Man Dies After Police Taze Him For Being On Roof (Updated)

[Dyakovo]

Only druggies get up on roofs.

Or jews with fiddles

Same thing...

[Dyakovo]

Fuck that bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty.

Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems._{[citation needed]}
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

[God Kefka]

Or jews with fiddles

Same thing...

ENOUGH with the anti-antisemitism...

[Orcoa]

Fuck that bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty.

Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems.
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

Oh so all cases that have cops in them are that now?

Do you have any sources to back up any of your shit?

[Phocidaea]

Well shit, I have a neighbor who's always working on his roof. We call him "Roof Man". I'd better warn him.

[The first two sentences of this are true]

[Kronstad]

1. A normal person would either not become a US officer or he would not start shooting for no reason; 5 armed policemen versus one unarmed guy, they shoot tasers several times. A normal persons wouldn't.
2. Again, the redundant argument of shifting topics and winning points in parallel discussions. No one said there should no police. They could just do with some reforms, as the guy suggested. But yes, please change the discussion from training police to having none at all. And also, Marxism doesn't need police.
3. It is indeed a mystery who allowed all those guns in America and who still allows everyone to buy them without even psychological testing...

How's about you walk up to a man who may or may not be armed, may or may not have any problems with killing you, and start talking about something that's likely to piss that man off, and we'll see exactly how well you do.

Did you even read the points above?
1. If you watch the video, he was in his underwear, and he looked nothing like he was going to shoot them.
Also, I will attempt to clarify point 3 for you (probably with no success): he "may or may not be armed" because someone, somewhere, magically decided and still decides today to keep guns both legal and easy to be bought in the US. At least some psychological tests would be required to sell someone a gun, which would make any situation in which trained policemen must be afraid of stoned/drunk/mad civilians impossible.

[Wisconsin9]

How's about you walk up to a man who may or may not be armed, may or may not have any problems with killing you, and start talking about something that's likely to piss that man off, and we'll see exactly how well you do.

Did you even read the points above?
1. If you watch the video, he was in his underwear, and he looked nothing like he was going to shoot them.
Also, I will attempt to clarify point 3 for you (probably with no success): he "may or may not be armed" because someone, somewhere, magically decided and still decides today to keep guns both legal and easy to be bought in the US. At least some psychological tests would be required to sell someone a gun, which would make any situation in which trained policemen must be afraid of stoned/drunk/mad civilians impossible.

I didn't watch the video. And yes, I agree our gun laws are stupid, but they're what cops have to deal with.

[Kronstad]

[quote="Kronstad";p="16208043"
Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems.
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

Oh so all cases that have cops in them are that now?
Do you have any sources to back up any of your shit?[/quote]
You might want to look up the verb "seem" in a dictionary. Nevertheless, here's a definition: "give the impression of being". That means, it's an opinion, so it doesn't need sources.
But, if you do want some sources, watch the news and see how many people get shot by policemen and see how many of those were unarmed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Did the police know he was unarmed? Again, we have no idea why the hell he was on that roof nor do we know why police found him to be a threat. Yes, I'll agree he was treated roughly after having been restrained but I'm far less inclined to believe the way they carried him down the stairs (not dragged, that's really misleading) caused him fatal injuries.

What else could it have been, unless he had an adverse reaction to being tazed five times?

His father is a fucking ex-cop, I seriously doubt he has a grudge against the "pigs", so all the accusations of family bias are the usual cop apologetics this type of shit typically attracts. Is it possible that there's some convoluted explanation that explains why the cops acted the way they did? I suppose. Is that likely? Not really. It's just some unarmed guy wearing a pair of cargo shorts, he posed no threat to all those cops, and they knew it.

You seem to be ignorant to the fact that being tazed more than once is in no way safe, let alone five times.
It's more than likely the repeated tazing killed him.

[Imperializt Russia]

[quote="Kronstad";p="16208043"
Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems.
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

Oh so all cases that have cops in them are that now?
Do you have any sources to back up any of your shit?

You might want to look up the verb "seem" in a dictionary. Nevertheless, here's a definition: "give the impression of being". That means, it's an opinion, so it doesn't need sources.
But, if you do want some sources, watch the news and see how many people get shot by policemen and see how many of those were unarmed.[/quote]
That's not a source, that's anecdotal and/or an incomplete dataset.

[Mistelemr]

IF you read the article close enough this guy has "had a history of drug problems, and a run-in with the law"

To that end I could potentially see him as a wanted criminal, or potentially just having done drugs (which I would say given the video is EXTREMELY likely due to how little he resisted or reacted to the chokehold AND getting tazed, seriously this guy didn't even put up a fight). The arrest may have been legitimate, but the execution was UNDENIABLY brutality. This guy resisted out of confusion it looks like. Not once does he attempt to strike a cop, all he does is attempt to grab on to the bars of the staircase-handrail.

And seriously.. you tazed him FIVE TIMES? You know, 2 times can bring down a foot ball player, 3 times a sumo wrestler, 5 times will bring down a FUCKING ELEPHANT.

[Orcoa]

[quote="Kronstad";p="16208043"
Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems.
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

Oh so all cases that have cops in them are that now?
Do you have any sources to back up any of your shit?

You might want to look up the verb "seem" in a dictionary. Nevertheless, here's a definition: "give the impression of being". That means, it's an opinion, so it doesn't need sources.
But, if you do want some sources, watch the news and see how many people get shot by policemen and see how many of those were unarmed.[/quote]
So in other words, you have no sources because your argument is shit and can't be backed up by facts?

Good to know

[Dyakovo]

Did you even read the points above?
1. If you watch the video, he was in his underwear, and he looked nothing like he was going to shoot them.
Also, I will attempt to clarify point 3 for you (probably with no success): he "may or may not be armed" because someone, somewhere, magically decided and still decides today to keep guns both legal and easy to be bought in the US. At least some psychological tests would be required to sell someone a gun, which would make any situation in which trained policemen must be afraid of stoned/drunk/mad civilians impossible.

I didn't watch the video. And yes, I agree our gun laws are stupid, but they're what cops have to deal with.

Obviously the gun laws are the fault of the police.
*nods*

[Theking0fzing]

Why do all you anti-police posters keep bringing up what his family says, as if the words that come out of their mouth's are factual evidence?

[Kronstad]

That's not a source, that's anecdotal and/or an incomplete dataset.

Some people call it opinion. Also, yes, incomplete dataset, can be referred to as homework; watch the news a few years and jot down the cases of shot people then count the innocent/unarmed vs threatening/armed cases.
P.S. "opinion": "a view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", i.e. not based on complete data
Maybe from now on, you will recognise an opinion when you see it (hopefully).

[Imperializt Russia]

That's not a source, that's anecdotal and/or an incomplete dataset.

Some people call it opinion. Also, yes, incomplete dataset, can be referred to as homework; watch the news a few years and jot down the cases of shot people then count the innocent/unarmed vs threatening/armed cases.
P.S. "opinion": "a view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", i.e. not based on complete data
Maybe from now on, you will recognise an opinion when you see it (hopefully).

Eight and a half thousand people are shot dead in a year.
Several hundred of these are shot by police.

I doubt the news reports all of these.

[Kronstad]

So in other words, you have no sources because your argument is shit and can't be backed up by facts?
Good to know

No one said it's an argument, but I am glad you win arguments with yourself. It's good to know that you can assume someone made and argument and then say "it's shit, I win" and be happy...your happiness levels must be very high.
P.S. Try watching the news from time to time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in ... d=all&_r=0
"Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations. Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha who studies internal law enforcement investigations, called the bureau’s conclusions about cases of improper shootings 'suspiciously low.'"

[Imperializt Russia]

So in other words, you have no sources because your argument is shit and can't be backed up by facts?
Good to know

No one said it's an argument, but I am glad you win arguments with yourself. It's good to know that you can assume someone made and argument and then say "it's shit, I win" and be happy...your happiness levels must be very high.
P.S. Try watching the news from time to time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in ... d=all&_r=0
"Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations. Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha who studies internal law enforcement investigations, called the bureau’s conclusions about cases of improper shootings 'suspiciously low.'"

Now, that's a source, son.

[Kronstad]

Oh look! How unexpected!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 00580.html
They rushed into his house and started shooting him; "Officers were looking for different man"; "the county recently agreed to pay Theoharis $3 million to avoid litigation." looks like bribery.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 02009.html
Trust the police anywhere...so reliable, always.

[Ceannairceach]

(which I would say given the video is EXTREMELY likely due to how little he resisted or reacted to the chokehold AND getting tazed, seriously this guy didn't even put up a fight).

That is generally what you do when you are tazed five times.

[Dyakovo]

That's not a source, that's anecdotal and/or an incomplete dataset.

Some people call it opinion. Also, yes, incomplete dataset, can be referred to as homework; watch the news a few years and jot down the cases of shot people then count the innocent/unarmed vs threatening/armed cases.
P.S. "opinion": "a view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", i.e. not based on complete data
Maybe from now on, you will recognise an opinion when you see it (hopefully).

Now, to accurately represent the situation you also need to make note of every police interaction that is handled properly...

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh look! How unexpected!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 00580.html
They rushed into his house and started shooting him; "Officers were looking for different man"; "the county recently agreed to pay Theoharis $3 million to avoid litigation." looks like bribery.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 02009.html
Trust the police anywhere...so reliable, always.

That's not "bribery", that's settling out of court.

Having even gone to trial, let alone having lost, is both expensive and looks bad.

[The Serbian Empire]

Yeah? And until I see a full story, I'm not exactly going to jump to conclusions that he must have been a nice man innocently sitting on his roof until some mean police came and tased him. Hell, at least give the police the fucking right of reply so they can try to explain why they did what they did.

His family said he was though... Who are you going to believe? His family who has no reason to lie or the pigs who just like brutalizing people?
*nods*

There are a lot of nasty cops out there. A lot of good ones too, but I must admit there are some police who only became cops to make people miserable with tickets and brutality.

[Kronstad]

Now, to accurately represent the situation you also need to make note of every police interaction that is handled properly...

So you expect people to be congratulated for something which they must do?
The police are trained and paid to do their jobs. You don't congratulate a baker for baking bread, it's his job and he gets paid for it. However, if several times the bread he sells you is overcooked, then clearly he isn't doing his job right, in which case some things need to change; his oven, the laws, his cooking methods etc. Or, you might fire him and hire a competent baker whose bread you can eat; same with policemen.

[Dyakovo]

Now, to accurately represent the situation you also need to make note of every police interaction that is handled properly...

So you expect people to be congratulated for something which they must do?
The police are trained and paid to do their jobs. You don't congratulate a baker for baking bread, it's his job and he gets paid for it. However, if several times the bread he sells you is overcooked, then clearly he isn't doing his job right, in which case some things need to change; his oven, the laws, his cooking methods etc. Or, you might fire him and hire a competent baker whose bread you can eat; same with policemen.

No, I expect you to be intellectually honest. You are claiming that police can't be trusted based on the actions of a minority.