The videos Arctish linked to do not.
Black lives matter more than google
You have a one-track mind.
I already showed you that it didn't go down the way you think.
No, you showed a THEORY by someone who wasn't actually there about how the case went down. That theory is inconsistent with the video and the witness accounts of what happened.
It's not inconsistent with the video. These days I'm not impressed with "witness" testimony in these cases, too much of it is obvious fabrication to make the black person in the right.
Severe damaging of pride is the fullest extent of the threat to the officers in the cases above; this type of injury is not generally fatal to police officers. Even Jeremy McDole wasn't actually threatening the officers, he was primarily trying to kill HIMSELF.
I said "dead", I didn't say "damaged pride". Michael Brown probably would have killed.
Black lives matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.
Except that's not the way the world works.
And we have people like you to thank for that.
Black lives STILL matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.
You can define them as nonviolent but that doesn't make it so.
Whether a situation turns violent or not almost always depends on the actions of the suspect.
In all the cases above, the violence was initiated by police officers and the "suspect" (which is not even the right word for the victims in many of those cases) was either fully cooperative or was not actually given the opportunity to BECOME violent before he was assaulted. Christopher Roupe's case is pretty explicit: he was shot while holding a Wii remote in the doorway of his own home two to three seconds after opening it. The most confrontational thing he could have done was launched a blue turtle shell at the officer's car.
Some said a Wii remote, some said a BB gun. Answering the door with a BB gun in your hand is a good way to get shot by the cops.
1) There's no question Castille was not motionless.
He was sitting in a stationary car obeying an officer's order to show him his license; the officer mistook his movement for a hostile action and immediately shot him. Basically the same thing that happened to Levar Jones, except the cop who shot jones forgot to turn off his camera for that stop and wound up going to jail for lying about the shooting.
"Stationary" != "movement". You just disproved your own argument. If you're armed you be very careful at a traffic stop. If the cop tells you to do something that's going to expose your gun you make very sure the cop knows the situation before complying!
2) Sitting motionless and refusing to accept your ticket gets you a trip to jail.
Sitting motionless and smoking a cigarette does not.
Black lives matter more than cops wanting to punish smokers.
Smoking rather than signing your ticket gets a trip to jail.
Except that's not how it went down...
... because the officer chose to escalate the situation and turn what should have been a traffic stop into a potentially violent confrontation. And again, he was eventually fired for that case.
Black lives matter more than cops losing their jobs
And you have some magic spectacles to give the cops that let them tell which is which?
Deescalation techniques avoid problems and give you room to react when problems occur. They should therefore be the DEFAULT action, and abandoned only when the subject being encountered repeatedly choses dangerous escalation.
Your argument makes no sense. Look at the cases you are arguing about--in none of the shootings was there time for deescalation.
If you try to keep them out when they have a warrant you're going to jail.
Indeed. And you don't have to AGREE to go to jail or consent to anything at all. The law cannot compel you to submit, it can only apply consequences for failing to obey it. If the law requires you to allow access to your home under such and such a circumstance, you violate the law by refusing. But a police officer cannot, on his OWN authority, order you to give him access to your home; he can only do THAT if he is empowered to do so by the law, and his proof of that empowerment is called a "warrant."
I've never said their authority is absolute.
So it is the law, and NOT the police, who have authority to supersede your rights.
But if they have that warrant they are empowered to force a search.
You have already shown you don't know what went down in those cases.
Black lives matter more than your mindless obfuscation of the facts that everyone else in this thread can plainly see
I'm not the one obfuscating facts. This message of yours that I'm replying to contains a whopper--stationary = moving.
Contrast this with our run-in with the authorities in Hungary. It wasn't a big deal, we could easily show that it was a mistake on the part of their official and lacking the ability to read Hungarian we had no hope of catching it. (Admittedly this took a while due to the conversation being in German, being spoken pretty badly on both sides.) After that came the hard part--they wanted us to fill out a form about what happened. In Hungarian. Oops--this was a police matter, nobody was willing to translate. (Never mind that their name wouldn't even appear on it.) Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard the situation and offered his help as he knew we weren't going to get anywhere with the locals. That's a police state.
So one police officer in a foreign country was being a dick to you and you call that a "police state"
Do you read English? Because you certainly do not seem to have understood anything of what I said. There was no cop being a dick. The only wrongdoing was on the part of an immigration official, not a cop, and it most likely was a simple mistake, not being a dick. Not only that, but there wasn't even a cop involved. It was an immigration official accusing us of overstaying. It is not his fault he didn't speak English. The report was an official requirement, not him being a dick. Their system was paperwork-obsessed.
The reason I brought it up was the reaction of the people, not the incident itself.
Here are some examples of what a Police State looks like.
It is quite obvious you do not know what a police state is.
Arms up usually means surrender.
... unless it's a
nigger dindu, right?
Race has nothing to do with this. Michael Brown was advancing on someone pointing a gun at him and telling him to stop. In such a situation, if it's legal to point the gun in the first place it's legal to pull the trigger if they don't stop.
I don't worship them. I just don't demonize them like you do.
I do not and have never demonized police officers. I am harsh and unforgiving of officers who abuse their authority, of officers who hide behind the threat of force to cover their own insecurities, of police departments and police commanders who protect bad cops from prosecution, and of supposedly "good" cops who make excuses for abusers.
Except you consider the cop to be in the wrong if a black gets a bad outcome.
Since most suspects are not violently subdued in the first place...
... then deescalation is always an option. You have no reason to argue against it anymore; you've just confessed that it actually works MOST of the time anyway, and by extension you've confessed that the majority of the people the police interact with are not violent criminals or even prone to violence.
You have some magic deescalation technique that works in a second? Because that's how fast these things usually go down.
The cops aren't above the law.
Then they should be prosecuted when they shoot unarmed people in public, just like anyone else.
And they shouldn't be prosecuted when a civilian wouldn't be, either.
