But I guess that's to be expected.

Sorry bro, I'll get right on it.

How sweet will your redemption be if it turns out he only died because the police were slow to get him treatment for an injury he received by accident? Negligence resulting in the death of a man whose crime appears to have been "running away".... goddamn Christmas in July.

But my point there wasn't about this case, you get that, right? If you're getting liquored up and trying to scuffle with some of them there knowitall race traitors on the interwebs, at least take a few swings, actually state your piece. This "that's to be expected" smirking ****, this immediate collapse into a bizarre focus on the other prisoner... It's embarrassing. Everyone knows what you are trying to say, you just look like you're afraid to speak your mind.

I don't think they intentionally killed him. Even if they beat the **** out of him I don't think they intended he die. I don't think that would make it all that much better though.

The most convincing theory I've heard is that he was given a rough ride in the back and must have hit his head at a funny angle.

http://articles.philly.com/2013-12-0...lice-officials

But, you know, unless it was a first degree premeditated murder hate crime, proven beyond a reasonable doubt thought public statements and video, NO CRITICISM ALLOWED.

Liquored up? Race traitors? What the hell are you talking about?

Oh, so you're painfully short on facts, but still able to throw some hot fire at people who, in light of a recent killings of a black people by cops, including multiple events where the police accounts are directly contradicted by other evidence, are skeptical of the police here?

I'll tell you at this point I'm skeptical of both sides. My observation is people are so focused on the race issue when these things occur it largely drowns out someone died. Is anyone aware that one of the kids in spank's sensational poster who was shot in the back had just bought a stolen hand gun? Does that even matter? Does not seem so, seems the color of the kid's skin is the important thing.

Do not get me wrong, I'm all for discussing race and racism in our society but it seems when this stuff happens all that's talked about is the racial aspect. I want to know why cops are quick to shoot in the first place and yes, I know minorities are disproportionately affected/effected by this phenomenon. But again, whats discussed is not the quick to shoot but rather the racial disparity.

My guess there is a probably multiple influences involved in several of these instances from race, to poor training, to criminal behavior (on both sides), to poor psych evaluations, etc, etc. It seems the police killing someone gets your attention when its a black person is involved and it'd be hard pressed for me to believe based on your posting history that you actually care about the cops killing people part while you and others only want to point out racial association/racism which is important but its all you talk about. You'd be hard pressed to prove that race was the primary factor in most of these shootings, yet it is what gets the publicity. Training, evaluations, civil review board, stuff like that hardly ever gets discussed and when it does, its only briefly, have to hit the race angle again.

That goes for the other side too, they make all these attempts to show how race was not an issue, when its clear race is an issue although it varies on how relevant based on the circumstances.


Yeah, I'm skeptical.

I didnt realise the punishment for buying a gun illegally in America was to be shot in the back.

The point is, why are cops so quick to shoot when they see a gun. Some would have you believe its because of the race of the person involved (that's what's emphasized) and while that may be relevant in some cases, this quick to shoot mentality when they see a gun has killed people from all skin colors. It did not take long for the conversation to get back to the racial aspects due to the usual suspects.

Did they even know he bought a gun illegally when they shot him in the back?

(this is a trick question in a couple ways)

Skepticism about what happened is a good attitude.

But we are not skeptical about the biased way these incidents are investigated/prosecuted - we have a justified belief that the justice system is flawed.

Wow. A fair and balanced view. Yes the police are killing people and breaking the law, but the criminals break the law too!

Why are you just focusing on the police? did you know a black man killed a white person yesterday? why isn't that in the news?

When black police officers begin killing unarmed white men I'll be glad to join the protests.

I'm curious how he found out a white man was killed if it wasn't in the news. I'd also bet he's been charged already.

Police are held to a higher standard.

They are representatives of the state and by extension society given powers ordinary people don't have so when they abuse those powers and especially when that abuse goes unpunished it is rightfully big news.

Some random guy kills another random guy, honestly why should it be big news? He will be caught and prosecuted and justice will likely be done. Call me if justice isn't done.

pretty sure rugby was just mocking that other dude

Certainly possible, I don't know his postings to form an opinion though.

greatwhite confirmed.

No way this guy is getting convicted.

Not being able to draw reasonable conclusions and inferences from available information isn't skepticism. It's being ****ing stupid.

Or you know- you've come to the same conclusions and don't want to admit it because you're ****ing racist.

Wow. Either your sarcasm meters are broken, or you've been frogboiled in the water of full stupidity for too long.

Poes law I guess.

To be clear. I was mocking the argument that "both sides break the law" when talking about police and criminals

I laugh because the comedic interpretation is more pleasant than the tragic.

Tbf, the 73 year old rich white dude who has the full backing of Tulsa pd isn't exactly a flight risk.

He's gonna be flying though.