Random Politics & Religion #00

Police pull a driver over. While they are running his papers he bolts. Cop shoots him in the back.

This one isn't theortical. You're OK with it?

Oh... paged. Here, have the video:

If the cop finds out he's wanted for something serious? Na I think it's just perfect to let him escape and pray for the best. Hope he sees the light and turns himself in.

"Content not available in your country"

I guess the truth is illegal in the USA?

Its an Australian video, I can't see it either. But no, there is no reason to shoot there, no matter who the guy was, thats murder.

This one?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/us/south-carolina-walter-scott-shooting-michael-slager/
I would say trying to immobilize someone is a lot different than blatantly trying to end someone's life. I'm not going to try to play judge on this one cuz I haven't heard the whole story and I think that's why it will go to trial. If he's found guilty then he's guilty.

The job of a cop is to investigate said murder, the job of the prosecutor is to attempt to prove they did it, and the job of a jury is to decide if they're guilty. Nobody in that chain (in most cases) is responsible or entitled to decide if that person should die.

Even the justice system fails a shockingly high amount of the time. Would you be ok with cops shooting anyone who looks like they might have committed a murder without due process? Do you even constitution, bro?


Police have tools to pursue or immobilize a fleeing suspect without endangering anyone's life. There's no reason to reach for a pistol when you have non-lethal options and aren't in mortal danger.

Interesting concept. Even my own personal opinion sounds more liberal than the actual Law itself.....and Detectives? hmmm
In the end, your own personal ideas sound great yet everything is subjective to the situation itself.
There are no such absolutes that you claim exist.

Another pile of misunderstanding.

The law about use of force for a subject resisting arrest uses "reasonable", which has a different meaning in legal terms. What is reasonable is what is would be considered appropriate under general circumstances. What is appropriate if a person is attempting to harm an officer at close range is way different than what is reasonable if a suspect is fleeing. Apples and oranges for this conversation.

As far as Tn v Garner, which you clearly didn't do any background on, actually was the ruling that determined that officers cannot shoot a fleeing suspect. It poses that the in the entirety of a situation, the interest of the state in apprehending a suspect must outweigh their interest in life and limb, making justifying shooting a fleeing suspect infinitely more difficult. Under that decision, in order for shooting a fleeing suspect to be reasonable, they must demonstrate an imminent threat if the suspect is able to escape. That's not "he has expired tags, so he'll probably assault a woman if he gets away".


"detectives" are just officers that have a more specific training and focus. They're level 2 tech support. And, it's pretty obvious you have acquired most of your knowledge about law enforcement from TV dramas.

Interesting debate. While I google information cuz I'm no expert on any of the above. You just speak without any base of knowledge to back up anything whatsoever that you claim or say. Even when I provide exact wording contradicting everything you claim. You then turn and say I'm wrong and you're right with zero proof supporting anything you say. All while altering and distorting every last thing I say LoL you win

You admit you're just googling stuff and have no frame of reference but think you're qualified to judge my base of knowledge? Lol, ok buddy, keep posting things you don't understand that are either irrelevant or confirm what I've said and pat yourself on the back. I'm done.

Yeah... that man shouldn't had died. Even with the scuffle and everything else. Are Police trained too well on how to hit the torso.... How hard is it to aim for legs and not fire repeatedly. I blame the training. Tragedies like these shouldn't be happening. Even if an officer is allowed to shoot in such a situation, killing that man wasn't the right thing to do.
No I'm not. I just don't think every situation is as easy to see as this one. Like I said if it's a serious suspect and not someone scared to go to jail cuz he failed to pay his child support then yea but only immobilize them ffs....
or arm police with rubber bullets or whatever cuz this is too much

Harder than you think.

As a tween I was a great shot with a rifle. Lay a coke bottle on its side and I could shoot down the neck and blow the bottom out 10/10 at 50 ft and 9/10 at 50 yards. Running rabbit at 50 ft? maybe 1/5.

And with a pistol at 50 ft I could only get 5/6 in the rings.

I'm not trying to defend the officer but he did use force as the final measure to stop him. The guy ran. He chased him down. The guy fought with him. Reached for what he probly thought was the officers gun and shot his tazer. I could imagine the cop being fairly disoriented by that point. It could've easily been the officer dead instead. I'm just saying dying cuz you failed to pay your child support is insane.

Pataki is out. Wait... what's a Pataki?

Pataki leaving Republican presidential race
Politico

Which makes an even six and six for the Fox debates.

The air up there: How polluted is your state?

Here's to PA being #3 despite vast expanses of wilderness with two-plus centuries of coal and oil extraction, refining, and burning. Nothing like turning a beautiful state into a disgusting mess.

45th!

Ramy and I have that top ten shame. Let's go ruin Mos's state!

>:O

If it makes you feel better Italy has the highest death rate related to pollution in the entire EU.

Woo we're first!

Yeah. The Pittsburgh region has a pretty impressive rate of lung diseases thanks to the combination of pollution and blue collar workers' propensity for keeping Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds rolling in money.

You should go do something about it.

I know, why not organize a strike? I mean, strikes are basically an excuse not to work, right? Well, it would be like killing two birds with one stone!

Striking or not, it's not like your productivity level is going to change. Union workers are only a step up from government workers only because union workers could get fired for incompetency....

New York is pretty far down but that's to be expected once you leave the city and we turn into a beautiful state. All the industry is gone anyway lol. How much pollution can you make with wine production?!

how in the hell did idaho beat ohio and penisylvania!?

For people with a propensity for hating government, private industry sure has no problem taking lucrative government contracts....

I'm up outside of Syracuse by Lake Ontario, we even have a 2 nuke plants and no pollution.

What the *** are you even on about now?

I'm talking about poor, stupid people wasting what little money they have killing themselves by smoking and you're going off on some anti-union diatribe again which has *** all to do with the topic at hand.

That good ol' Potato Pollution, I guess.

Ah, going by your history of anti-corporation and the fact that you named specific people's names, I assumed that you were going on a tirade against people who actually give you a job and a paycheck. I do not know or care who those two people are, and, given your history of blind hated, I wouldn't be surprised if you have a hitlist of successful people you would kill in a moment's breath.

And, assuming you do have that list, I would probably be on it, abet pretty low on the list, so I'm not to terribly concerned for my life.

I did not know you were naming people in the tobacco industry. My bad.

I can tell you from personal experience that you really start feeling the hatred when you pay taxes on the money you made doing the work a federal employee was supposed to be doing but instead of doing any work they bid it out to the lowest bidding/highest bribing subcontractor which is you for half as much as they are already getting paid to do it themselves by you...

right...and so how do we pay a federal employee twice as much as the guy doing the work taxing him 30% of his income? simple!

usdebtcloack

Which screams inefficiency, wouldn't you think?