Jump to content

John Lawrence

Full Members
  • Posts

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by John Lawrence

  1. 4 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

    The percentage of African American males with felony convictions went from 10% in 1980 to 33% in 2010. 

    Then you have to account for African American males not convicted but sitting in jail cells because they can't afford the increased bail given to AA defendants.  Most people in jail haven't been convicted of a crime.  

    20% of people in prison are there for drug offenses.

    Of all drug arrests the last few years - more than 80% are for drug possession - fewer than 15% were for manufacture or sale of a drug.

     

     

     

     

    You got a stat on that last one?  Because that is shocking to me.  But arrests is not the same as prison.  Personal use amounts of drugs is not getting someone a long prison term.

    Plenty of people get arrested for a little bit of weed and then get right out.  I want to know how many people are in prison for drug offenses for mere possession.

    • Fuck You 1
  2. There was a justification for a first shutdown. The virus was a great unknown. Now we have the data necessary to manage our way around it. It's not going away, and we're not in danger of overwhelming any healthcare systems.

    We can quickly add beds if needed.  Like the hospital at NRG that never got used.  There is going to be bigger spikes in states that have had low death rates as the virus just has not burned through yet.  California is spiking and has had pretty significant lockdowns in place.

    • Fuck You 1
  3. On 6/14/2020 at 12:44 PM, Hiphopopotamos said:

    I’d like to introduce you to ‘The War on Drugs’. 

    Now go go look at drug use by teens by race. 

    Then go look at arrest/conviction rates for drug use by race. 

    Then go look at sentencing by race. 

    Only 2 percent of black males are in prison.  It does not account for a significant percentage of absentee dads.

    Citing drug use by race is very misleading.  People in prison for drugs are almost always dealers.  Not users.  Because the dealers are the ones with the weight dealers are the ones targeted.  Cops target Avon and Marlo, not Bubbles.

     

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  4. 42 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

      You do not shoot a drunk guy in the back because he is running away with your taser.  In this country.   Under our laws. IOW, your opinion is worthless.

    He should have dropped the taser if he just wanted to run away.   He didn’t.  He chose to point it and shoot it at a cop.  
     

    Most tasers used these days are capable of multiple shots, by the way. 

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 55 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

     A taser is a one deployment device in this situation.  A taser is a non-lethal weapon,  in any event.   Upon deploying it, he would have become a completely unarmed man against cops with guns.  As it was, he was a guy with a non-lethal weapon running away from cops with guns.   Nobody has claimed a reasonable expectation that he had, or was about to, acquire access to a firearm or knife - and thus become a threat of death or great bodily harm to the officers.   Nobody says that he shot an officer with a taser and was about to steal that defenseless officer's gun.   The cop shot a man who was running away from him while pointing a non-lethal taser at him.

    Pointing a taser while running away should not get you shot and killed.   Police have to interact with drunks -  and emotionally unstable people - and mentally ill people.   It is PART OF THEIR FUCKING  JOB TO DEAL WITH THAT COMMON SITUATION!     Your conclusion that they  can shoot a person who does not have a lethal weapon and who is running from them as 'justified' and 'not particularly close'  is flat wrong. 

    You sure that taser was single deployment?  What’s the basis for that?

    • Fuck You 1
  6. 1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    You mean like the cops have been doing to peaceful protesters?  

    I am not sure which incidences you are referring to, but for certain some, yes.  But certainly not all.  Tear gas and rubber bullets are allowed to stop rioting.  Some peaceful protesters will get caught as collateral damage.  They would be wise to stay far away from rioting and looting while protesting peacefully.  And in certain circumstances force is justified against peaceful protesters who are disobeying lawful orders.  That is a right that governments grant law enforcement.  Whether the force is excessive will be a case-by-case basis.

    I have seen some that was clearly unjustified.  Tear gassing and firing rubber bullets at people on their own private property.  If they responded with gunfire, I would vote to acquit.

    • Fuck You 1
  7. 14 minutes ago, freyguy said:

    What if he shot at the cops with rubber bullets and tear gas?  Would he deserve to die then?

    Yes.  If he attacked them without justification with rubber bullets and tear gas while resisting a lawful arrest, absolutely.

    And if someone shoots rubber bullets and tear gas at your without legal justification and you shoot them to stop them from doing so, it is also justified.

    • Fuck You 1
  8. Just now, Captainant said:

    Wow, we should let cops know that tasers are deadly weapons and not compliance devices then. Who knew they've been using deadly force for no reason for so long???

    So is a baton.  Cops all around the world use them, even in genteel Europe.  If you attack someone with a baton and they shoot you, it is justified.  If you attack a cop with your hands and they crack you over the head with a baton, that is also justified.  If a cop cracks you over the head with a baton or tazes you for talking shit or being in contempt of cop, that is not justified.

    This person attacked the cops without justification.  He was wrestling with armed officers and creating a dangerous situation.  That justified them using their tasers, as a less lethal option than shooting them.  Once he took the taser and attacked them with it, him getting shot was justified.

    This is not a difficult or particularly close case.

     

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  9. A taser is a weapon, in the way a knife, a bat, a baton, a crowbar, a gun, a replicate gun, or a shard of glass are all legitimate weapons.

    The moment you choose to come after someone with a weapon, you get kicked out of the pity party, and risk serious injury and death.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  10. 7 minutes ago, Genco said:

    You deliberately use the word weapon instead of taser to conflate it with a gun and to imply the cop was in imminent danger of deadly force from Rayshard Brooks. It wasn't, the cop knew it, he's a coward.

    A taser is a weapon.  In fact, there have been over a 1000 deaths from tasers in this country.  Reuters tracks it since the early 2000s.  Currently sitting at 1,081.

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-database/

    And the standard is not "imminent danger of deadly force".  Lethal force can be used if the individual has a reasonable belief it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.

    If someone starts swinging a baseball bat at your knee, you are in no imminent danger of death.  You can still shoot their ass to stop them from doing it.

    • Fuck You 1
  11. 12 minutes ago, Genco said:

    Well this is going nowhere. Interesting language you chose ("violent, brandishing a weapon"). You're dug in and not of a heart and mind to be convinced of anything you don't already think so I won't argue the point any further.

    If those set of circumstances put that cop in fear for his life, then he's a coward. But that's been the problem for a number of years. Police training, despite being referred to as "warrior" training, has ingrained in every cop's mindset that everything/everyone is a threat and to shoot as a first resort.

    Cowards with guns.

    Shooting was the fourth result.  First was talking to him.  Second was wrestling on the ground when he resisted arrest and attacked the officer.  Third was attempting to taze him.  Fourth was shooting him after he disarmed a cop with a taser, pointed it at him, and shot it at him.

    These fuckers aren't John Wick.  You point and discharge a taser at an armed cop (or anyone) and get shot in return, tough fucking shit.

     

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  12. 10 minutes ago, scottsins said:


    So tasers should be classified and treated as deadly force? So cops should only use them when confronted with deadly force? They shouldn’t use them to subdue unarmed fleeing/resisting individuals?

    Cops should use them if they have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury.  It is less lethal force.  I think they use them too often, actually.  This was not one of those cases.  Cops are armed with pistols.  If a suspect is wrestling on the ground with a cop, that gets me there and a taser is justified.  Because a suspect willing to do that risks disarming and shooting the cop.

    I have also seen cops taze people just for talking shit and refusing to comply with orders.  That is not appropriate.

    • Fuck You 1
  13. 8 minutes ago, scottsins said:


    So tasers should be classified and treated as deadly force? So cops should only use them when confronted with deadly force? They shouldn’t use them to subdue unarmed fleeing/resisting individuals?

    If someone points a taser at you and threatens to shoot you with it and you are armed, do you think you have the right to shoot them to stop them from doing so?

    And what is the charge under Texas law for walking up to someone and tazing them?

    • Fuck You 1
  14. 4 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    here's some of the facts you'll completely reject:

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

     

    again, going back to this statement you made:

    i'm not sure if you have the mental capacity to recognize it, but the overarching point this statement is designed to make is this: 

    the threat of a violent response should act as a deterrent.

    the fact is this: it doesn't. period.

    but instead of having the intellectual capacity to question your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!) and the intellectual honesty to explore ideas that might run counter to your engrained belief structure (thanks Fox News!), you'll completely dismiss any facts or stats that don't fit your pea brain's narrative and call it Fake News (thanks Fox News!). 

    Those countries do not have guns like we do nor do they have our demographics.  If you want to talk about confiscating guns, we can have that talk. I don't see how it is done.  But a cop in Sweden and Germany is not facing what our cops face.  I don't want our cops wearing tact gear and whipping out machine guns.  I want drugs legalized and think it will cure a whole lot of this.  But patrolling East St. Louis isn't the same is patrolling Munich, The Hague, or Zurich.

    And use of force stats by race are meaningless.  Males make up 95% of police shootings.  Does that mean cops are sexist against males?  Or maybe, and I am just spit balling here, males are more likely to resist, point a gun at, and assault cops?

    60 year olds don't have force used against them at the rate 18 year olds do either.  It isn't due to age discrimination.

     

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  15. 57 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

    How is that working out for us?

    Works well for pretty much everyone not committing aggravated assault against cops.  With a few exceptions like Floyd, Castile, Rice, etc.  A handful a year in a country of 350 million.

    Let me guess, you think Michael Brown was murdered?

    • Fuck You 1
  16. I don’t know what police are trained to do.  
     

    I do know what the legal standard is for any citizen to use deadly force is.  Reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death. I 100 percent believe this shooting met that standard.  
     

    Again, if someone walks up to you on the street and points a taser at you in a threatening manor, the law will justify your shooting them dead right there.  Had he not pointed the taser at them (even more it appears he shot it at them), they don’t get there on reasonable fear of SBI.  
     

    Shooting a taser at someone is an attempted aggravated assault in every jurisdiction in this country.  You can use lethal force to stop an aggravated assault.  
     

    From a criminal law standpoint it’s clear to me this was legal.  

    • Fuck You 1
  17. Being tazed in that situation could pretty easily lead to death or serious bodily injury.  I have seen people tazed have their arms drop to their sides and drop like a rock.  On pavement that is extremely dangerous.  Or the suspect could grab the gun which will be dropped when he is tazed and use it.

    The guy is dead because he made a series of very bad choices.

    I am also betting there is more than alcohol on his tox screen.

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...