Black Lives Matter

[B00M 6725]

I don't know where else to put this. 

Oklahoma sucks. Completely unjustified.

https://www.oklahoman.com/videos/news/2022/05/09/body-camera-footage-shows-night-quadry-sanders-death-lawton-police-officers-charged-shooting/9699662002/

 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by B00M

[Neonmoon 38130]

They shot 90 times. 
 

 

[Satchel 6982]

The just released video is hard to watch. 60 shots in rapid succession…all because they thought he had a gun on his person. 

[Brisketexan 106625]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The just released video is hard to watch. 60 shots in rapid succession…all because they thought he had a gun on his person. 

Man, parts of this are a tough call.  He had already established that he had a gun, and he had actually fired at the cops -- so, they'd just been shot at.  Then, he bails from a still-moving car.  Is it reasonable to presume that he continued to have a weapon when he did so?  I can certainly see a credible argument being made to that point. And if he then made a move consistent with reaching for the weapon that they already knew he had, and had reason to believe that he still had (that is, they had no reason to believe that he'd abandoned the gun in the car at that time)....I can likewise make a case that a reasonable person would believe that they needed to use deadly force to stop him from shooting at them.

Taking 90 f'n shots, though?  Speaks to some trigger-happy mofos. 

But getting to the ultimate legal issue, if I was an objective prosecutor with the obligation to investigate and pursue any charges that were warranted, I don't know if I could ultimately charge the cops.  I'd submit it to a grand jury as objectively and evenhandedly as I could, with evenhanded instruction of the law, and let them decide whether to indict.  But I suspect they won't, and they'd be right.

[Neonmoon 38130]

They believed he was armed, but I watched the video multiple times and couldn’t hear the gunshot the cop in pursuit heard. In the end, it will be a justifiable shoot legally as the officers believed he was armed and they believed they were in danger. 

[Satchel 6982]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They believed he was armed, but I watched the video multiple times and couldn’t hear the gunshot the cop in pursuit heard. In the end, it will be a justifiable shoot legally as the officers believed he was armed and they believed they were in danger. 

60 shots at a fleeing suspect?  C’mon.

[Brisketexan 106625]

60 shots at a fleeing suspect?  C’mon.

Oh, I agree, the number of shots is absurd. But they can be both 1) trigger-happy pieces of shit who 2) were nonetheless legally in the right. These cops may have been the type to do the same shit if he’d never given them any reason to believe he was armed….but that’s not what happened here.
Whether it’s 1 shot or 60, if his actions created reasonable belief to support legal justification - and I believe they may well do that - then there we are.

[Satchel 6982]

But isn’t that the way it always is in these kind of shootings? Don’t police always claim to be in fear of their lives even when suspects are in full retreat? They feared Breonna Taylor and Tatitanna Jefferson too and pumped them full of bullets. The law requires that reasonable be used. 95 shells on the ground is not reasonable.

[Brisketexan 106625]

But isn’t that the way it always is in these kind of shootings? Don’t police always claim to be in fear of their lives even when suspects are in full retreat? They feared Breonna Taylor and Tatitanna Jefferson too and pumped them full of bullets. The law requires that reasonable be used. 95 shells on the ground is not reasonable.

Maybe. Of course, I need to see all the evidence before I make the call. But there’s a difference here from those cases: he was KNOWN to have a gun, and he had JUST BEEN shooting at the cops. That is, the established and known facts were that he was armed and willing to shoot. Did they obtain intervening knowledge that the facts had changed - that he was now, seconds later, UNarmed? Unless that is the case, their belief that he remained armed and presented a threat to continue to shoot at them was reasonable.

I don’t like it. I don’t like or trust cops, at all. 95 shots is absurd, because cops are trigger happy cowards. But, unlike how the cops want to do things, I believe that the law should be applied to facts objectively. And based on the facts we know, it seems likely that this will pass the legs justification standard. Again, I’m not casting that in stone. I’m just suggesting the obvious: if person A is demonstrably armed and has been shooting at person B, person B is likely going to be legally justified in using deadly force against person A.

[Neonmoon 38130]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

he was KNOWN to have a gun, and he had JUST BEEN shooting at the cops. That is, the established and known facts were that he was armed and willing to shoot.

These facts are not as concrete as you are making them to be. 

I’m not saying it will matter legally, but their evidence is a police officers ears and a supposed flash from the car. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

These facts are not as concrete as you are making them to be. 

I’m not saying it will matter legally, but their evidence is a police officers ears and a supposed flash from the car. 

Thought I read there was gun and casing recovered in vehicle? 

[Nivek 17330]

Thought I read there was gun and casing recovered in vehicle? 

Local NEWS in NE Texas reported the casing was found outside of the auto and they showed a video where they claim you can see the muzzle flash outside of the car.

It was a low quality video and quickly shown.

[lemonlime 5503]

19 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They believed he was armed, but I watched the video multiple times and couldn’t hear the gunshot the cop in pursuit heard. In the end, it will be a justifiable shoot legally as the officers believed he was armed and they believed they were in danger. 

Even if he was armed so what.  Or is the so called constitutional right to concealed carry only afforded to white people?

[Brisketexan 106625]

Even if he was armed so what.  Or is the so called constitutional right to concealed carry only afforded to white people?

Well, he wasn’t just “carrying.” He was fleeing, in a deadly weapon (yeah, car chases are serious shit), and there’s pretty good evidence that he’d fired at them (seems that there’s a little room for debate on that, but it seems likely).
Y’all know I am FAR from a cop apologist. I literally think there are no good ones. But I also believe in objectively applied rules and logic (you know, things that our current political masters openly oppose, which I think is a huge fucking problem).
He was armed and had been using the gun against the people pursuing him. There was no basis to believe that he had abandoned the gun when he got out of the car, and he moved as if to use it again. 99 times out of 100, even with the best, most ethical cops you could imagine, that will get you killed.
These cops are likely bad shitheels (after all, they’re cops). The 95 shots taken is insane, and further demonstrates that at heart, cops are murderous cowards. But the shooting itself seems quite likely to be an episode of reasonable judgment. Those things can both be true.

[Vegas64 706]

Hate to agree with brisket here, but he seems to nail it as far as I’ve read. More will come out of this 100% though as I think there is a lot to discover yet…

[Satchel 6982]

It’s about damn time!
https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-announces-charges-connection-raid-killed-breonna-taylor/story?id=87926113

 

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Thursday that the Department of Justice has filed charges against four former and current Louisville police officers in connection with the death of Breonna Taylor. The charges include civil rights offenses, unlawful conspiracies, unconstitutional use of force and obstruction offenses.

"The federal charges announced today allege that members of a Police Investigations Unit falsified the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant of Ms. Taylor's home and that this act violated federal civil rights laws, and that those violations resulted in Ms. Taylor's death," Garland said in a news conference.

The federal charges against detective Joshua Jaynes, former Louisville detective Kelly Goodlett and sergeant Kyle Meany allege they violated Taylor's Fourth Amendment rights when they sought a warrant to search Taylor's home while knowing they lacked probable cause, and that they knew their affidavit supporting the warrant contained false and misleading information and omitted other material information, resulting in her death.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/dec/05/lowndes-county-documentary-civil-rights-movement

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[safe sex 11914]

Great documentary

[UpperWestside 6263]

You live here you see this every single day on the subway. It has never crossed my mind to put someone in a chokehold that slowly drained the life right out of them. There is no defending this. I have not been in a situation where anything like this has happened, but I would like to think I would have done something besides stand back and watch a man die.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/jordan-neelys-death-what-we-know-about-subway-choke-hold.html

Quote

A 30-year-old man died Monday after a former Marine placed him in a choke hold on the subway during what police said was a fight. Video of Jordan Neely’s last moments alive has sparked outrage, while authorities have yet to charge his suspected killer.

According to video and eyewitness accounts Neely boarded a northbound F train on Monday afternoon a little after 2 p.m. and began berating straphangers. “I don’t have food, I don’t have a drink, I’m fed up. I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I’m ready to die,” he screamed, according to Juan Alberto Vazquez’s account given to the New York Times. Neely did not assault anyone, Vazquez said.

 

Then, according to New York Daily News, Neely “yelled and threw garbage at commuters, prompting an argument with the 24-year-old veteran Marine, cops said. The quarrel turned into a brawl as the train entered the station” at Broadway-Lafayette Street. Vasquez told the News that the veteran came up behind Neely and took him to the ground. The man held Neely in a choke hold for 15 minutes.

Sign up for Dinner Party

A lively evening newsletter about everything that just happened.

 

A three-minute video from Vazquez published by the New York Post shows the unidentified veteran squeezing Neely’s neck with his arms. Neely began struggling but “then suddenly he just stopped moving,” Vasquez said. The conductor called 911 and Neely was unconscious when EMS workers began treating him, authorities said. He was taken to Lenox Health hospital in Greenwich Village, where he was pronounced dead.

The man who put Neely in a choke hold was taken in for questioning on Monday and released. An investigation is ongoing and law-enforcement sources told the Post charges would be considered following the result of an autopsy by the medical examiner’s office to determine the official cause of death.

Outrage grew following circulation of the video on Wednesday morning, with elected officials in the city condemning the killing.

Police said that Neely has a history of mental-health issues, and records show he has been arrested 40 times. In an interview with the Daily News, Neely’s father, Andre Zachery, said that his son used to busk as a Michael Jackson impersonator in the subway. Zachery also noted that Neely’s mother, Christie, was murdered in 2007 by her boyfriend and that Neely testified at the trial. “She got killed by her boyfriend,” Zachery said. “And now him? By somebody else? I don’t know what to say.”

 

[Mullet Free 39]

17 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

You live here you see this every single day on the subway. It has never crossed my mind to put someone in a chokehold that slowly drained the life right out of them. There is no defending this. I have not been in a situation where anything like this has happened, but I would like to think I would have done something besides stand back and watch a man die.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/jordan-neelys-death-what-we-know-about-subway-choke-hold.html

 

The Gov and Mayor not defending him 

 

 

[wildcat09 29557]

How do New York City and New York have a mayor and Governor who seemingly try to out-asshole Greg Abbott? 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2649]

The nyc subreddit has probably 90% of the comments defending or deflecting for him.  Was not expecting that.  
 

how bad are the subways now that people are okay with the mentally I’ll being slowly murdered..   disgusting 

[BHMCruiser 1828]

21 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

You live here you see this every single day on the subway. It has never crossed my mind to put someone in a chokehold that slowly drained the life right out of them. There is no defending this. I have not been in a situation where anything like this has happened, but I would like to think I would have done something besides stand back and watch a man die.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/jordan-neelys-death-what-we-know-about-subway-choke-hold.html

 

In my eight years in DC there was one occasion where a clearly aggressive, violent and deranged person might have gotten shot if people had carry permits. The Metro was slow due to an outage and we were on the platform for about an hour. During that time period, this very muscular guy in his forties, homeless looking, kept following this group of college girls around loudly saying he wanted to show them a good time and they could either let him fuck them or he would rape them, right here right now. Of course somebody called the cops, but it took 20 minutes for them to show. I intervened when it was clear the girls were scared and he was physically herding them into a corner, and he completely lost it. He was screaming at me to mind my own business or he'd kill me and he got almost within arm's reach before I calmed him down to a low buzz by the time the cops arrived but it was scary and unpleasant. And even though there were dozens of people on the platform, I got no help whatsoever. Even the guy who had been with the girls peeled off and let them fend for themselves. The girls were very grateful and I told them they needed better friends in front of the guy.

 

If a marine had choked him to death, I would not have objected. Although, candidly, I was really most concerned about being bitten or scratched. I doubted he had a weapon. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

Man we’ve had some crazy justifications for murder on this site in the past couple weeks. 
You wouldn’t have objected to watching someone murder that man? Nothing fucked there

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

How do New York City and New York have a mayor and Governor who seemingly try to out-asshole Greg Abbott? 

Out-asshole Abbott? Holy shit. It’s not even close. It’s not like the marine was convicted of murdering the guy and Hochul is pardoning him because she hates the mentally ill. It’s not her job to prosecute. Take that up with the D.A. Plus all we have is one snippet of a quote taken out of context. I’d need to hear what else she said. Maybe she’s just sticking up for the D.A., I don’t know. I’d need to know more before I could say for sure but I doubt anything could make me go so far as to compare her to Greg fucking Abbott.

And what was wrong with what the mayor said? Mental illness is a problem. If he’s trying to do something about it, I support that. Don’t you? Unlike yourself, he says he wants to get more information before he can comment on the incident. That sounds reasonable. He’s a busy man. Remember he’s also got another shipment of migrants that Abbott just shipped off from Texas to deal with.

Out-asshole Abbott? They’ve got a LOOOOOOOONG way to go.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

Apparently we’re rushing to judgment here. No one has decided not to press charges yet. The investigation is ongoing. Just heard it on NPR. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Man we’ve had some crazy justifications for murder on this site in the past couple weeks. 
You wouldn’t have objected to watching someone murder that man? Nothing fucked there

He was threatening to rape a group of girls. I don't think that line you think you're on the right side of is as bright as you think. 

State-sanctioned death penalty? Absolutely most would agree that's unreasonable. 

"That man needed killing and my client was the right person to do it" defense in front of a jury? Not as clear cut. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

52 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Apparently we’re rushing to judgment here.

that's what this site excels at. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

He was threatening to rape a group of girls. I don't think that line you think you're on the right side of is as bright as you think. 

State-sanctioned death penalty? Absolutely most would agree that's unreasonable. 

"That man needed killing and my client was the right person to do it" defense in front of a jury? Not as clear cut. 

He literally referred the man as deranged. I think there are plenty of steps that can be taken before choking someone to death.

 

[Huckleberry 34407]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

He literally referred the man as deranged. I think there are plenty of steps that can be taken before choking someone to death.

 

Sure from our perspective. But on a crowded subway when the large deranged man is cornering the girls it's not as easy. And pointing out his derangement doesn't help your point, it actually hurts it. Reasoning with someone who is insane is almost by definition far less likely to succeed.

A choke hold that (likely accidentally) results in someone's death in that situation could very easily be the most reasonable course of action to protect the health and possibly lives of the girls he was targeting. By no means should anyone enjoy doing it, watching it, or that it happened. But your position is very easy to hold when far removed in both distance and time. 

And, for the record, that death wouldn't be murder. Or at least that's the entire argument. That would require the death to be intentional and without legal justification. A choke hold in defense of others meets neither standard in this situation, imo.

[BHMCruiser 1828]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Man we’ve had some crazy justifications for murder on this site in the past couple weeks. 
You wouldn’t have objected to watching someone murder that man? Nothing fucked there

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

He literally referred the man as deranged. I think there are plenty of steps that can be taken before choking someone to death.

 

As I understand the law there were several moments during the confrontation where my use of potentially lethal force would have been lawful/justified. So, restraining somebody acting that way in a chokehold would be understandable. If they ended up passing away, but that was not the intention of the person who put him in a chokehold, then it's unfortunate but it happens. 

I am a large man and this guy was the most aggressive person I've ever encountered and he had a level of malice you don't find in your typical bar fights or whatever we've all been in. He was talking about rape and murder and he was big, and he was strong. I was happy there was a peaceful resolution but it was touch and go. 

[Reynolds Woodcock 5064]

Really terrible, terrible thing. Having lived in Manhattan a decade, I can attest that it's not a fun situation to be in when an obviously mentally ill person becomes violent near you or towards you and you have a split second to react. It's exceedingly rare of course (and I recognize it's cat nip for the Daily Texas crowd), but I recently had a guy sprint towards my wife and kid while we were eating dinner outside. I just jumped in between them and he kind of bounced off me and ran off in another direction, but I'm not sure what would have happened had he been more persistent. And you can't call the cops of course because they would just shoot him at first flinch. 

So I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to know more about what transpired leading up to the video before crucifying or absolving the choker (the fact that multiple people were holding the guy down at least implies to me that he was being pretty threatening), but that video is tough to watch and it does seem like with it being three against one he could have at least released the chokehold before killing the poor guy (and that is making the big assumption that the chokehold was warranted in the first place).  

All of that said, I would encourage all of you to ignore every fucking sentence that comes out of the Hochul and Adams camps regardless of which side they come down on. Totally spineless cement heads.  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

32 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

All of that said, I would encourage all of you to ignore every fucking sentence that comes out of the Hochul and Adams camps regardless of which side they come down on. Totally spineless cement heads. 

From what I hear, you wouldn’t be a New Yorker if you didn’t say that about your mayor and your governor no matter who they are.