And that is the thing as time and again you see this reflexive 'lets wait to see what priors he had and how good or bad he was, before judging if the cop shoot was legit or not' when that simply should not matter.

Police shooting people should be determined with no regard for that and only for 'was this person a threat such that he needed to executed on the spot'.

That question is independent of how good or bad the person is/was.

Wait, are you suggesting a cop should treat the following scenarios the same?

1)Pullover a 90 year old driving with a broken tail light
2)Attend 911 call for known felon who happens to be breaking restraining order.

I would think the level of vigilance and alert should be higher for 2??? Also I would suspect if I was the individual in #2 I would be highly compliant when police come knocking.

Straight to the straw man.


A person being shot by police, unjustly or not, does not make the person shot honorable. Let's honor Paul Castellano becasue he was murdered, am I right? Of course not, he was a criminal.

You're feel to turn off Steelers games in disgust, I don't think they (much like us!) particularly care about your angry grievances

Was the shooting justice? If not, it is worth highlighting the injustice and working to rectify it.

Doesn't matter. They are not highlighting an injustice, they are honoring a person, a criminal who happened to meet an untimely and purportedly unjust fate.

Again, you are not going to honor Paul Castellano in order to bring attention to gun violence. That would be stupid.

LOL IHIV, dying on his hills with made-up assertions since 2019

He was a kid who hadn't been convicted of anything. He was shot in the back.

Not arguing with your strawmen.

Nothing you say here follows from what I said. You are imposing new and different scenarios and pretending those are my positions. Not interested in that game.

The car had been pulled over because it matched the description of a car which had been reported in a nearby driveby shooting 10 minutes prior and the car had visible bullet holes in the rear of it. Is it fair to say the officers probably considered the suspects in the car possibly armed and dangerous or at the very least armed at the time? You can argue the one officer could have used better judgement with regards to the initial firing of his weapon but there are numerous other hypothetical scenarios that could play out where he doesn't fire his weapon; the suspect is armed and gets away, takes cover, and gains a strategic advantage over the officers putting their lives in danger or by putting other innocent lives in harms way as well.

I found it interesting how that article sort of shined a negative light on Al Villanuaeva for changing the name on his helmet and even more interesting was this,

"The NFL has said that only pre-approved names could appear on helmets this year, and that the names recognized would be for victims of racial injustice."

Just further proves to show they are pushing the narrative here and it's likely a contrived PR stunt mostly to satisfy the radical side for their ratings.

i just love the constant back and forth of the blue line fanatics..

from "they risk their lives every day so we can walk down the street!!1!"

to a situation that has the bare minimum of danger involved-> "WE CANT EXPECT THEM TO RISK THEIR SAFETY!! THEY GOT SCARED!!.."

Ah, Wookie showing his patented inconsistency again.

You totally justified the shooting of 17-year-old Christopher Cervini despite him being "a kid who hadn't been convicted of anything" and who according to prosecutors was "shot in the back". Yet you justified it because Cervini was allegedly tampering/breaking into a car.

You really did this purely because of the races involved and promptly sing a different tune once the races are reversed. You're incapable of viewing things objectively within context.

What's his age got to do with it? Kyle Rittencourt is a "kid" as well. So were the Colombine shooters, Alyssa Bustamante, Craig Price, Boy A & Boy B in the Ana Kríegel murder and James Bolger's killers Robert Thompson and John Venables. Kids are well capable of killing. This kid shouldn't have been shot for fleeing the scene but you're going on like he was some completely innocent kid that the cops "gunned down on the street like an animal" because systemic racism. He wasn't. Emotive arguments don't bolster your points. Don't take part in drive by shootings and you won't get into encounters with law enforcement.

No it wasn't justified imo and your point ideally is very true. But stop making the guy out to be some innocent martyr. What's with all the false narratives? Jacob Blake was initially breaking up a domestic dispute when this was completely untrue and Garret Foster was originally wheeling his quadraplegic fiancee instead of approaching a car with a Kalashnikov.
Truth's easy to defend, you don't need to peddle false narratives in order to condemn police excess. Unless you have an agenda.

Sorry but this isn't Minority Report with precrimes. Cops have legs and police cruisers and helicopters for a reason. I doubt if the cop that fired considered your scenario in those very few seconds and his reaction seemed knee jerk to me.

I don't agree with the lionization and martyring of some of the victims of recent police shootings or the narratives being peddled but shooting someone for fleeing the scene isn't justified.

The NBA and Lebron hanging a Rockets executive out to dry isn't contrary to my argument that the players control the league. Maybe you were agreeing with me?

And you know that how? Does that cop also shoot a white 17 year old who is running away? I somehow doubt that to be the case.

Did you even read the post I was responding to?

"The Steelers are honoring a person who committed aggravated assault and attempted a murder" clearly and intentionally leaves out the main and most important part of the story, namely that a kid was shot in the back while running away.

Also amusing is that your counter-point Rittenhouse walked up to cops with an assault rifle after shooting 3 people in order to give himself up and the cops just drive past him.

I do agree with you but also calling Lebron a hypocrite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Antwon_Rose_Jr.
The gun residue possibly could have come from the cop's gun when fired, according to testimony but you have released footage, witness testimony and his dna on the gun. So again he wasn't innocent.

Why? It's not because systemic racism is it?Plenty of unarmed white people have been shot by cops so your comment is dismissed.

No you're looking at it in a vacuum, you can easily condemn the shooting without martyring the victim who took part in a drive by and showed no respect for human life while doing do.

Way to miss the point. You were making an emotive argument re the victim being 17, what's the relevance of this? My point re Rittencourt and a buch of others is that being 17 doesn't make you exempt from committing murder. So yet again how is his being "a kid" relevant? And not an emotive argument?

If you could understand why this obtuse comment does not mean there is no systemic racism vs black people you would probably not get into so many arguments around here on this very topic.

Again, I did not present is as "this kid that got gunned down while running away." I literally said to present the whole story not some biased half truth like "the steelers are honoring someone who committed attempted murder." Still don't think you read the post I was responding to.

Because teenagers are ****ing stupid and have still developing brains and do all sorts of stupid **** without fully understanding the consequences of their actions.

Is your doubt because of your belief in systemic racism or not?

No you presented it as a kid gunned down like an animal, while neglecting to mention that he and his mates tried to gun down someone like an animal. You mentioned his youth purely as an emotive point and the animal part was the typical hyperbole that goes on in this forum. His age was irrelevant- plenty of kids commit murder.


Oh bs I wasn't pulling drive bys at 17 as I knew the difference between right and wrong. 17 is old enough to differentiate between the two. I saw no such excuses for Rittencourt nor should there be any for him either.

You've taken this shooting completely outa context in a typically disingenuous manner.

Yes.

No. I did a FYP and added those in without deleting the other parts. My point was to give the COMPLETE story. You still haven't read the post I was responding to.

There is loads of research out there that show teenagers' brains are still developing and they are prone to risky, impulse, and dangerous behavior. I'm sure you can Google many many articles if you are so inclined.

That is not an excuse for their behavior, but it is a reason for empathy when they get gunned down. And especially given the nature of the incident.

If he hadn't been shot I would be in favor of Rose being prosecuted for his crimes, just as I believe Rittenhouse should be prosecuted for his crimes.