• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The Ferguson Thread: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bardeaux

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
15,066
Location
Where the cold wind blows
DISCLAIMER - This thread is being reopened as it is a serious story still in development. It is being reopened under the condition that BLUA (this can be found in my signature) and CE&P guidelines are followed and discourse within the thread remains respectful. There will be a zero tolerance policy for the breaking of any of these rules, including ad hom attacks, racial slurs, racial supremacy arguments or anything else that violates either the BLUA or the CE&P guidelines. Consider this your informal warning, infractions will be distributed as necessary. - DISCLAIMER
 
*looks around*

Ahh, that's nice. Let's keep the conversations mature, people. We understand that it is a contentious issue but let's remember that we're civilized folk and that no one wants to read flames.
 
“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Activist Guns Down Unarmed Man, And Is Thankful For The Experience

Posted by Bob Owens on January 8, 2015 at 11:09 am

In his Twitter profile, Reverend Jarrett Maupin describes himself as a, “Progressive Baptist Preacher. Civil Rights Campaigner. Radical Political Activist.”

He’s led numerous civil rights protests in Arizona, including recent protests of the death of Rumain Brisbon, a suspected drug dealer, at the hands of Phoenix police.

The details of Brison’s death aren’t surprising. Like the overwhelming majority of those killed by police officers, Brisbon was violently resisting arrest when the officer shot him:

The officer gave the suspect several commands to get on the ground but he refused to comply, yelling profanities at the officer, according to witnesses. A struggle ensured.

During the struggle, Brisbon put his left hand in his pocket and the officer grabbed onto the suspect’s hand, while repeatedly telling the suspect to keep his hand in his pocket, Crump said.

According to the police report, the officer believed he felt the handle of a gun while holding the suspect’s hand in his pocket.

A woman who was inside one of the apartments opened the door, which caused the suspect and the officer to stumble into the interior of the apartment, Crump said.

The officer wasn’t able to keep his grip on the suspect’s hand during the struggle and fearing Brisbon had a gun in his pocket, the officer fired two rounds, striking Brisbon in the upper part of his body, Crump said.

Reverend Maupin didn’t think justice was served when the non-compliant Brison ran from the officer, and then physically fought the officer’s efforts to take him into custody.

His perspective now is just a little bit different, now that he’s had an opportunity for a “cop’s eye view” in three force-on-force training scenarios.



You’ll note that after going through just three scenarios, Reverend Maupin has a whole new respect for just how quickly a situation can go from a minor encounter to a lethal force confrontation.

In the first scenario, the actor was able to shoot and “kill” Maupin before the the Reverend got his gun out of the holster, even though he’d had his hand on the butt of his gun from the start.

In the second scenario, where Maupin portrayed an officer arriving to break up a confrontation between two unarmed men, on of the two unarmed men started walking aggressively towards him, refusing commands to stop.

6.JPG

An unarmed man approached the civil rights activist playing a sheriff’s deputy, refusing to comply.

As the man continues walking toward him and closes to within feet of him, the civil rights activist who protested police officers for shooting the unarmed Brison, opened fire.

7.JPG

When the unarmed man failed to comply and continued advancing upon the civil rights activist, he had no choice but to fire in self-defense.

In the third scenario, Maupin was an arresting officer with a suspect on the ground that he was attempting to search, where the suspect refused to give him his hands. Maupin does not shoot. It is later revealed that the suspect has a large knife hidden in his waistband.

Up until the moment Reverend Maupin put on his holstered airsoft gun, he had a false preconceived notion of how police officers interactions with the public take place. He had a false understanding of just how fast a seemingly non-violent encounter can turn into a deadly-force situation, and he didn’t understand that it is how the suspect chooses to respond to an officer’s commands that drives the encounter.

His eyes have now been opened.

“I didn’t understand how important compliance was,” he stated. “But after going through this, yeah, my attitude has changed.”

“This is all unfolding in ten to fifteen seconds… people need to comply with the orders of law enforcement officers for their own safety.”

I’m sure many who watched the video want to triumphantly yell, “Hypocrite!” But there is no hypocrisy here. This was a teachable moment, and a man who was willing to learn had his eyes opened.

It’s simply too bad that more protesters and protest leaders are ignorant of how real-world scenarios play out.

http://bearingarms.com/hands-dont-s...bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate
 
It’s simply too bad that more protesters and protest leaders are ignorant of how real-world scenarios play out.

I support the movement, own a gun and would use it if I needed to. I think it's less to do with the use of force in any situation, but the use of lethal force when even non-lethal force would have sufficed. Police seem to be becoming less and less reluctant to fire on citizens , despite a sharp decline in police deaths since 2004. In fact, 2013 was the year that saw the fewest officers being shot and killed in the line of duty since 1887

I mean the 1980s and early 90s was a terrible era for inner city violence and we didn't see the same level of police using their weapons as we do today as far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Police seem to be becoming less and less reluctant to fire on citizens , despite a sharp decline in police deaths since 2004. In fact, 2013 was the year that saw the fewest officers being shot and killed in the line of duty since 1887

I mean the 1980s and early 90s was a terrible era for inner city violence and we didn't see the same level of police using their weapons as we do today as far as I know.

It would be good to see this comparison made (I don't know if it has...)
 
Police said Shields, blonde and wearing body armor, raced through the neighborhood, past well-manicured lawns and simple brick houses, firing multiple shots out her window at people and cars.

Shields sped away in her car and led officers on a chase down Highway 153 and Hixson Pike, still pointing her firearm at vehicles she passed.

- DailyKos

Of course she got shot and killed. Just kidding, she was arrested without being shot.

Hmmm, that's weird.

Robert Scott Wood, 53, taunted and threatened police, brandished a knife and a rifle with a scope, tried to stab a police dog and yelled, "Just shoot me and get this over with"

- TwinCities.com

He allegedly charged police with the gun (which turned out to be an air rifle), and shot one of the officers in the face.

He also managed to be arrested without being shot.
 
I support the movement, own a gun and would use it if I needed to. I think it's less to do with the use of force in any situation, but the use of lethal force when even non-lethal force would have sufficed.

I'm all in favor of accountability for the police... Like it's been mentioned before, I think that cameras on officers would be a good idea although that wouldn't be without it's problems, (officer gets in a scuffle and camera is displaced or blocked, etc.). But I'm also in favor of the goddamn media and racebaiters not crucifying cops every time a white cop shoots a black person.
 
It started as a creative method of protest against police violence in America.
The hashtag #blackbrunch hit New York City over the weekend. It was used by protesters who interrupted meals at several restaurants. They recited the names of African Americans killed by police, security guards or vigilantes, an action one organiser says was inspired by the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 60s.
The breakfast interruptions started in relative obscurity last month on the other side of the US in Oakland, California as a tactic to highlightallegations of police brutality. Wazi Davis was one of the people who organised the initial protests.
"Me and my friends wanted to be protesting and be in the streets, but a lot of the protests we saw happening were not organised by black folks at all," Davis says.


Targeting brunch at upscale restaurants was seen by activists as one way of taking a message to a new demographic group - wealthy and predominately white.

"We march, chant and sing together as we claim space in areas that are predominantly non-Black," according to amanual posted online by The BlackOUT Collective, one of the groups behind the original protests.
Thousands of people have tweeted under the #blackbrunch and #blackbrunchnyc tags over the last few days. But several of the most popular comments were anti-protest.


One of the more attention-grabbing tweets (above) was sent by John Cardillo, a businessman and former New York City police officer.
"I found this group to be incredibly cowardly, this was a feel-good measure and they picked the softest target imaginable," Cardillo told BBC Trending. "It was incredibly tasteless to do this during the funeral of a police officer [in New York City on Sunday]. It was in incredibly poor taste and it was counterproductive to their mission."
During Sunday's funeral of one of two officers shot dead by a man who wrote online missives against the police, New York City officers turned their backs on Mayor Bill de Blasio to express their unhappiness at his handling of anti-police protests.
Cardillo says his tweet was deliberately provocative but wasn't meant as an actual threat - he lives in Miami, far from the scene of the protests - and denied that there was a racial motivation to his criticism. He says he would have supported the protesters if they had been on the street rather than in restaurants and that he was testing the reaction of some tweeters.
"These people who are screaming about my photograph, I didn't see any of them shouting about the murder of two cops," he says.
Wazi Davis, the protest organiser, says criticism - both online and off - hasn't put activists off their brunch protests.
"We had a mix of reactions. Some people were really moved by the message we brought. Some came up to us and asked how they could help. Others you could see the clear annoyance on their faces.
"#Blackbrunch is definitely going to continue."

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30686577

 
He allegedly charged police with the gun (which turned out to be an air rifle), and shot one of the officers in the face.

He also managed to be arrested without being shot.

So what are you suggesting, police just wait and see if the violent perp is going to assault or kill them? They had every legal right to use lethal force against this fucking idiot. He should thank his lucky stars he didn't end up with his brain matter scattered across the pavement, but it sounds like he wanted to die anyways.
 
And all this time I thought it was because the mainstream media seldom covers white people being shot because it doesn't draw in the ratings. Seriously tho, forget the black and white shit. All of these instances have one thing in common, the suspects weren't complying and were threatening the cops in one way or another. I'm not one to say just blindly trust authority but if these people would just comply with the officers and worry about proving their innocence later they wouldn't be potentially endangering their lives. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed but I know that nothing good can come from trying to resist an officer. It's also amazing how the police don't seem to hassle you when you're mostly a law abiding citizen.
 
I believe he's pointing out the difference in how police react to these situations depending on whether the suspect is black or white.

Perhaps he hasn't heard of the case of Gilbert Collar, the naked (so definitely unarmed) white teen shot dead by a black police officer. Surprisingly, there was no charges brought against the cop and no outrage from Sharpton or a speech on the matter from Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ert-collar-killed-by-black-cop-trev/?page=all
 
And all this time I thought it was because the mainstream media seldom covers white people being shot because it doesn't draw in the ratings. Seriously tho, forget the black and white shit. All of these instances have one thing in common, the suspects weren't complying and were threatening the cops in one way or another. I'm not one to say just blindly trust authority but if these people would just comply with the officers and worry about proving their innocence later they wouldn't be potentially endangering their lives. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed but I know that nothing good can come from trying to resist an officer. It's also amazing how the police don't seem to hassle you when you're mostly a law abiding citizen.

There are other means of subduing belligerent citizens aside from blowing their brains out. Aren't police trained in hand to hand combat? Don't they have not lethal weapons? Rubber bullets? The "straight for the 9mm" approach isn't necessary in most cases.

Perhaps he hasn't heard of the case of Gilbert Collar, the naked (so definitely unarmed) white teen shot dead by a black police officer. Surprisingly, there was no charges brought against the cop and no outrage from Sharpton or a speech on the matter from Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ert-collar-killed-by-black-cop-trev/?page=all

^Was that the kid on mushrooms jumping up and down on a cop car threatening police? I saw it on national news.
 
So what are you suggesting, police just wait and see if the violent perp is going to assault or kill them? They had every legal right to use lethal force against this fucking idiot. He should thank his lucky stars he didn't end up with his brain matter scattered across the pavement, but it sounds like he wanted to die anyways.

If he wanted to die, maybe he should have tried selling individual cigarettes.

Shooting at cops and charging them with what appears to have been a gun didn't work.
 
^Was that the kid on mushrooms jumping up and down on a cop car threatening police? I saw it on national news.

What about those white politicians screaming racism and injustice and all the riots that broke out?

And the article said he was on 25-I whatever that is, not mushrooms.

There are other means of subduing belligerent citizens aside from blowing their brains out. Aren't police trained in hand to hand combat? Don't they have not lethal weapons? Rubber bullets? The "straight for the 9mm" approach isn't necessary in most cases.

I don't believe it's a cop's job to put a violent aggressor's life above their own.

The things you mentioned are anything but full proof and honestly a bit laughable...

Hand to hand combat... Dangerous enough for two unarmed people but extremely dangerous for an officer who could very easily have his or her firearm taken from them and get shot with their own weapon. Plus the cop has no way of knowing if the subject has a weapon of their own but that's not even really important.

Rubber bullets... Not really even that effective in crowd control, much less if a crazed maniac is coming at you within a short distance. Hell, multiple shots are usually required from REAL bullets to bring a subject down unless the officer hits a vital area. It isn't like the movies where someone gets shot once and goes flying across the room. Especially for a larger subject, it's likely going to take more than one shot. Rubber bullets on someone aggressive enough to be coming towards an officer are likely to just agitate the person further and cause the officer to lose valuable time in effectively stopping the subject.

Tasers... One shot deal. If the officer misses the subject they're useless.

So if you were armed with a pistol and someone was coming at you in short range and you had seconds to react, what would you trust your life on? I know what my answer would be.
 
Last edited:
In the example Nutty used anyone with any experience in the use of handguns could have easily have blown out that guys kneecap from that distance which would have made that guy drop to the ground in agony and loose all interest in attacking anyone. And before anyone says cops aren't trained to do that if you can't handle a fucking gun then perhaps you shouldn't be a cop? Also don't cop's in the US carry batons cause that would have rendered that suspect neutralized fairly quickly and sure as fuck beats a knife.

I know the RCMP are given such little weapons training and are so useless at hitting their target that i am surprised many of them don't get killed after emptying the clip without hitting the suspect.
 
What about those white politicians screaming racism and injustice and all the riots that broke out?

The 87% white majority in congress didn't criticize the institutional racism and state violence against the white majority of the population? Bizarre.

I don't believe it's a cop's job to put a violent aggressor's life above their own.

Neither do I.

The things you mentioned are anything but full proof and honestly a bit laughable...

They seemed to work fine since they were first put into practice. There have been nearly as many incidents of police firing on citizens since 2000 as there have been throughout the entire 20th century.

Rubber bullets... Not really even that effective in crowd control

Rubber bullets were designed specifically for crowd control and are quite effective. As are flash grenades.

Tasers... One shot deal. If the officer misses the subject they're useless.

That's why they're not fired from 30 ft away. At close range it's pretty difficult to miss your target. They can also be used every few seconds if the first shock didn't permanently put the guy down. This was standard for law enforcement for years. What changed? Like I said earlier, fewer police were shot and killed in 2013 than in any year since 1887. Within the last decade we've switched from non-lethal to lethal force for being the standard defense. Blowing a 7 year old kids brains out because he was carrying a bb gun would have been the controversy of the year 20 years ago.

So if you were armed with a pistol and someone was coming at you in short range and you had seconds to react, what would you trust your life on? I know what my answer would be.

I've already said I own one myself and would use it if necessary. There's a difference between someone pointing a gun at you and someone making threatening gestures. If I was also carrying mace, a taser, a baton etc I would try to subdue an apparently unarmed but belligerent person before deciding to empty my clip into him at rapid fire.

I thought police were trained professionals who are supposed to be prepared to handle these kinds of situations. Any guy on the street can wear a badge and shoot whoever looks threatening.
 
Last edited:
The 87% white majority in congress didn't criticize the institutional racism and state violence against the white majority of the population? Bizarre.

I don't see institutional racism being mentioned at all, but it was a wholly unjust killing where no charges were brought against the police. How would you explain the disproportionate media coverage, no comment from Obama or Holder and no dialogue on the issue following the Gilbert Collar case ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top