Calling 911 Is a Direct Expression of White Power & Privilege

[protectionist]

That's bullshit. For one thing he was not suspected of being a "felon in flight" he was pulled over for a malfunctioning tail light. Secondly the investigation proved that this"officer" contradicted his own police report.

The bastard should have gotten life in prison. Cops like him give good ones a bad name.

Of course you probably like seeing every black male in America either shot dead or locked up.

You're a nut.

He was 1) FLEEING, and he was 2) a FELON, because he just committed a felony, by fighting with a cop. Whatever contradictions there were, are moot. You don't convict a cop for doing his job as the law prescribes, just so you can keep cool with the voters (in this case, majority black).

Slager should not have spent one minute behind bars. The politicians who conspired to put him there, maybe should/could have been arrested.

You assessment of me simply shows you're an idiot.

 

[protectionist]

Nonsense and gibberish.

Come back when you can post something more than empty, ad hominem trash talk.

 

[katsteve2012]

That's bullshit. For one thing he was not suspected of being a "felon in flight" he was pulled over for a malfunctioning tail light. Secondly the investigation proved that this"officer" contradicted his own police report.

The bastard should have gotten life in prison. Cops like him give good ones a bad name.

Of course you probably like seeing every black male in America either shot dead or locked up.

You're a nut.

He was 1) FLEEING, and he was 2) a FELON, because he just committed a felony, by fighting with a cop. Whatever contradictions there were, are moot. You don't convict a cop for doing his job as the law prescribes, just so you can keep cool with the voters (in this case, majority black).

Slager should not have spent one minute behind bars. The politicians who conspired to put him there, maybe should/could have been arrested.

You assessment of me simply shows you're an idiot.

Your warped reasoning makes you look retarded.

The video was contradictory to what the murderer with a badge reported. Luckily an honest citizen with a concience filmed what happened and the murderer was convicted as he should have been. He is lucky for only getting 20 years.

And my "assessment" of you is fairly consistent with others who have read some of your hysterical rants.

 

[protectionist]

So either your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired or you really are being willfully ignorant because I never said that the purpose of Affirmative Action "is just for statistics" I was commenting on why they ask for voluntarily provided statistical information. This is not something that I "fell" for, I've been working with data as a database software developer for 30 years and have had access to data in a multitude of different industries, including the ones which keep information on everyone living in the United States, government, law enforcement, employment, medical, cellular, mortgage/financial, etc. I know of what I speak, unlike you who from the first comment in which I encountered you have done nothing but thrown a continuous pity party and anti-black tirade about how racists blacks and how affirmative action has ruined your life.

I have refuted the white women ("largest group of beneficiaries of Affirmative Action") talking point dozens of times, for 5 years in this forum. So once again, because you must be one of the few who never heard this, the white women who benefit from Affirmative Action, are a tiny % in comparison to the number of white victims of AA. >>

1, White women do not always get AA preference. As it was in my graduate school, 5 white woman were denied assistantship (as were 6 minorities). The ony ones who got the assistantship were blacks.

2. The number of white women who get AA preference, is very small, compared to the number of white women victims >> daughters, wives, sisters, etc of white male victims, who are dependents of those white males. Your illustrious DOL and EEOC stats don't touch upon that (as is typically the case with stats tossed around by liberals) Ho hum. Yawn****

Just the last paragraph here in which I refuted you again, tells me that NO, you don't know of what you speak, but you will know

now​

, because I have just informed you of what you obviously had no clue.

One thing you should know is that "data" is only as good as how it is used. When it leaves out critical criterea (ex. white-males' female dependents), it is useless, and worse yet, it is often harmful by spreading false notions.

PS - I'm 72 years old, college educated, taught economics in college, and have been doing this for FIFTY years, so be careful who you try to pull rank on.

 

[protectionist]

Your warped reasoning makes you look retarded.

The video was contradictory to what the murderer with a badge reported. Luckily an honest citizen with a concience filmed what happened and the murderer was convicted as he should have been. He is lucky for only getting 20 years.

And my "assessment" of you is fairly consistent with others who have read some of your hysterical rants.

1. What "reasoning" ? The guy (Scott) fought with a cop. That makes him a felon. He was fleeing. That makes him a fleeing felon. Law says cop should shoot him to protect others (the community). Not rocket science. Not philosophy.

2. Your little "contradictory" avenue is going nowhere. Slager didn't get 20 years from contradictions. He was locked up for the shooting (which was legal, but heavily POLITICAL) Simple as that.

3. As for your feeble attempt to recruit the USMB membership against me, let's note I've been in this forum a year less than you, and I have almost twice as many thanks received than you have. They don't list agrees and winners, but I get a dozen or more of them every day.

4. I'm as calm as can be. You're the one who sounds "hysterical".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

One thing you should know is that "data" is only as good as how it is used. When it leaves out critical criterea (ex. white-males' female dependents), it is useless, and worse yet, it is often harmful by spreading false notions.

So you honestly think that you're telling me something that I don't already know as a Microsoft certified professional software developer who specializes in database design and development?

PS - I'm 72 years old, college educated, taught economics in college, and have been doing this for FIFTY years, so be careful who you try to pull rank on.

Be careful? Of you? Why? You're not the only person here who is college educated or an educator and besides your numbers as well as your story don't add up, they rarely have.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1. What "reasoning" ? The guy (Scott) fought with a cop. That makes him a felon. He was fleeing. That makes him a fleeing felon. Law says cop should shoot him to protect others (the community). Not rocket science. Not philosophy.

2. Your little "contradictory" avenue is going nowhere. Slager didn't get 20 years from contradictions. He was locked up for the shooting (which was legal, but heavily POLITICAL) Simple as that.

3. As for your feeble attempt to recruit the USMB membership against me, let's note I've been in this forum a year less than you, and I have almost twice as many thanks received than you have. They don't list agrees and winners, but I get a dozen or more of them every day.

I highlighter the pertinent parts in RED for you

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]


A police officer may not seize an unarmed, ***nondangerous*** suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]​

CAN POLICE OFFICERS SHOOT AT FLEEING INDIVIDUALS?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

"You don't shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances -- emergencies -- that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole," said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, was "insane" given what he said was the apparent lack of justification.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

3. As for your feeble attempt to recruit the USMB membership against me, let's note I've been in this forum a year less than you, and I have almost twice as many thanks received than you have. They don't list agrees and winners, but I get a dozen or more of them every day.

Where has he done this, I'd love to see what he's alleged to have done.

 

[protectionist]

So you honestly think that you're telling me something that I don't already know as a Microsoft certified professional software developer who specializes in database design and development?

Be careful? Of you? Why? You're not the only person here who is college educated or an educator and besides your numbers as well as your story don't add up, they rarely have.

If you knew it, then why were you trying to get away with the false claim that white women as being the "largest group of beneficiaries of Affirmative Action" Actually, when ALL white women are counted, the overwhelming majority of them are VICTIMS of AA, as you now are acknowledging ?

Yeah. be careful of ME. Who knows more about this than you do, quite obviously. No charge for the tutoring. My numbers and story DO add up, and if I hadn't mentioned about white mens' wives and daughters, you'd still be yammering about how great white women have it, wouldn't you ?

 

[protectionist]

I highlighter the pertinent parts in RED for you

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]


A police officer may not seize an unarmed, ***nondangerous*** suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]​

CAN POLICE OFFICERS SHOOT AT FLEEING INDIVIDUALS?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

"You don't shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances -- emergencies -- that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole," said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.

Gilbertson said he thought the video of the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, was "insane" given what he said was the apparent lack of justification.​

Yeah, I know what Gilbertson has said. I know exactly what he said. He's wrong. There is what people go around saying, and there is THE LAW.

Rather than bore you to tears, as you're doing to me, let's keep it simple. FELON is fleeing. Of course his back is to the officer. Officer shoots to "prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others"

Simple as that. Deluging with piles of words, may work on some posters. A few. LOL

 

[protectionist]

Where has he done this, I'd love to see what he's alleged to have done.

Posted by KatSteve2012 >>> "And my "assessment" of you is fairly consistent with others who have read some of your hysterical rants." (Post # 143 in this thread)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If you knew it, then why were you trying to get away with the false claim that white women as being the "largest group of beneficiaries of Affirmative Action" Actually, when ALL white women are counted, the overwhelming majority of them are VICTIMS of AA, as you now are acknowledging ?

You are so intellectually dishonest (or bereft) it's pathetic.

My statement that white women as a group have benefited the most from affirmative action is TRUE. It's not a false statement and it's substantiated by the very agency that is tasked with it's oversight/enforcement.

Your statement that the number of white women who are "victims" of affirmative action far exceeds the number of white women who are "beneficiaries" of the program is your OPINION. What you believe to be true does not equate to being true but more importantly in order to even determine the veracity of your OPINION, that information would first have to be collected and included in the data model and to the best of my knowledge, they don't presently collect information on who "didn't" get the job, admittance, housing, etc. nor the attributes of the candidate in addition to race.

Yeah. be careful of ME. Who knows more about this than you do, quite obviously. No charge for the tutoring. My numbers and story DO add up, and if I hadn't mentioned about white mens' wives and daughters, you'd still be yammering about how great white women have it, wouldn't you ?

Oh so now you're threatening me? This could almost be viewed as funny considering you're working with so little except for the fact I know how the internet makes some people feel so much more brave than they'd ever have the courage to be in real life. Don't let the voices in your head end up putting your ass in a sling.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yeah, I know what Gilbertson has said. I know exactly what he said. He's wrong. There is what people go around saying, and there is THE LAW

And yet he's been sentenced to 20 years in prison according to THE LAW, specifically because the law states in Tennessee vs. Garner that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer ***reasonably*** believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community
and
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, ***nondangerous*** suspect by shooting him dead..

Being black and attempting to flee from the police after being stopped for a broken taillight is not synonymous with ***DANGEROUS***

Rather than bore you to tears, as you're doing to me...

Yet here you are again, voluntarily engaging in conversation with someone whom you claim is boring you. What exactly did you teach in college and while you were a student yourself did you never have to analyze two things or situations and explain how they are similar and how they are different? Because there is a difference between "just" being a felon and being a "violent felon". You're like the other posters here who think that tasering, shooting and killing a person is a reasonable, rational as well as lawful (it isn't) response to disobedience to a police officer.

Simple as that. Deluging with piles of words, may work on some posters. A few. LOL

There is nothing simple about your lack of ability to understand distinctions within our legal codes however it's apparent that you're confused about why I'm here.

 

[protectionist]

You are so intellectually dishonest (or bereft) it's pathetic.

My statement that white women as a group have benefited the most from affirmative action is TRUE. It's not a false statement and it's substantiated by the very agency that is tasked with it's oversight/enforcement.

Your statement that the number of white women who are "victims" of affirmative action far exceeds the number of white women who are "beneficiaries" of the program is your OPINION. What you believe to be true does not equate to being true but more importantly in order to even determine the veracity of your OPINION, that information would first have to be collected and included in the data model and to the best of my knowledge, they don't presently collect information on who "didn't" get the job, admittance, housing, etc. nor the attributes of the candidate in addition to race.

Oh so now you're threatening me? This could almost be viewed as funny considering you're working with so little except for the fact I know how the internet makes some people feel so much more brave than they'd ever have the courage to be in real life. Don't let the voices in your head end up putting your ass in a sling.

1. I don't necessarily believe govt statistics, especially if they're from the Obama administration.

2. Obviously, you are not aware that the study culture that you are deeply immersed in is a joke to millions of people in this country. Time and time against liberals using studies as basis for their claims have been refuted when it was found the study was faulty for a number of reasons. Invalid data collection the most frequent offender. Have you ever read my posting on the Stephens-Davidowitz study on racism ? (highly touted by the New York Times). My expose' (actually a rewrite from Ann Coulter), made mincemeat of that study, as well as the New York Times' backing of it.

3. What's this talk about "threatening" Are you drunk ? Being careful of me, I (OBVIOUSLY) was referring to you trying to act intellectually superior, and 30 years of working with data. Oh my- aren't you clever, and sophisticated ? LOL. Good laugh out of that.

4. Are YOU threatening ME ? >> "Don't let the voices in your head end up putting your ass in a sling." you said.

 

[protectionist]

And yet he's been sentenced to 20 years in prison according to THE LAW, specifically because the law states in Tennessee vs. Garner that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer ***reasonably*** believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community
and
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, ***nondangerous*** suspect by shooting him dead..

Being black and attempting to flee from the police after being stopped for a broken taillight is not synonymous with ***DANGEROUS***

Yet here you are again, voluntarily engaging in conversation with someone whom you claim is boring you. What exactly did you teach in college and while you were a student yourself did you never have to analyze two things or situations and explain how they are similar and how they are different? Because there is a difference between "just" being a felon and being a "violent felon". You're like the other posters here who think that tasering, shooting and killing a person is a reasonable, rational as well as lawful (it isn't) response to disobedience to a police officer.

There is nothing simple about your lack of ability to understand distinctions within our legal codes however it's apparent that you're confused about why I'm here.

NO, that's NOT why Slager got 20 years, and YOU KNOW IT, because I've already instructed you on that.

You're also pretending that you don't know the jist of the Scott/Slager shooting as related to the Fleeing Felon rule. I've been posting this FFR ever since the case happened a few years ago.

And yes, the FFR has something to do with violent and non-violent, and Scott WAS violent, having fought with a cop, and the FFR applied to him 100%. Only reason Slager got jailed is POLITICS. How any times have I said it now ? (while you pretend you don't know)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

[snipped]

4. Are YOU threatening ME ? >> "Don't let the voices in your head end up putting your ass in a sling." you said.

Are you or are you not the person who is reported to have called the police on an internet poster because they called you a "dumbass"? That kind of reaction and response to someone's opinion is what I was referring to specifically your admonishment that I need to be careful of you. There is absolutely no reason that I need to exercise caution in a online message board outside of the fact that some people cannot deal with being contradicted or disagreed with and then want take things offline to seek vengeance. Based on some of your consistently derogatory statements against black people I don't yet know if you're one of those people.

And yes, my 30 years of database work stands particularly because it's not restricted to a single industry nor is it confined to the Obama administration as if that's where the accounting began.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Only reason Slager got jailed is POLITICS. How any times have I said it now ? (while you pretend you don't know)

Pretending would still be better than being completely oblivious, however I am not pretending. No matter how political someone wants to be, they would be unable to imprison him had he not violated the law. I know how you wish the law to be but that's not how it is

On May 11, 2016, Slager was indicted on federal charges of violating Scott's civil rights and unlawfully using a weapon during the commission of a crime. In addition, he was charged with obstruction of justice as a result of his statement to state investigators that Scott was moving toward him with the Taser when he shot him.[29] Slager pleaded not guilty, and a trial was scheduled to begin in May 2017.[65] Slager faced up to life in prison if convicted.[66]

On May 2, 2017, as part of a plea agreement, Slager pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, deprivation of rights under color of law. In return for the guilty plea, the charges of obstructing justice and use of a firearm during a crime of violence were dismissed.[67][68]

On December 7, 2017, U.S. District Judge David C. Norton sentenced Slager to 20 years in prison.[69] Although defense attorneys had argued for voluntary manslaughter, the judge agreed with prosecutors that the "appropriate underlying offense" was second-degree murder.[6] Because there is no parole in the federal justice system, Slager will likely remain in prison about 18 years after credit for time served in jail.[70]​

 

[protectionist]

Are you or are you not the person who is reported to have called the police on an internet poster because they called you a "dumbass"? That kind of reaction and response to someone's opinion is what I was referring to specifically your admonishment that I need to be careful of you. There is absolutely no reason that I need to exercise caution in a online message board outside of the fact that some people cannot deal with being contradicted or disagreed with and then want take things offline to seek vengeance. Based on some of your consistently derogatory statements against black people I don't yet know if you're one of those people.

And yes, my 30 years of database work stands particularly because it's not restricted to a single industry nor is it confined to the Obama administration as if that's where the accounting began.

First you ask a QUESTION, and then you proceed to speak basing your words on an affirmative answer to that QUESTION. If you don't know the answer to the QUESTION, how can you speak as though you have the answer ?

And if you have the answer, how can you be asking a QUESTION regarding it ?

With respect to someone being called a "dumbass" (and other psychologically injurious words), that is not the same as "being contradicted or disagreed with"

The former is malicious verbal abuse (and directed at a senior citizen ,a crime according to Florida statutes), which has to do with JUSTICE, not "vengeance".

You know perfectly well that when I said you need to be careful, I was talking about assuming you are more knowledgable than someone, when you may not be. And this is the second time I've explained this (some people need to be told twice)

As for what you've been saying to me (a senior citizen in Florida), you might be in violation of the statute too (825.102), but I'm just interested I posting right now, not being computer cop.

PS - You should respect your elders, not trash talk them.

 

[protectionist]

Pretending would still be better than being completely oblivious, however I am not pretending. No matter how political someone wants to be, they would be unable to imprison him had he not violated the law. I know how you wish the law to be but that's not how it is

On May 11, 2016, Slager was indicted on federal charges of violating Scott's civil rights and unlawfully using a weapon during the commission of a crime. In addition, he was charged with obstruction of justice as a result of his statement to state investigators that Scott was moving toward him with the Taser when he shot him.[29] Slager pleaded not guilty, and a trial was scheduled to begin in May 2017.[65] Slager faced up to life in prison if convicted.[66]

On May 2, 2017, as part of a plea agreement, Slager pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, deprivation of rights under color of law. In return for the guilty plea, the charges of obstructing justice and use of a firearm during a crime of violence were dismissed.[67][68]

On December 7, 2017, U.S. District Judge David C. Norton sentenced Slager to 20 years in prison.[69] Although defense attorneys had argued for voluntary manslaughter, the judge agreed with prosecutors that the "appropriate underlying offense" was second-degree murder.[6] Because there is no parole in the federal justice system, Slager will likely remain in prison about 18 years after credit for time served in jail.[70]​

I wish the law to be what the law is. The malicious enforcement of the law is what I have a problem with.

I have nothing to add to what I've said about Slager. He was railroaded by politicians pandering to a black majority voting district, as he acted in accordance with the law (Fleeing Felon rule)

 

[MizMolly]

I read this yesterday and this line caught my attention:

“Black interactions with police can too easily lead to trauma or death. In many situations, calling the police on a black person can be like tossing a grenade at them.”

Cooperate and comply with reasonable police requests for information and identification and you're on your way. Unless you are committing a crime. Then, there is a reason for you to be dealing with the consequences of your actions. The author seems to think blacks are unable to behave in a reasonable manner which I find quite odd and contrary to my own experience. I don't get this statement at all.

Blacks have done that and still die. Whites have pulled guns on police and have lived. Drop the racist beliefs that all blacks are getting killed by police because thy are not complying with police commands. By law we do not just have to do whatever the police say. You own experience may not be that of a black person. And that's the trouble with this discussion, whites refuse to understand that not everybody gets treated the same. That cops are humans and a lot of them are running around believing the same shit whites here believe about backs. But they have a gun and permission to end a life based on their discretion. And once they kill somebody they know all they have to do is say they felt threatened and the civilian enablers won't question while their departments will send them on a paid vacation until they finish a scam investigation that ends up justifying the killing.

Blacks have done that and still die. Whites have pulled guns on police and have lived.

And, your point is....what?

Because....

As of, May 3, 2018, 425 people,
have been shot and killed by law enforcement

176 were white
85 were black


In 2017, 987 people, were shot and killed by law enforcement

457 were white
223 were black


In 2016, 963 people, were shot and killed by law enforcement

466 were white
234 were black

Drop the racist beliefs that all blacks are getting killed by police because thy are not complying with police commands.

Drop the race card and stop constantly and continuously,
spewing your racist propaganda, over and over and over,
and start GETTING REAL, by ACKNOWLEDGING the truth!

Because, the truth is....

Here, in Chicago...not Illinois, just Chicago,
in the month of May, alone....

Shot and killed: 44
Shot & Wounded: 264
Total Shot: 308
Total Homicides: 51

Last week, alone....(5/27 - 6/2)

Shot & Killed: 9
Shot & Wounded: 53
Total Shot: 62
Total Homicides: 10

So far, the number of people,
shot and killed, since January 1, 2018, is 174

Year to Date

Shot & Killed: 174
Shot & Wounded: 904
Total Shot: 1078
Total Homicides: 209

167, of the 174 shooting deaths,
were classified as a homicide

Of the 209 homicides,
83.1% were shot and killed

A black person was involved, in 73.6%
of the 83.1% of people, shot and killed

148 were victims
21 were assailants

...173 unknown assailants, accounted for,
5.5% of the 83.1% of gun related homicides

Of the 148 black people, shot and killed,
only 1 was killed by law enforcement,...
just yesterday, as a matter of fact

Of the 174 people shot and killed, 148 were black
Only 1, of the 148 black people killed, involved CPD

By law we do not just have to do whatever the police say. You own experience may not be that of a black person. And that's the trouble with this discussion, whites refuse to understand that not everybody gets treated the same.

NO...^ that's what is so troubling!


The failure of black America
acknowledging and addressing the real problems,
instead of having excuses and blaming race and slavery

The reason black thugs dont want to comply,
is because they want the police to rough them up
so they could file a lawsuit and cash in

There are African Americans and there are n1ggers
When decent black folks speak up and get honest,
and finally start a real discussion, then we'll know, BLM

And there are black cops who shoot black perps, white cops who shoot white perps