immediately following, no one knows because there is no information,
no witness testimony, no statement from the cops, no cameras. All we
have is your delusions, what you made up in your mind.

BTW how does the high speed pursuit square with similar delusions you
tried to sell here, about the perp just being a deaf guy, who didn't
know the cops were following him or just wanted to drive to a safe place
to pull over? Most people can learn from their mistakes, but you're
one of the exceptions. It looks like the dead, deaf guy was another one.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:51:02 PM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.

I see Muggles has won the respect of another member here. ROFL.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:55:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:50 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.


When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.


IOW's, you don't have a decent well supported argument to support your
point of view.


--
Maggie

All of us who have responded have had decent arguments supported by
the facts or lack thereof. The problem is you're the village idiot
with totally faulty logic. Thinking the way you do, I surprised your
still alive. You're as dumb as that dead deaf guy!

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:50:08 -0500
Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them
actually performing their jobs at the training level they've
received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans
doing a difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional
on your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live
up to their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.

You would not want to do her!

On 8/31/2016 2:57 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:51:02 PM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.


I see Muggles has won the respect of another member here. ROFL.


Some people are good at discussing stuff like this.

Others get all emotional and don't really have any well thought out
arguments that support their own point of view, let alone, have any
understanding as to why or how they came to their conclusions. When
challenged, their only response is to get angry or irritated.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

From: trader_4

You act like a 7-11

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

You're as dumb as that dead deaf guy!

Yet it is you who always responds to her, now who is the village idiot?

7-11

On 8/31/2016 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:10 -0500, Muggles wrote:

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?


Absolutely not. You've asked that question several different ways and I've
answered it the same each time.

What I've actually done is analyze the process by which reasonable
expectations for performance by highly trained LE would be, and why
those expectations that I've stated previously are accurate.

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.



You have absolutely no basis for concluding that LE didn't live up to their
training in this incident. The cop tried to pull over a speeder. It turned
into a high speed felony pursuit, that ended with both cars damaged, the
cop car smoking, the perp's car spun out.

A reasonable expectation based on average police training that can be
researched online is that LE are trained to respond with a variety of
options, including deescalation and communication techniques, requesting
back-up, and requesting a supervisor come to the scene. All of which
are available prior to the use of deadly force.

Nothing you've mentioned is listed in the requirements North Carolina
law has in regards to the use of deadly force.


--
Maggie

On 8/31/2016 2:58 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:55:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:50 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.


When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.


IOW's, you don't have a decent well supported argument to support your
point of view.



All of us who have responded have had decent arguments supported by
the facts or lack thereof.

On the contrary ... there hasn't been one argument presented thus far
that I haven't been able to legitimately counter.


The problem is you're the village idiot
with totally faulty logic. Thinking the way you do, I surprised your
still alive. You're as dumb as that dead deaf guy!


ahhh ... You believe the man was just dumb because he was deaf and
didn't respond like you think he should have responded.

gotcha!

--
Maggie

After serious thinking Gordon Shumway wrote :
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.

Did you happen to see the public service message posted by RonNNN
elsewhere?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:53:42 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

I agree they are trained to enforce the laws. What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life at risk. That must be considered during any
investigation.

LEO _IS_ held to a higher standard. Under "color of law". If they
break there, it violates their Oath.

Work inside the law and sort it out.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:18:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:53:42 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

I agree they are trained to enforce the laws. What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life at risk. That must be considered during any
investigation.

LEO _IS_ held to a higher standard. Under "color of law". If they
break there, it violates their Oath.

Because I'm not a lawyer or a cop I had never heard of the existence of the "color of law." It refers to the
depravation of rights under color of law. The dead guy's had his right to life revoked, but what we don't know is how
or what he was doing to cause the cop to do what he did.

A hypothetical example I read sited arresting someone because their opinion was not the same as yours. That is
obviously wrong to do. However, if the cop in this instance felt his life was in danger he has every right to use
force to end that threat, right?

Work inside the law and sort it out.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:57 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:51:02 PM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:47:47 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.

When I think of a polite way to say "**** You" I will respond further.


I see Muggles has won the respect of another member here. ROFL.


Some people are good at discussing stuff like this.

Others get all emotional and don't really have any well thought out
arguments that support their own point of view, let alone, have any
understanding as to why or how they came to their conclusions.

ROFL. "No thought out arguments, no understanding of why or
how they came to their conclusions." You just described yourself.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:11:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 3:47:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/31/2016 2:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:13:10 -0500, Muggles wrote:

What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life
at risk. That must be considered during any investigation.


Well, they are human beings who have been highly trained to respond to a
multitude of encounters and are very aware of the risks when they
graduate from the academy.

I do believe when someone is highly trained they should be held
accountable to the standard for which they were trained. In the case of
LE, their accountability increases with the level of knowledge they obtain.

Those people who have no training can't be held accountable for what
they've never been taught. OTOH, those who ARE trained should be held
accountable for what THEY are taught.

It's a reasonable conclusion that LE will be held to a higher standard
of accountability since they've achieved a higher standard of education.

Don't you agree?


Absolutely not. You've asked that question several different ways and I've
answered it the same each time.

What I've actually done is analyze the process by which reasonable
expectations for performance by highly trained LE would be, and why
those expectations that I've stated previously are accurate.

Give it a ****ing rest!


I'm assessing how you reason things out.

Evidently, you don't expect highly trained people to live up to their
training level.

Why bother to train LE, if there is no real expectation of them actually
performing their jobs at the training level they've received?

We might as well put untrained people in police uniforms and have no
expectations on performance, after all, police are "only" humans doing a
difficult job.

I don't care if you agree or not, but you've shown your reasons to
objecting with my expectations of LE performance are only emotional on
your part. You've no realistic expectations that LE should live up to
their training.



You have absolutely no basis for concluding that LE didn't live up to their
training in this incident. The cop tried to pull over a speeder. It turned
into a high speed felony pursuit, that ended with both cars damaged, the
cop car smoking, the perp's car spun out.

A reasonable expectation based on average police training that can be
researched online is that LE are trained to respond with a variety of
options, including deescalation and communication techniques, requesting
back-up, and requesting a supervisor come to the scene. All of which
are available prior to the use of deadly force.


Sure they are. The high speed car chase just ended with both cars
damaged, the perp spun out in the street. He jumps out of the car
and comes running toward you, he's 8 ft away, while reaching into
his waistband where it appears he has a gun. "Hello headquarters?
Officer Joe here, can you send over a supervisor to deescalate this
please"?

WTF drugs are you taking? He'd be Dead Joe.

And note I didn't say that's exactly what happened, but it's one
of many possible scenarios where the cop shooting him would be
justified.



Nothing you've mentioned is listed in the requirements North Carolina
law has in regards to the use of deadly force.


--
Maggie

One more time, idiot, we can't apply the law when we don't know what
happened after the perp exited the car. The fact that you can't
understand that is why you deserve the title of village idiot. It
really is that simple. But if further proof of idiot status is
needed, the fact that you can't learn from the mistakes you've already
made here, seals the deal. You tried to tell us couple days ago that
he was just a poor deaf guy that was confused and needed a say place
to pull over. Now there is evidence (you know that pesky stuff that
some of us rely on?) that shows it was a high speed, crash em, felony
pursuit. And that this wasn't his first rodeo with cops either.
You didn't learn from that mistake. You didn't learn from
the Michael Brown case either, where once the facts were found with an
investigation, the BS narrative of the first week went down the drain.
In fact, you refuse to even acknowledge that the same BS was pulled,
a rush to judgment, with no facts in the MB case.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:52:11 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:18:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:53:42 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

I agree they are trained to enforce the laws. What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life at risk. That must be considered during any
investigation.

LEO _IS_ held to a higher standard. Under "color of law". If they
break there, it violates their Oath.

Because I'm not a lawyer or a cop I had never heard of the existence of the "color of law." It refers to the
depravation of rights under color of law. The dead guy's had his right to life revoked, but what we don't know is how
or what he was doing to cause the cop to do what he did.

A hypothetical example I read sited arresting someone because their opinion was not the same as yours. That is
obviously wrong to do. However, if the cop in this instance felt his life was in danger he has every right to use
force to end that threat, right?

Work inside the law and sort it out.

Once I beat the **** out of a Nigerian Prince, real good, under color
of law. He was a threat of HIV trying the bite me. He claimed and
said I was responsible for abuse. Under color of law I'd do the same
today. Beating his ass never made it to federal court.

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:14:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


ahhh ... You believe the man was just dumb because he was deaf and
didn't respond like you think he should have responded.

gotcha!

--
Maggie

No ****wit, I believe he was dumb, because according to his rap sheet,
he's had this kind of run-in with cops before, ie resisting, interfering.
And even without that, how many connected brain cells does one need
to know that you have to pull over for a cop? That it's a crime to
lead police on a chase, a felony to do what this perp did, which was
a high speed, crash em, chase? Dumb is dumb and you're the village
idiot. How are you still alive?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:40:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:52:11 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 14:18:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:53:42 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

I agree they are trained to enforce the laws. What I don't agree with is they are (or should be) held to a higher
standard. They are human beings doing a job that at times puts their life at risk. That must be considered during any
investigation.

LEO _IS_ held to a higher standard. Under "color of law". If they
break there, it violates their Oath.

Because I'm not a lawyer or a cop I had never heard of the existence of the "color of law." It refers to the
depravation of rights under color of law. The dead guy's had his right to life revoked, but what we don't know is how
or what he was doing to cause the cop to do what he did.

A hypothetical example I read sited arresting someone because their opinion was not the same as yours. That is
obviously wrong to do. However, if the cop in this instance felt his life was in danger he has every right to use
force to end that threat, right?

Work inside the law and sort it out.

Once I beat the **** out of a Nigerian Prince, real good, under color
of law. He was a threat of HIV trying the bite me. He claimed and
said I was responsible for abuse. Under color of law I'd do the same
today. Beating his ass never made it to federal court.

Well done!