Rewarding bad behavior

[Soggy in NOLA]

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

Wait, what? So, it was indeed justified... glad you wasted all our time on this.

 

[jillian]

It's political. You wouldn't understand.

he also couldn't care less that a cop rode up and shot dead a 12 year old kid he'd already been told was probably playing with a pellet gun

it's not like the kid was white or anything

 

[Fair&Balanced]

closed caption, can you at a minimum agree that the child behaved even worse and that the black community HAS to stop resisting and fighting police if they ever want to stop being shot?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because this new standard wasnt a standard until you just thought it up

No, it's standard for any responsible parent to not let a child run the street carrying a pellet gun that looks like a real gun.

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

In this particular story? It was a pellet gun (which is NOT a toy, is not designed for children and specifically says "not a toy" on the box) and yes the police clearly saw it in the kid's waist band when he reached for it when they told him to get to his hands up. Those are all facts in evidence.

This is how you know you're lying. The cops never saw the gun, he never reached for the gun and no orders were given.

Unless all that happened in 2 seconds and the people involved have the power to move at super speed

Dont believe me? Pick a source:

NO evidence Cleveland officer ordered Tamir Rice to raise ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Boy-pellet-gun-warned-friend-police-...
Daily Mail
Jun 13, 2015 - NO evidence that Cleveland police officer ordered Tamir Rice, 12, ... shot a 12-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun ordered him to raise his hands ...
Cleveland ordered to pay $6mn to family of Tamir Rice ...
Cleveland ordered to pay $6mn to family of Tamir Rice, 12yo fatally shot by policetamir-rice-family-money/
RT
Apr 25, 2016 - The city of Cleveland will pay $6 million to the family of Tamir Rice, ... Lawyers for Rice's family said Monday that "no amount of money can ...
Tamir Rice Case: No Hard Evidence Found That Cop ...
www.nbcnews.com/.../tamir-rice-case-friend-warned-12-y...
NBCNews.com
Jun 13, 2015 - Investigators have found no hard evidence a Cleveland police officer who fatally shot a 12-year-old boy carrying a pellet gun ordered him to ...

Of course there is no evidence. The video recorder didn't have a mic and the police car didn't have a dash cam. There is no evidence he told the kid to freeze and no evidence he didn't. The only thing we have is the testimony of the police officers.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's political. You wouldn't understand.

he also couldn't care less that a cop rode up and shot dead a 12 year old kid he'd already been told was probably playing with a pellet gun

it's not like the kid was white or anything

Only racists care what color the kid was. Everyone else is like "hey kid, don't point toy guns at people and don't reach for your gun when the cops show up"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

All you need to know is that a GJ of 12+ saw no cause to indict.

FOR CRIMINAL Charges. The Prosector himself said so many things went wrong and miscommunication that the cop wasnt CRIMINALLY liable. Not that he was innocent.

[quoteEnd of story. Your rantings about 2 seconds or your speculation about what the cop saw or didn't see mean squat.

yes end of story. Know the difference between CRIMINAL indictment and what the prosecutor called a MAJOR FUCK UP by the police[/QUOTE]

If he isn't criminally liable, he is innocent. And like I said before, the evidence in a civil action is a lot less burdensome. The city may have lost a civil suit. Hence the payout.

 

[Norman]

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

All you need to know is that a GJ of 12+ saw no cause to indict.

FOR CRIMINAL Charges. The Prosector himself said so many things went wrong and miscommunication that the cop wasnt CRIMINALLY liable. Not that he was innocent.

[quoteEnd of story. Your rantings about 2 seconds or your speculation about what the cop saw or didn't see mean squat.

yes end of story. Know the difference between CRIMINAL indictment and what the prosecutor called a MAJOR FUCK UP by the police

Well, thankfully you know that he is not innocent. "Innocent till proven cop" or how was that again?

Regressive racists...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's political. You wouldn't understand.

he also couldn't care less that a cop rode up and shot dead a 12 year old kid he'd already been told was probably playing with a pellet gun

it's not like the kid was white or anything

And you couldn't care less that a kid was allowed to wander the streets of a major metropolitan city with a gun with it's orange safety indicator removed.

And it's not like black kids in Cleveland never have guns.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

All you need to know is that a GJ of 12+ saw no cause to indict.

FOR CRIMINAL Charges. The Prosector himself said so many things went wrong and miscommunication that the cop wasnt CRIMINALLY liable. Not that he was innocent.

[quoteEnd of story. Your rantings about 2 seconds or your speculation about what the cop saw or didn't see mean squat.

yes end of story. Know the difference between CRIMINAL indictment and what the prosecutor called a MAJOR FUCK UP by the police

Well, thankfully you know that he is not innocent. "Innocent till proven cop" or how was that again?

Regressive racists...

The Prosector said it, not me. Now what? You gonna call the prosecutor names too now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

I am speaking facts. Don't you think a police officer knows what would happen if he shot somebody that didn't present a threat to him? Of course they do. Buy yourself a police scanner when you get an extra couple of bucks like I did. The dispatcher always gives a description of the suspect including attire when they send out a patrol car. It's not like there were a dozen kids like him and the cops decided to pick one out.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

Grand Jury wasnt there to determine if he did anything wrong.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

Grand Jury wasnt there to determine if he did anything wrong.

Correct, cuz that's not what Grand Juries do. Grand Juries determine whether it was likely a crime was committed. They determine that there was no evidence that this kid's death was wrongful. PERIOD

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

Grand Jury wasnt there to determine if he did anything wrong.

Neither were you. Matter of fact, they probably saw/heard more than you did plus they listened to testimony.

 

[ClosedCaption]

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

I am speaking facts. Don't you think a police officer knows what would happen if he shot somebody that didn't present a threat to him?

This doesnt matter in this discussion. People think a lot of things. I'm not going through them all when we have this situation.

Of course they do.

OK great...now back to the subject

Buy yourself a police scanner when you get an extra couple of bucks like I did. The dispatcher always gives a description of the suspect including attire when they send out a patrol car. It's not like there were a dozen kids like him and the cops decided to pick one out.

Yes but they never saw a gun. A description isnt proof he had anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories


They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

Grand Jury wasnt there to determine if he did anything wrong.

Correct, cuz that's not what Grand Juries do. Grand Juries determine whether it was likely a crime was committed. They determine that there was no evidence that this kid's death was wrongful. PERIOD

No they determined that the cop didnt break the law. Not that it wasnt wrong. You keep lying about this simple fact

 

[ClosedCaption]

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

CRIMINAL You keep leaving that part out

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories


They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

Now...The cop that shot him was mental and was fired from another department because his boss said he was off his rocker.

Care to defend the actions of a mental case any further?

Nah, no need to. He did nothing wrong.

FACT. (See Grand Jury results)

Grand Jury wasnt there to determine if he did anything wrong.

Neither were you. Matter of fact, they probably saw/heard more than you did plus they listened to testimony.

Yes they did. Now that you're finished stating the obvious also state they werent there to determine if anything was wrong. They were determining if his actions were CRIMINAL

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

I am speaking facts. Don't you think a police officer knows what would happen if he shot somebody that didn't present a threat to him?

This doesnt matter in this discussion. People think a lot of things. I'm not going through them all when we have this situation.

Of course they do.

OK great...now back to the subject

Buy yourself a police scanner when you get an extra couple of bucks like I did. The dispatcher always gives a description of the suspect including attire when they send out a patrol car. It's not like there were a dozen kids like him and the cops decided to pick one out.

Yes but they never saw a gun. A description isnt proof he had anything. Innocent until proven guilty.

What?

Back up

So are you serioulsy suggesting that if the police get a call saying "subject possibly armed" They should precede as if the subject is not armed b/c "innocent until proven guilty?" LOL holy shit, that is possibly the dumbest thing I've read on this board, and I've read some truly stupid shit .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

It would be pure stupidity for anybody in a grand jury case to be questioned. That's because it's not a typical court case where the prosecutor gets to ask questions of the defendant and then his lawyer gets to ask followup questions.

In a grand jury, the only one allowed to ask questions is the prosecutor. It's totally one-sided because all the defendant can reply is yes or no.