Chicago cops murder 13 year old point blank

[Incredulity 11679]

Minimum age to own a gun in Chicago is 21.  
 

[Brisketexan 105184]

Minimum age to own a gun in Chicago is 21.  
 

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

[Incredulity 11679]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Take it to Beetlejuice

[Brisketexan 105184]

Take it to Beetlejuice

Why do you hate the Constitution?

[Incredulity 11679]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Why did Mayor Daley hate the Constitution?

FIFY

[Brisketexan 105184]

FIFY

Agreed. The right shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say anything about “unless you’re young.” Right?

[immortal13 4059]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

What should the law of self defense be then?

And there is an objective component.  Shooter can’t just have a subjective reasonable belief he was at risk of death or serious bodily injury.  It must also be an objectively reasonable belief based on facts and circumstances.   So shit the shooter didn’t know at the time is irrelevant.  
 

The law of self defense makes sense to me. If someone comes at you with a baseball bat you should be allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat.  Not give them one free swing before having the right to defend yourself.  

You have to actually see the bullet coming, then you can shoot back

[cabowabo 4492]

Play stupid adult games, win stupid adult prizes.

[Guest Lobo]

If a primary reason for having a gun is to protect yourself, then a teenager in that part of Chicago needs as many weapons as he can carry.  

If you need a license to drive a farm truck at 14, you can get one.  If you have parents stealing your assets at 14, you can file for financial autonomy.  If you live in certain parts of America, you should be able to get a gun at 14 simply for self defense.  

Why can I buy a rifle with no paperwork, but if I want more than 2 boxes of Sudafed, I have to complete an FBI background check.  

[immortal13 4059]

6 minutes ago, Lobo said:

If a primary reason for having a gun is to protect yourself, then a teenager in that part of Chicago needs as many weapons as he can carry.  

If you need a license to drive a farm truck at 14, you can get one.  If you have parents stealing your assets at 14, you can file for financial autonomy.  If you live in certain parts of America, you should be able to get a gun at 14 simply for self defense.  

Why can I buy a rifle with no paperwork, but if I want more than 2 boxes of Sudafed, I have to complete an FBI background check.  

You can't buy a rifle with no paperwork, asshat

[Brisketexan 105184]

You can't buy a rifle with no paperwork, asshat

Sure you can. I’ll sell you one of mine right now (for the right price, of course), no paperwork and completely legal.

And our children need to be able to protect themselves in these dangerous times. They should be allowed to procure whatever weapon they want, at any age. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

[immortal13 4059]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure you can. I’ll sell you one of mine right now (for the right price, of course), no paperwork and completely legal.

And our children need to be able to protect themselves in these dangerous times. They should be allowed to procure whatever weapon they want, at any age. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

No shit, same as with a handgun. Lobo was implying a rifle can be purchased new without paperwork, which of course he won't admit to now

Edited April 18, 2021 by immortal13

[fattyflattie 4638]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And our children need to be able to protect themselves in these dangerous times. They should be allowed to procure whatever weapon they want, at any age. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

We’ve already established they can kill via carjacking without major consequence, so why not?   

[Brisketexan 105184]

No shit, same as with a handgun. Lobo was implying a rifle can be purchased new without paperwork, which of course he won't admit to now

Cool. Since we have tens of millions of such weapons in private hands, they can be transferred with zero paperwork at all. And our children should be allowed to protect themselves. Don’t you agree?

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Cool. Since we have tens of millions of such weapons in private hands, they can be transferred with zero paperwork at all. And our children should be allowed to protect themselves. Don’t you agree?

They should protect themselves by staying home

[Incredulity 11679]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed. The right shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say anything about “unless you’re young.” Right?

You don’t need to try to set up some ham handed gotcha.

You’re  free to bloviate about “well regulated” and everyone’s responsibilities to SOCIETY.  You can thank the First Amendment. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Well I'm glad you finally saw the light....... errrr right.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

What is wrong with this kid running around with a firearm? What is wrong with him or his friend firing off 8 rounds? What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does that cop not understand?

I’m sure this sounded good in your pea-sized brain.  

[Brisketexan 105184]

You don’t need to try to set up some ham handed gotcha.
You’re  free to bloviate about “well regulated” and everyone’s responsibilities to SOCIETY.  You can thank the First Amendment. 

But where do you stand? The right shall not be infringed. Don’t you agree?

[Brisketexan 105184]

You don’t need to try to set up some ham handed gotcha.
You’re  free to bloviate about “well regulated” and everyone’s responsibilities to SOCIETY.  You can thank the First Amendment. 

But where do you stand? The right shall not be infringed. Don’t you agree?

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

But where do you stand? The right shall not be infringed. Don’t you agree?

Minors don't have many of the rights that adults have. Do you not know this?

[Incredulity 11679]

[Brisketexan 105184]

Minors don't have many of the rights that adults have. Do you not know this?

Why? Where is the carve out in the second amendment excluding them? “Shall not be infringed” is pretty plain. Doesn’t say “unless the state decides you’re too young.”

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Why? Where is the carve out in the second amendment excluding them? “Shall not be infringed” is pretty plain. Doesn’t say “unless the state decides you’re too young.”

Do your own research.  Post results

[Brisketexan 105184]

Do your own research.  Post results

I want to know YOUR position. Can the right be infringed or not?

[Brothahorn 10087]

If a primary reason for having a gun is to protect yourself, then a teenager in that part of Chicago needs as many weapons as he can carry.  
If you need a license to drive a farm truck at 14, you can get one.  If you have parents stealing your assets at 14, you can file for financial autonomy.  If you live in certain parts of America, you should be able to get a gun at 14 simply for self defense.  
Why can I buy a rifle with no paperwork, but if I want more than 2 boxes of Sudafed, I have to complete an FBI background check.  

Can you hook a brotha up with the no paperwork guns?

[Gatorubet 30275]

Pilots need to do some PR.  Start releasing videos in the millions of times they land the right way in a dangerous situation, and not listen to the dip-shit liberals complaining about a few monthly crashes.

fify

[Gatorubet 30275]

Good Lord........

You obviously don’t understand how the Supreme Court and lower courts following them have created a qualified immunity that allows cops to murder citizens with virtually no repercussions. And why they get a free murder if what they did was wrong, but no prior factually similar case said it was wrong.

Current law says that cops can violate procedure to create the threat that they can end with deadly force. They can grope your wife while laughing about a cavity search when no grounds exist, and then shoot you when you snap and go for them. The shoot lawsuit will be dismissed under the moment of threat doctrine. Yes, they are that invulnerable.

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, immortal13 said:

You can't buy a rifle with no paperwork, asshat

I bought one before, but it was a long time ago.  I admit that I don't know the rules now.  I assume they differ from state to state.  I bet there's even different standards in Illinoise.  

[52-80 19207]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

He didn't say turn around. He said show me your hands, but from that position it would have required the kid to turn around.

Because it’s impossible to raise your hands in the air if you’re not facing someone 

[Dahobbs 17627]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Because it’s impossible to raise your hands in the air if you’re not facing someone 

It isnt impossible to raise your hands. But that wasn't the request. The request was to show your hands. Absent extreme wrist flexibility, that usually requires facing the other person. 

[Guest Lobo]

Plus, we all know even if you're facing the authority figure (be it local police or head of the Asian Dawn), you can show your hands but still have a pistol taped to your upper back.  

[Wulaw Horn 19142]

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular answer, but I think it’s highly possible that where we are at is about as good as it will ever get in regards to cops killing people. 
they kill more whites than blacks by number. They kill more blacks than whites by percentage. Normalizing to poverty figures which is a rough proxy for interactions with cops there’s probably very little racial bias. 
the number of deaths is probably in the hundreds, right?  The number of bad shoots or questionable shoots is probably less than 100. Every one of those is a tragedy but we probably have nationwide what- 100 plus million interactions yearly between cops and someone presumably breaking the law? whenever you have a number that massive shit is just going to happen. Like, literally it appears it’s 1-1,000,000 shit by the numbers. I don’t know how you fix 1 in a million shit. 
maybe the answer is to take away their guns. I suspect that if they didn’t have that deterrent many more people would be dead but I don’t know. We should try that out in some places and be open, in either side- to what the data tells us. 
we should punish more severely instances where the cop fucks up. Maybe that will make them think twice. I strongly suspect- however that they will continue to fuck up. It’s better than nothing I suppose.

maybe we ought to publicize every white person that gets killed by cops when they are carrying a toy gun or running away. Maybe that will make people feel that cops are more inclusive in who they are killing and that will bring the rage down. 
Maybe we ought to stop pretext stops. I can tell you when working at the prosecutors office I saw a bunch of pretext stops. And then the driver was drunk and a possible danger to himself and the community, so that doesn’t seem like a great idea. 
it’s possible that we’ve arrived at the best solution to a problem that doesn’t have any good ones.  If so I would lump that with immigration, terrorism and places like Gitmo, much of what Covid presented in its early stages, and a host of other problems with just some real intractable issues that it’s a bummer we as a society or species can’t come up with a plausible way out of. 
ducks and heads for cover. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

20 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

21 hours ago, Lobo said:

If a primary reason for having a gun is to protect yourself, then a teenager in that part of Chicago needs as many weapons as he can carry.  
If you need a license to drive a farm truck at 14, you can get one.  If you have parents stealing your assets at 14, you can file for financial autonomy.  If you live in certain parts of America, you should be able to get a gun at 14 simply for self defense.  
Why can I buy a rifle with no paperwork, but if I want more than 2 boxes of Sudafed, I have to complete an FBI background check.  

Can you hook a brotha up with the no paperwork guns?

We've moved on from strawmen, to giant fucking mountains of hay

[BabaYaga 15302]

57 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular answer, but I think it’s highly possible that where we are at is about as good as it will ever get in regards to cops killing people. 
they kill more whites than blacks by number. They kill more blacks than whites by percentage. Normalizing to poverty figures which is a rough proxy for interactions with cops there’s probably very little racial bias. 
the number of deaths is probably in the hundreds, right?  The number of bad shoots or questionable shoots is probably less than 100. Every one of those is a tragedy but we probably have nationwide what- 100 plus million interactions yearly between cops and someone presumably breaking the law? whenever you have a number that massive shit is just going to happen. Like, literally it appears it’s 1-1,000,000 shit by the numbers. I don’t know how you fix 1 in a million shit. 
maybe the answer is to take away their guns. I suspect that if they didn’t have that deterrent many more people would be dead but I don’t know. We should try that out in some places and be open, in either side- to what the data tells us. 
we should punish more severely instances where the cop fucks up. Maybe that will make them think twice. I strongly suspect- however that they will continue to fuck up. It’s better than nothing I suppose.

maybe we ought to publicize every white person that gets killed by cops when they are carrying a toy gun or running away. Maybe that will make people feel that cops are more inclusive in who they are killing and that will bring the rage down. 
Maybe we ought to stop pretext stops. I can tell you when working at the prosecutors office I saw a bunch of pretext stops. And then the driver was drunk and a possible danger to himself and the community, so that doesn’t seem like a great idea. 
it’s possible that we’ve arrived at the best solution to a problem that doesn’t have any good ones.  If so I would lump that with immigration, terrorism and places like Gitmo, much of what Covid presented in its early stages, and a host of other problems with just some real intractable issues that it’s a bummer we as a society or species can’t come up with a plausible way out of. 
ducks and heads for cover. 

If it bleeds, it leads....

[wildcat09 29360]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular answer, but I think it’s highly possible that where we are at is about as good as it will ever get in regards to cops killing people. 
they kill more whites than blacks by number. They kill more blacks than whites by percentage. Normalizing to poverty figures which is a rough proxy for interactions with cops there’s probably very little racial bias. 
the number of deaths is probably in the hundreds, right?  The number of bad shoots or questionable shoots is probably less than 100. Every one of those is a tragedy but we probably have nationwide what- 100 plus million interactions yearly between cops and someone presumably breaking the law? whenever you have a number that massive shit is just going to happen. Like, literally it appears it’s 1-1,000,000 shit by the numbers. I don’t know how you fix 1 in a million shit. 
maybe the answer is to take away their guns. I suspect that if they didn’t have that deterrent many more people would be dead but I don’t know. We should try that out in some places and be open, in either side- to what the data tells us. 
we should punish more severely instances where the cop fucks up. Maybe that will make them think twice. I strongly suspect- however that they will continue to fuck up. It’s better than nothing I suppose.

maybe we ought to publicize every white person that gets killed by cops when they are carrying a toy gun or running away. Maybe that will make people feel that cops are more inclusive in who they are killing and that will bring the rage down. 
Maybe we ought to stop pretext stops. I can tell you when working at the prosecutors office I saw a bunch of pretext stops. And then the driver was drunk and a possible danger to himself and the community, so that doesn’t seem like a great idea. 
it’s possible that we’ve arrived at the best solution to a problem that doesn’t have any good ones.  If so I would lump that with immigration, terrorism and places like Gitmo, much of what Covid presented in its early stages, and a host of other problems with just some real intractable issues that it’s a bummer we as a society or species can’t come up with a plausible way out of. 
ducks and heads for cover. 

You need to interrogate this further. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

They kill more blacks than whites by percentage. Normalizing to poverty figures which is a rough proxy for interactions with cops there’s probably very little racial bias. 

It's always been disingenuous to apply casualties as a percent of the total population.  Police don't meet with the "total population"  It needs to be the total population of interactions.  I get that it's easier, but it's not an accurate representation of the demographics of those stopped vs. those interactions that go sideways.

Meaning is 50% of those stopped are "white", and you have 500+ shootings, then you reconcile against (for the sake of conversation) 50% of the interactions are black, and the shootings are less than 100, that's a more representative sampling.  

Then you have to look at region, and try and determine why a demographic making up 13+% of the population accounts for a might higher percentage of the demographic of those interacting with the police. 

There's a lot to flush out here.  

[Hanrahan 1306]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You need to interrogate this further. 

Yes, you need to force the numbers to talk.

[SquishMitten 10422]

On 4/18/2021 at 10:15 AM, Dahobbs said:

He didn't say turn around. He said show me your hands, but from that position it would have required the kid to turn around.

You're not the only one saying this, but it doesn't make any sense. Showing yours hands...sticking them in the air, straight out to the side, or what-have-you does not require you to turn around. He didn't say "show me your palms." And even if he had, while it would certainly be a more confusing demand, it also wouldn't require you to turn around unless you're the least flexible person in the world.

[Wulaw Horn 19142]

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You need to interrogate this further. 

Reading an article the other day that said the 2.5 number (by percentage that makes a black person more likely to be shot) corresponds almost entirely to race/poverty statistics. I don’t think it’s any surprise that poor people are policed more than affluent people. 
maybe we need to just have less interactions period, and the problem isn’t the nature of the interactions but the total number. 

[wildcat09 29360]

6 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Reading an article the other day that said the 2.5 number (by percentage that makes a black person more likely to be shot) corresponds almost entirely to race/poverty statistics. I don’t think it’s any surprise that poor people are policed more than affluent people. 
maybe we need to just have less interactions period, and the problem isn’t the nature of the interactions but the total number. 

Why do you think black people make up a disproportionate percentage of poor people in America?

[Brisketexan 105184]

7 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

You're not the only one saying this, but it doesn't make any sense. Showing yours hands...sticking them in the air, straight out to the side, or what-have-you does not require you to turn around. He didn't say "show me your palms." And even if he had, while it would certainly be a more confusing demand, it also wouldn't require you to turn around unless you're the least flexible person in the world.

While technically correct (I can show you my hands behind my back), when a human being on foot is told to "show me your hands" the instinct is absolutely going to be to turn and face the person to show the inside of your hands (you know, the part where you could hold something).  To most humans, that's what "show me your hands" means and prompts.

[SquishMitten 10422]

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It isnt impossible to raise your hands. But that wasn't the request. The request was to show your hands. Absent extreme wrist flexibility, that usually requires facing the other person. 

Are you familiar with what a "hand" is? Hint: it's the things attached to the end of your arm. Looks like these...

 

Also, what is wrong with your shoulders, elbows, and wrists that you can't turn them? Stick your hands (those things pictured above in case you've already forgotten) above your head, and turn your palms back towards you. Then stick your hands (pictured above) straight out to your sides, and point your thumbs toward the ground. Of course, this is a silly exercise since the cop didn't ask to see his palms. 

[SquishMitten 10422]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

While technically correct (I can show you my hands behind my back), when a human being on foot is told to "show me your hands" the instinct is absolutely going to be to turn and face the person to show the inside of your hands (you know, the part where you could hold something).  To most humans, that's what "show me your hands" means and prompts.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm wrong and in the minority here. Given such a demand, I would freeze and stick my hands straight into the air. If I turned, it would be slowly and my hands would be as far from my body as possible with my fingers spread as much as I could.

[Brisketexan 105184]

4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm wrong and in the minority here. Given such a demand, I would freeze and stick my hands straight into the air. If I turned, it would be slowly and my hands would be as far from my body as possible with my fingers spread as much as I could.

Given such a demand at gunpoint....you tend to do what instinct tells you, not some complex decision tree.  I don't disagree that what you are postulating would have been the better/right course for him.....but when a dude points a gun at you and says "show me your hands," most of us want to show  him our palms ASAP.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

While technically correct (I can show you my hands behind my back), when a human being on foot is told to "show me your hands" the instinct is absolutely going to be to turn and face the person to show the inside of your hands (you know, the part where you could hold something).  To most humans, that's what "show me your hands" means and prompts.

I disagree, I have my back to an officer, and he says show me your hands, and they're gonna go out, and up (slowly) with my back still turned to him.  Why do you think it's instinctual to turn around when the order is show me your hands ?  What would be instinctual would be to do exactly as the officer instructs.  

There's nothing significant about your palms if your hands are open, fingers spread, and clearly visible, and you can turn your hands above your head, or out at your side and show just about all of your palms.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Wulaw Horn 19142]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Why do you think black people make up a disproportionate percentage of poor people in America?

Slavery, de jure segregation followed by de facto segregation with a mixture  of the destruction of the nuclear family and a lack of introduction, for most people, into the club whereby we get many/most of our opportunities, with a pinch of counter culture standoffishness?  
I mean- I’m sure there’s plenty of other stuff too, but that can be a pretty solid start. 

[Brisketexan 105184]

I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would have been the better course.  I'm just suggesting to you that in the normal, human context, if someone says "show me your hands," you instinctively show your palms....which generally requires that you be facing the person.  Give me an order at gunpoint, and instinct will almost certainly drive my response.

[Wulaw Horn 19142]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would have been the better course.  I'm just suggesting to you that in the normal, human context, if someone says "show me your hands," you instinctively show your palms....which generally requires that you be facing the person.  Give me an order at gunpoint, and instinct will almost certainly drive my response.

Yeah Squish is entirely right that show your hands has nothing to do with having to turn around, but I would bet 90/100, in that situation, with your heart pounding and blood pressure up would think of hands as palms and turn around. If you haven’t thought through this situation before you just think- palms and you think, turn around. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm not disagreeing that your suggestion would have been the better course.  I'm just suggesting to you that in the normal, human context, if someone says "show me your hands," you instinctively show your palms....which generally requires that you be facing the person.  Give me an order at gunpoint, and instinct will almost certainly drive my response.

I'm not following the whole show your palms thing. He says let me see your hands, and my back is to him, I for damn sure am not going to turn around. I'm going to comply as quickly, and smoothly as I can with my hands up, and fingers spread.  If I'm facing him sure my hands may be palm up, but with my back to him I don't want to give any reason to think I'm making a move against him.