The ultimate COVID thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted59964
  • Start date Start date
Emploi Marketing Agency
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Twiggidy said:
Whether you want to believe this or not because you seem very solid in you stance, the handcuffs serve more than just as a restraint. You have to realize when someone is placed under arrest you have no idea what that person is going decide to do to you as the officer or even themselves. A non-violent offender can certainly become violent so why take a chance.
Click to expand...
Can completely understand that. However, from what I have seen about police cruisers the back of them is pretty secure. I could be wrong as I have never been inside one.
I think it could be part of reform training though.

Plenty of people would cooperate if treated more humanely. Petty criminals who’ve never been violent but arrested repeatedly etc.

Seems based on some of the research I have done, they didn’t always handcuff people back in the 60’s and 70s. They increasingly started doing that stuff in the past 30-40 years.
And in some jurisdictions that I have read on, handcuffing is at the discretion of the officer. They don’t have to do it, but they have been conditioned to do it. Normalized it even in non violent offenders. To “protect themselves”.
It also looks like criminals and suspects are treated way more humanely in Europe as well.

What I am saying is, looks like we in this country have been conditioned to believe that some of the **** the police do is standard procedure, when it really amounts to unnecessary use of force. And we defend it because we think it is the law but we are ignorant to the truth of it all.

Let’s get educated on our rights and fight for our rights.
 
SaltyDog said:
Anybody here practicing/living in AZ? Would love to hear a 1st hand “boots on the ground” account of what things are actually looking like over there.
Click to expand...
I think that we should expect an increase in cases in the southern states. The weather has now turned from winter & spring temperatures (tolerable for outdoor activities) to summer heat and humidity (less time spent outdoors and more time spent indoors in AC). More time indoors=more easily spread. Throughout the height of NYC's cases (March-May) these southern locales were much less impacted, so a lot of people didn't get on board with mask wearing. Now that they are shifting indoors, this is not a habit for them. They probably need to make a shift in their behaviors as they move indoors.
 
Twiggidy said:
I'm willing to be a little money that when a police officer encounters a non-violent offender that 8-9 times out of ten if the offender just said, "You know what officer. I've been drinking and I'm sorry. Do you think maybe you can call a taxi or give me a ride home?" things will end better for the offender. I'm willing to take a guess that a few officers would skip the paper work and just help the guy out. Sure there are police that want their stats and some that are just plain hateful. The problem is that this isn't what we see go down.

I was jokingly telling me colleagues the other day, but I was also half serious, if the police ask more than "license and registration" from me, I just go ahead and turn around and put my hands up, because I'm trying to live. "Am I being charged with a crime?" Is so, f-it let's go to jail if not, then "May I have my citation so I can go home?" If it goes beyond any of that then I've had the unfortunate luck of coming across an a-hole possible racist police. I have my right to remain silent and keep my fingers cross I don't end up in a ditch.

The point is that if you come across an a-hole/racist cop, no amount of non-violence is going to help you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I highly doubt it. Ain’t no way they would let that many people off. Your humane side wants to think that, but I bet that’s not reality.

They totally got quotas they gotta fill and arrests to make. Quite frankly though if the drunk is behind a wheel they need to be cited or arrested for putting others in danger. It just doesn’t have to end in handcuffs or death.

Been there done that. They kept repeatedly trying to get me in the cruiser with them. I kept saying No Thanks, Waiting on my cab. I was messed up, was stumbling, not stupid enough to drive and even less stupid enough to get in a police cruiser for a trip downtown.
 
Twiggidy said:
I'm willing to be a little money that when a police officer encounters a non-violent offender that 8-9 times out of ten if the offender just said, "You know what officer. I've been drinking and I'm sorry. Do you think maybe you can call a taxi or give me a ride home?" things will end better for the offender. I'm willing to take a guess that a few officers would skip the paper work and just help the guy out. Sure there are police that want their stats and some that are just plain hateful. The problem is that this isn't what we see go down.

I was jokingly telling me colleagues the other day, but I was also half serious, if the police ask more than "license and registration" from me, I just go ahead and turn around and put my hands up, because I'm trying to live. "Am I being charged with a crime?" Is so, f-it let's go to jail if not, then "May I have my citation so I can go home?" If it goes beyond any of that then I've had the unfortunate luck of coming across an a-hole possible racist police. I have my right to remain silent and keep my fingers cross I don't end up in a ditch.

The point is that if you come across an a-hole/racist cop, no amount of non-violence is going to help you.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment but I think you should be cuffed and spend the night in jail if you get caught driving drunk. Driving drunk is wreckless, inexcusable, and kills people regularly. I thought we were done with it with the rise of Uber. I think it’s complete nonsense that people are acting like it should be decriminalized like marijuana. Have none of you lost friends to drunk drivers?
 
chocomorsel said:
Nah man, I never said that. Yet another one of those instances where someone says something that is clear as day and you try to twist it around to prove your point.
I specifically stated "When they push your head and face onto the pavement they are doing their job but not acknowledging their aggression. When you fight back because of the use of too much force, then you become the aggressor."
AND
"they should offer the option of having to put non violent offenders in the back of a secured cruiser without the necessity of handcuffs'

You clearly need to go back and re take reading comprehension because you seem to have slept through that class. Having discussions with people like you is pointless because you guys pick apart a statement and twist it up to try to prove a point that was never even made.
Click to expand...

Yeah except I never disagreed with you that police force/agression is criminal in the case you reference above (Floyd- face in pavement).

I thought we were still discussing the Brooks case specifically when you stated “when you fight back because they use too much force” which I think is clearly not applicable in this situation (handcuffs). If that was not your meaning, I apologize.

Doesn’t change the fact that each of these situations is extremely different and not all are evidence of police being the aggressors/instigators.
 
doctalaughs said:
Yeah except I never disagreed with you that police force/agression is criminal in the case you reference above (Floyd- face in pavement).

I thought we were still discussing the Brooks case specifically when you stated “when you fight back because they use too much force” which I think is clearly not applicable in this situation (handcuffs). If that was not your meaning, I apologize.

Doesn’t change the fact that each of these situations is extremely different and not all are evidence of police being the aggressors/instigators.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, do you know how to get into a discussion without using the word ALL?
Who said they were ALL aggressors and instigators? You keep trying to say that I and some others on here have said that.
Again, we haven’t!

And when I was talking about “face against the pavement” I wasn’t talking specifically about Floyd. I was talking about the thousands of people who’ve endured being arrested while their face, neck and chest have been squished needlessly against the pavement or ground.

Apology accepted.
 
doctalaughs said:
Yeah except I never disagreed with you that police force/agression is criminal in the case you reference above (Floyd- face in pavement).

I thought we were still discussing the Brooks case specifically when you stated “when you fight back because they use too much force” which I think is clearly not applicable in this situation (handcuffs). If that was not your meaning, I apologize.

Doesn’t change the fact that each of these situations is extremely different and not all are evidence of police being the aggressors/instigators.
Click to expand...

The mentality must change along with training. They're trained to be aggressive and overly controlling. Discussing specific cases is all well and good, and banning certain things (i.e. chokeholds) may help short term, but nothing really changes until police mentality and training changes.
 
Last edited:
chocomorsel said:
Yeah, I highly doubt it. Ain’t no way they would let that many people off. Your humane side wants to think that, but I bet that’s not reality.

They totally got quotas they gotta fill and arrests to make. Quite frankly though if the drunk is behind a wheel they need to be cited or arrested for putting others in danger. It just doesn’t have to end in handcuffs or death.

Been there done that. They kept repeatedly trying to get me in the cruiser with them. I kept saying No Thanks, Waiting on my cab. I was messed up, was stumbling, not stupid enough to drive and even less stupid enough to get in a police cruiser for a trip downtown.
Click to expand...
Sis....this isn't compliance.

Where does this notion come from that if the police decide to arrest you for a crime that you have the right to disagree. When the words, "You're under arrest" are spoken the only rights you have are "to remain silent" and "to an attorney".
 
chocomorsel said:
Yeah, I highly doubt it. Ain’t no way they would let that many people off. Your humane side wants to think that, but I bet that’s not reality.

They totally got quotas they gotta fill and arrests to make. Quite frankly though if the drunk is behind a wheel they need to be cited or arrested for putting others in danger. It just doesn’t have to end in handcuffs or death.

Been there done that. They kept repeatedly trying to get me in the cruiser with them. I kept saying No Thanks, Waiting on my cab. I was messed up, was stumbling, not stupid enough to drive and even less stupid enough to get in a police cruiser for a trip downtown.
Click to expand...

How about instead of just using our emotional sides someone does an actual scientific study.

1. randomly pull 100k bodycam encounters between police and citizens.
2. Panel of independent citizens reviews the footage
3. Rate how many police use force needlessly as a percentage of encounters.
4. If force was used, how many times lethal vs non-lethal.
5. If lethal, do the citizens agree that police were in danger of serious harm/death.

Hard to tackle the problem (or have a rational response) when everything is highly selective and sensationalized/politicized cases.

Maybe a large percentage of police are committing heinous acts. You could be right. Data would be nice (maybe this has already been done and I’m not aware?)
 
Twiggidy said:
Sis....this isn't compliance.

Where does this notion come from that if the police decide to arrest you for a crime that you have the right to disagree. When the words, "You're under arrest" are spoken the only rights you have are "to remain silent" and "to an attorney".
Click to expand...
I don’t get what you mean with the first statement. Please explain.

But what I was saying in the previous post is that based on my limited research, some police forces have the discretion of whether or not to put handcuffs on you.

They don’t always have to do it even if you have been told you are under arrest. If they judge you are non violent and compliant, they can just shuttle you downtown without cuffs. I wonder how often they are doing that?

Yeah, maybe let’s do some research on unnecessary use of force although I did find a 52 page paper online that I have yet to complete.
 
Twiggidy said:
It's slowly coming to an end because more and more of the combatants have lighter and lighter skin. Seriously, in the 80s and 90s when it was mostly in the poor black communities, it was "heroin". In the 2010s when it showed up in midwest white communities, it became "the opioid epidemic". To add a little comedic flare, it used to be called "weed" and "marijuana" but now it's called "cannabis".

This is all a bit tongue in cheek, but you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

See also: crack vs cocaine. Poor-black vs rich-white, evil scourge vs harmless shenanigans, wildly different treatment by police and the courts.
 
doctalaughs said:
How about instead of just using our emotional sides someone does an actual scientific study.

1. randomly pull 100k bodycam encounters between police and citizens.
2. Panel of independent citizens reviews the footage
3. Rate how many police use force needlessly as a percentage of encounters.
4. If force was used, how many times lethal vs non-lethal.
5. If lethal, do the citizens agree that police were in danger of serious harm/death.

Hard to tackle the problem (or have a rational response) when everything is highly selective and sensationalized/politicized cases.

Maybe a large percentage of police are committing heinous acts. You could be right. Data would be nice (maybe this has already been done and I’m not aware?)
Click to expand...
Found a 52 page paper. Let me get back to you on that.
 
chocomorsel said:
Been there done that. They kept repeatedly trying to get me in the cruiser with them. I kept saying No Thanks, Waiting on my cab. I was messed up, was stumbling, not stupid enough to drive and even less stupid enough to get in a police cruiser for a trip downtown.
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure out what you meant by this paragraph. I don't understand what scenario you're trying to paint here. I read it as someone being arrest and saying no to getting in the car, i.e, resisting arrest.


chocomorsel said:
I don’t get what you mean with the first statement. Please explain.

But what I was saying in the previous post is that based on my limited research, some police forces have the discretion of whether or not to put handcuffs on you.

They don’t always have to do it even if you have been told you are under arrest. If they judge you are non violent and compliant, they can just shuttle you downtown without cuffs. I wonder how often they are doing that?

Yeah, maybe let’s do some research on unnecessary use of force although I did find a 52 page paper online that I have yet to complete.
Click to expand...

I think the fundamental misunderstanding we're having is that regardless of whether you could or could not be arrested or could or could not be placed in handcuffs based on whatever option the police decide, it's in your best interest to not put up a fight. We can back and forth all day about all the options a police could do in every scenario. We've ALL said, police reform is needed but that face that reform is needed does not make it okay to resist an arrest.

You are 100% correct. They don't always have to arrest people and guess what, they DON'T always arrest people. You just clearly stated they have the option to put on handcuffs, but when they exercise that option you can't say no, or else you're resisting.
 
SnapperRocks said:
I agree with the sentiment but I think you should be cuffed and spend the night in jail if you get caught driving drunk. Driving drunk is wreckless, inexcusable, and kills people regularly. I thought we were done with it with the rise of Uber. I think it’s complete nonsense that people are acting like it should be decriminalized like marijuana. Have none of you lost friends to drunk drivers?
Click to expand...
DUI - absolutely, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Public intoxication or some other alcohol-related misbehaving? A famous philosopher once related a more positive encounter with the police ... "you can go sleep at home tonight, if you can get up and walk away ..."
 
Twiggidy said:
I was trying to figure out what you meant by this paragraph. I don't understand what scenario you're trying to paint here. I read it as someone being arrest and saying no to getting in the car, i.e, resisting arrest.




I think the fundamental misunderstanding we're having is that regardless of whether you could or could not be arrested or could or could not be placed in handcuffs based on whatever option the police decide, it's in your best interest to not put up a fight. We can back and forth all day about all the options a police could do in every scenario. We've ALL said, police reform is needed but that face that reform is needed does not make it okay to resist an arrest.

You are 100% correct. They don't always have to arrest people and guess what, they DON'T always arrest people. You just clearly stated they have the option to put on handcuffs, but when they exercise that option you can't say no, or else you're resisting.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was publicly high as a kite, out of my mind, couldn't walk straight, paranoid AF, called my BF and asked him to call for help, then thought better of it. The cops showed up and wanted me to get in the cruiser but I declined repeatedly and waited for a cab instead. I wasn't bothering anyone, so I guess they didn't have reason to arrest me. I guess they could have for public intoxication? I don't know. Maybe because I am woman they gave me a pass.
What I am saying though, is I just don't see the police letting 8/10 people go and I don't really see them offering someone that option as much as I see them approaching them in a more aggressive manner. Especially a male suspect. But I could be wrong.

How often are they really offering to NOT put people that are under arrest in handcuffs though? I can see this happening in the small towns where everyone knows everyone, the sheriff and police may be friendlier with their frequent fliers and just put them in the cruiser.
But I don't know and I am willing to bet most police tend to always put arrested people in handcuffs regardless.
 
Last edited:
DUI—

Right, which is why I’m saying on the Brooks case handcuffs was totally appropriate. Maybe not 100% mandatory all the time, but not something that should elicit a big fight/escalation.
 
Some of the key claims from the DA:

-Brooks was not formally charged and/or mirandized before they attempted to cuff him

-The physical gap between Rolfe and Brooks had continued to widen to >15 ft before shots were fired

-Rolfe was aware that the taser Brooks had discharged had no rounds left when he fired his gun. APD policy is that one can't fire a taser let alone gun at a suspect who is running away from you.

-Neither cop gave Brooks timely medical attention and there is footage of one of them kicking him and another one putting his foot on his shoulder after he was down

-The officer who didn't shoot is going to be a state's witness against Rolfe
 
vector2 said:
Some of the key claims from the DA:

-Brooks was not formally charged and/or mirandized before they attempted to cuff him

-The physical gap between Rolfe and Brooks had continued to widen to >15 ft before shots were fired

-Rolfe was aware that the taser Brooks had discharged had no rounds left when he fired his gun. APD policy is that one can't fire a taser let alone gun at a suspect who is running away from you.

-Neither cop gave Brooks timely medical attention and there is footage of one of them kicking him and another one putting his foot on his shoulder after he was down

-The officer who didn't shoot is going to be a state's witness against Rolfe
Click to expand...
Well, well, well. So they knew that they weren't supposed to fire at the suspect but did it anyway. But I guess because he did turn around and try to fire a taser? Even though he kept running while doing it?
Well, well, well. It's about damn time. But you gotta see if he gets convicted. Bet he will get off since some expert witness cop is gonna say that is part of their training and he acted according to his training. And his partner is now the snitch? How much you want to bet this would not have happened a month ago? A cop rolling over on his partner.

I also don't understand why cops in this country are not trained to wound. It's always fire at center mass for the damn "kill shot".
 
chocomorsel said:
Well, well, well. So they knew that they weren't supposed to fire at the suspect but did it anyway. But I guess because he did turn around and try to fire a taser? Even though he kept running while doing it?
Well, well, well. It's about damn time. But you gotta see if he gets convicted. Bet he will get off since some expert witness cop is gonna say that is part of their training and he acted according to his training. And his partner is now the snitch? How much you want to bet this would not have happened a month ago? A cop rolling over on his partner.

I also don't understand why cops in this country are not trained to wound. It's always fire at center mass for the damn "kill shot".
Click to expand...
Firearms are lethal weapons. Their singular purpose is to kill. That is all that they are to be meant for. As such, they are meant to be used as a last resort...when you have no other choice BUT to kill (obviously that's part of the problem with police using them earlier in situations). Furthermore, one needs to be shooting at a singular point to reduce the risk of stray rounds. It is incredibly difficult to shoot consistently in the same spot repeatedly or even singularly in an intense situation. If officers were to attempt to wound or maim, it would increase the danger to the general public because they'd miss even MORE than they do now.
 
chocomorsel said:
Well, well, well. So they knew that they weren't supposed to fire at the suspect but did it anyway. But I guess because he did turn around and try to fire a taser? Even though he kept running while doing it?
Well, well, well. It's about damn time. But you gotta see if he gets convicted. Bet he will get off since some expert witness cop is gonna say that is part of their training and he acted according to his training. And his partner is now the snitch? How much you want to bet this would not have happened a month ago? A cop rolling over on his partner.

I also don't understand why cops in this country are not trained to wound. It's always fire at center mass for the damn "kill shot".
Click to expand...

A universal rule of firearms is never point one at someone whom you do not intend to shoot. When practicing for this kind of encounter where you are going to use a firearm to save your life or another’s, you practice shooting center mass because the thorax is a broad target and hitting heart/lungs is the most reliable way of bringing down an assailant who means to kill you. And if practicing shooting center mass is what you’ve developed with your instinct and muscle memory, that’s what you do in real life when under actual duress. Clipping a leg or going for a headshot is only for movies or video games (because in real life these wounds are imperfect and frequently don’t sufficiently incapacitate an aggressor).
 
Will post this one more time
1592436636263.png



And after a bazillion articles over the last two days saying that the Senate repubs were going to be serious about police reform, they release a bill which does nothing about chokeholds or qualified immunity
 
vector2 said:
A universal rule of firearms is never point one at someone whom you do not intend to shoot. When practicing for this kind of encounter where you are going to use a firearm to save your life or another’s, you practice shooting center mass because the thorax is a broad target and hitting heart/lungs is the most reliable way of bringing down an assailant who means to kill you. And if practicing shooting center mass is what you’ve developed with your instinct and muscle memory, that’s what you do in real life when under actual duress. Clipping a leg or going for a headshot is only for movies or video games (because in real life these wounds are imperfect and frequently don’t sufficiently incapacitate an aggressor).
Click to expand...
Ok, but there are times where you can would a person to bring them down. I read that other cops in other countries do it. I am sure it would require more training though than is packed in the 19 weeks they get in the U.S.
This situation in Atlanta would have been a good example to use less deadly force on considering they knew he didn't have a gun.
 
MirrorTodd said:
Firearms are lethal weapons. Their singular purpose is to kill. That is all that they are to be meant for. As such, they are meant to be used as a last resort...when you have no other choice BUT to kill (obviously that's part of the problem with police using them earlier in situations). Furthermore, one needs to be shooting at a singular point to reduce the risk of stray rounds. It is incredibly difficult to shoot consistently in the same spot repeatedly or even singularly in an intense situation. If officers were to attempt to wound or maim, it would increase the danger to the general public because they'd miss even MORE than they do now.
Click to expand...
Ok. Understood. Then they need not to be pointing those things at people and find other means to contain situations. Obviously I am not a gun person and know nothing about them.
 
I saw some discussion on guns and quite frankly, the protests have made me more strongly opposed to gun control laws, mainly because they are racist and are used to disarm the black communities. With an increasingly militarized and chaotic police, 2nd amendment and gun ownership are very important. If the police gets dismantled, gun ownership is even more important for defense against criminals.
 
Lawper said:
Bolton is a sociopath. Give me Twitter posts over him anyday.
Click to expand...

His foreign policy certainly leaves something to be desired, but 1. Bolton has always been consistent in his views, and 2. He is not known to be a massive liar, unlike POTUS
 
vector2 said:
His foreign policy certainly leaves something to be desired, but 1. Bolton has always been consistent in his views, and 2. He is not known to be a massive liar, unlike POTUS
Click to expand...

I don't trust anything coming from neocons including Bolton. He got fired from the job he desperately wanted so he's going to attack his former boss. Even by exaggerating and falsifying classified info.

Please give me Mattis over Bolton any day. Or even the Trump impeachment witnesses and the fired watchdogs. I'll take their words over Bolton's easily.
 
chocomorsel said:
Well, well, well. So they knew that they weren't supposed to fire at the suspect but did it anyway. But I guess because he did turn around and try to fire a taser? Even though he kept running while doing it?
Well, well, well. It's about damn time. But you gotta see if he gets convicted. Bet he will get off since some expert witness cop is gonna say that is part of their training and he acted according to his training. And his partner is now the snitch? How much you want to bet this would not have happened a month ago? A cop rolling over on his partner.

I also don't understand why cops in this country are not trained to wound. It's always fire at center mass for the damn "kill shot".
Click to expand...

I’m open to changing my mind if those are established facts. They are claims from 1 side though (that is bringing the case against him) so I would expect them to be 1 sided.

1. the kick would be very damming if it wasn’t a nudge to see if he’s responsive/still fighting

2. The part about policies with running and being shot in the back is irrelevant as we can all watch the video. If he had a gun, not a taser, then this wouldn’t be even be local news because he obviously turned to fire on the officers. Whether the bullet entered his front or back while he was running vs standing a second later doesn’t matter.

Btw anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you the “wounding shot” in the leg/arm is total fantasy (only in the movies) and not done anywhere in the world. Arms/legs are very hard to hit, don’t have stopping power and also have plenty of potential to hit a big artery anyway.
 
There’s so many good parts..

“
Mr. Trump did not seem to know, for example, that Britain was a nuclear power and asked if Finland was a part of Russia, Mr. Bolton writes. The president never tired of assailing allied leaders and came closer to withdrawing the United States from NATO than previously known. He said it would be “cool” to invade Venezuela.

“At times, Mr. Trump seemed to almost mimic the authoritarian leaders he appeared to admire. “These people should be executed,” Mr. Trump once said of journalists. “They are scumbags.” When Mr. Xi explained why he was building concentration camps in China, the book says, Mr. Trump “said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which he thought was exactly the right thing to do.” He repeatedly badgered Mr. Barr to prosecute former Secretary of State John F. Kerry for talking with Iran in what he insisted was a violation of the Logan Act.”

...

Mr. Bolton, however, had nothing but scorn for the House Democrats who impeached Mr. Trump, saying they committed “impeachment malpractice” by limiting their inquiry to the Ukraine matter and moving too quickly for their own political reasons. Instead, he says they should have also looked at how Mr. Trump was willing to intervene in investigations into companies like Turkey’s Halkbank to curry favor with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey or China’s ZTE to favor Mr. Xi.
“
 
vector2 said:
There’s so many good parts..

“
Mr. Trump did not seem to know, for example, that Britain was a nuclear power and asked if Finland was a part of Russia, Mr. Bolton writes. The president never tired of assailing allied leaders and came closer to withdrawing the United States from NATO than previously known. He said it would be “cool” to invade Venezuela.

“At times, Mr. Trump seemed to almost mimic the authoritarian leaders he appeared to admire. “These people should be executed,” Mr. Trump once said of journalists. “They are scumbags.” When Mr. Xi explained why he was building concentration camps in China, the book says, Mr. Trump “said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which he thought was exactly the right thing to do.” He repeatedly badgered Mr. Barr to prosecute former Secretary of State John F. Kerry for talking with Iran in what he insisted was a violation of the Logan Act.”

...

Mr. Bolton, however, had nothing but scorn for the House Democrats who impeached Mr. Trump, saying they committed “impeachment malpractice” by limiting their inquiry to the Ukraine matter and moving too quickly for their own political reasons. Instead, he says they should have also looked at how Mr. Trump was willing to intervene in investigations into companies like Turkey’s Halkbank to curry favor with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey or China’s ZTE to favor Mr. Xi.
“
Click to expand...







Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
doctalaughs said:
I’m open to changing my mind if those are established facts. They are claims from 1 side though (that is bringing the case against him) so I would expect them to be 1 sided.

1. the kick would be very damming if it wasn’t a nudge to see if he’s responsive/still fighting

2. The part about policies with running and being shot in the back is irrelevant as we can all watch the video. If he had a gun, not a taser, then this wouldn’t be even be local news because he obviously turned to fire on the officers. Whether the bullet entered his front or back while he was running vs standing a second later doesn’t matter.

Btw anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you the “wounding shot” in the leg/arm is total fantasy (only in the movies) and not done anywhere in the world. Arms/legs are very hard to hit, don’t have stopping power and also have plenty of potential to hit a big artery anyway.
Click to expand...
Warning shots and shooting non vital parts is done in Spain. FYI
 
chocomorsel said:
Warning shots and shooting non vital parts is done in Spain. FYI
Click to expand...

Think it through... can you even imagine the number of cops who are gonna escalate the situation by drawing their weapon immediately, unnecessarily kill someone, and then claim they were "going for the arm"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top