• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

Autopsy disputing police account of Stephon Clark shooting sparks anger

Calls for justice and charges against two police officers who fatally shot an unarmed black man aren't abating in California's capital city after an autopsy showed Stephon Clark was shot in the back, a counter to the department's statement that he was approaching officers when he was killed. "His back was turned -- he didn't get a chance," said Latarria McCain, who joined several hundred people protesting downtown Friday, a larger crowd than those at three previous protests.
Click to expand...
 
ConnorEl said:
This shit seems slightly excessive.

Texas woman jailed for five years for 'accidental' voter fraud
Click to expand...

Five years for casting a provisional ballot when she thought she could vote is crazy and likely will have an impact on other people who will have to decide whether to risk casting a provisional ballot going forward.

And l realize she had a clean record, but contrast this against the woman who pretended to be her dead mother to cast two votes for Trump:

DA Declines to Charge Woman Who Cast Vote in Dead Mom's Name
 
The GOP will go to any extreme to suppress the vote. It's their only hope in the future.
 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/...r-police-officer-in-excessive-force-case.html

“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, adding that only one officer had opened fire.

“Kisela alone resorted to deadly force in this case,” she wrote. “Confronted with the same circumstances as Kisela, neither of his fellow officers took that drastic measure.”

Justice Sotomayor said a jury should have been allowed to decide the case.

“Because Kisela plainly lacked any legitimate interest justifying the use of deadly force against a woman who posed no objective threat of harm to officers or others, had committed no crime, and appeared calm and collected during the police encounter,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “he was not entitled to qualified immunity.”
Click to expand...
 
^

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for an Arizona police officer who shot a woman outside her home in Tucson. The court’s decision was unsigned and issued without full briefing and oral argument, an indication that the majority found the case to be easy.

In an impassioned dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had gone badly astray.

“Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public,” she wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”
Click to expand...

Justice Sotomayor said the court’s decision in the case, Kisela v. Hughes, No. 17-467, was part of a disturbing trend of “unflinching willingness” to protect police officers accused of using excessive force.

The court’s decisions concerning qualified immunity, she wrote, “transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”

“Because there is nothing right or just under the law about this,” she wrote, “I respectfully dissent.”
Click to expand...
 
Same with the white guy who shot at the 14 year old black boy who asked for directions. No. There’s not more to the story.

Time and time again we see where cops act on ridiculous 911 calls even though they have the discretion to observe the situation and realize nothing is going on and not make the situation worse.
 
This is very well said and the last paragraph reflects common sentiment from people who post here.

30740998_10213333458704209_7782212622711839478_n.jpg
 
Remember Starbucks "Race Together" debacle? They wanted these workers to lead conversations on race.

There seems to be some finger pointing with the Starbucks CEO claiming the employees didn't want the guy arrested and the Police Commissioner claiming they had to arrest because the Starbucks employees called them in. Also, I don't like the Police Commissioner adding in the colorful statements. First, it doesn't seem consistent with what the witnesses said, and second, even if it is true, police aren't supposed to arrest people for making fun of their salaries.

And to the "there was no harm done to them" statement, it's crazy that "we didn't beat them up" is a defense. The men were handcuffed and escorted out, locked up for over eight hours, and police sounded ready to press charges. All for trying to use a restroom before ordering. (In a wealthy neighborhood.)
 
avalon said:
Remember Starbucks "Race Together" debacle? They wanted these workers to lead conversations on race.

There seems to be some finger pointing with the Starbucks CEO claiming the employees didn't want the guy arrested and the Police Commissioner claiming they had to arrest because the Starbucks employees called them in. Also, I don't like the Police Commissioner adding in the colorful statements. First, it doesn't seem consistent with what the witnesses said, and second, even if it is true, police aren't supposed to arrest people for making fun of their salaries.

And to the "there was no harm done to them" statement, it's crazy that "we didn't beat them up" is a defense. The men were handcuffed and escorted out, locked up for over eight hours, and police sounded ready to press charges. All for trying to use a restroom before ordering. (In a wealthy neighborhood.)
Click to expand...

They make excuses because they are ashamed to be called out as racist.
 
Wait, they didn't order anything and then didn't leave? Isn't it just common sense you gotta order shit otherwise its loitering?
 
palmab03 said:
Wait, they didn't order anything and then didn't leave? Isn't it just common sense you gotta order shit otherwise its loitering?
Click to expand...

Usually when you’re meeting someone at a restaurant, you wait until they get there to order. That’s common sense and good manners.

Would you argue that the Starbucks employee would have been less likely to call the cops on two guys just standing outside the door?

Plus it’s Starbucks. It’s not unusual for people to go there and not order something. Doesn’t seem to hurt business at all.
 
I haven't followed all the details, but I'm white and been told to order something or leave before. I imagine if I refused the situation might have escalated.
 
At Starbucks? Cmon man.
 
No matter how badly my wife has to go to the restroom, she won't go in somewhere to sneak into the bathroom at any sort of restaurant. It drives me nuts.

If you don't enforce those policies, you have the homeless taking up every seat in your starbucks.

I've even had the cops called to deal with me once I refused to leave, but once 5 of em showed up I decided even in a completely drunken state it was probably best to just leave on my own.
 
You’ve never seen homeless looking people at Starbucks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top