(08-18-2014 09:48 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 09:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Truthfully I would expect to be shot in a situation like that.

As would I. But we don't know for sure that it is that cut and dry. I'll wait until we get more information. I'm inclined to believe that the police officer was defending himself, but I question whether he needed to shoot the guy 6 times and whether disabling versus killing would have been appropriate.

I know, it is a split second decision and they are trained to shoot to kill, but I'm not sold always shooting to kill, especially when the kid isn't brandishing a weapon, is the proper response.

Would normally agree, but if he was charging the officer it's hard not to shoot several times.

(08-18-2014 12:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 12:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 11:54 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 11:53 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 11:49 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  The word "but" in your sentence implies they share some kind of blame or that they were not acting within their power.

No it doesn't. You're reading what I didn't write again. Hubris.

Sure it does. Why did you think that part of your sentence was necessary? Just a random thought?

No it doesn't. Really.

It's like you have some weird contrariety Tourettes things going on.

I'm afraid it does Smaug, and with you, it may not even a conscious thing.

You know damn well that the protesters, the rioters and the pathetic media have been pushing narrative that the police are to blame.


If you were truly impartial you would never have made a statement like that. How can you imply that police must be held to a higher standard without giving the impression that they haven't met that standard?

I also think you need to research what Tourettes syndrome is.

You're a real piece of work. You read things I don't type and don't read things I do. Please read post #47 in this thread.

(08-18-2014 01:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This has nothing to do with an investigation. Stop trying to change the parameters. This is about a media and a large portion of the general public jumping on the blame the police narrative that has been growing in America for a few years now.

This is about a dishonest assumption that this kid was unjustly shot.

It has everything to do with the investigation. Be open, honest, and transparent. Don't keep everyone in the dark for days. Within 8 hours they had probably 90% of their evidence. They most likely only have toxicology reports left.

These riots likely would not have happened, certainly not for this long, had the police been open, honest, and transparent from the beginning. That is the entire point of the matter. Now they have a lot of people who don't trust them because they were so tight lipped about it.

I'll trust the department that learned a lot 13 years ago over the department that has created a lot more problems due to their "protecting of the officer". Instead they allowed 2 other officers to be named as the shooter.

None of us were there to see it, it will take time to get to the final details. I'm waiting and seeing if the evidence backs up his claims. I'm assuming they will. That doesn't mean that the police don't own a large part of the problems they've had since that day.

(08-18-2014 01:23 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 01:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This has nothing to do with an investigation. Stop trying to change the parameters. This is about a media and a large portion of the general public jumping on the blame the police narrative that has been growing in America for a few years now.

This is about a dishonest assumption that this kid was unjustly shot.

It has everything to do with the investigation. Be open, honest, and transparent. Don't keep everyone in the dark for days. Within 8 hours they had probably 90% of their evidence. They most likely only have toxicology reports left.

These riots likely would not have happened, certainly not for this long, had the police been open, honest, and transparent from the beginning. That is the entire point of the matter. Now they have a lot of people who don't trust them because they were so tight lipped about it.

I'll trust the department that learned a lot 13 years ago over the department that has created a lot more problems due to their "protecting of the officer". Instead they allowed 2 other officers to be named as the shooter.

None of us were there to see it, it will take time to get to the final details. I'm waiting and seeing if the evidence backs up his claims. I'm assuming they will. That doesn't mean that the police don't own a large part of the problems they've had since that day.

Police do not disclose details of investigations like this for many reasons. The biggest reason being so the investigation isn't tainted from the outside. That is how they get to the truth.

(08-18-2014 01:32 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Police do not disclose details of investigations like this for many reasons. The biggest reason being so the investigation isn't tainted from the outside. That is how they get to the truth.

That is in direct contradiction to what the Cincinnati police captain said today.

(08-18-2014 01:23 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 01:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This has nothing to do with an investigation. Stop trying to change the parameters. This is about a media and a large portion of the general public jumping on the blame the police narrative that has been growing in America for a few years now.

This is about a dishonest assumption that this kid was unjustly shot.

It has everything to do with the investigation. Be open, honest, and transparent. Don't keep everyone in the dark for days. Within 8 hours they had probably 90% of their evidence. They most likely only have toxicology reports left.

These riots likely would not have happened, certainly not for this long, had the police been open, honest, and transparent from the beginning. That is the entire point of the matter. Now they have a lot of people who don't trust them because they were so tight lipped about it.

I'll trust the department that learned a lot 13 years ago over the department that has created a lot more problems due to their "protecting of the officer". Instead they allowed 2 other officers to be named as the shooter.

None of us were there to see it, it will take time to get to the final details. I'm waiting and seeing if the evidence backs up his claims. I'm assuming they will. That doesn't mean that the police don't own a large part of the problems they've had since that day.

So you're out minding your business, just doing your job, and you suddenly get a call about a robbery and while on another call, you keep your eyes open for possible suspects. You're going down the road, see a person fitting the description, and stop to talk to them. Before you know it, you've got a 6'4" 300 lb monster charging at you and your only option is to fire, unintentionally killing him.

Skip past all the theatrics...

Now the entire town wants your head, and your family's, and have been sending public death threats to you and your family but there's only one thing stopping that from happening. They don't yet know who you are.

Would you want them releasing YOUR name? I think not.

(08-18-2014 01:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  So you're out minding your business, just doing your job, and you suddenly get a call about a robbery and while on another call, you keep your eyes open for possible suspects. You're going down the road, see a person fitting the description, and stop to talk to them. Before you know it, you've got a 6'4" 300 lb monster charging at you and your only option is to fire, unintentionally killing him.

Skip past all the theatrics...

Now the entire town wants your head, and your family's, and have been sending public death threats to you and your family but there's only one thing stopping that from happening. They don't yet know who you are.

Would you want them releasing YOUR name? I think not.

It is part of the job. They would have taken them out of their house, put them somewhere safe, and had the press conference. By hiding it you are only creating more issues.

Kind of like hiding or deleting data that points to conservative groups being targeted by the IRS. Be open, honest, and transparent. Don't play games in these investigations.

(08-18-2014 01:37 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 01:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  So you're out minding your business, just doing your job, and you suddenly get a call about a robbery and while on another call, you keep your eyes open for possible suspects. You're going down the road, see a person fitting the description, and stop to talk to them. Before you know it, you've got a 6'4" 300 lb monster charging at you and your only option is to fire, unintentionally killing him.

Skip past all the theatrics...

Now the entire town wants your head, and your family's, and have been sending public death threats to you and your family but there's only one thing stopping that from happening. They don't yet know who you are.

Would you want them releasing YOUR name? I think not.

It is part of the job. They would have taken them out of their house, put them somewhere safe, and had the press conference. By hiding it you are only creating more issues.

Kind of like hiding or deleting data that points to conservative groups being targeted by the IRS. Be open, honest, and transparent. Don't play games in these investigations.

I won't disagree, but he wasn't moved out of his house so the imminent danger was there if his name was released.

(08-18-2014 01:34 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 01:32 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Police do not disclose details of investigations like this for many reasons. The biggest reason being so the investigation isn't tainted from the outside. That is how they get to the truth.

That is in direct contradiction to what the Cincinnati police captain said today.

You play right into the populist movement that doesn't understand how the police operate. You do not disclose information to the public until the investigation is nearing its end.

You are acting like this is the President who got shot by and outside, unknown force. This was a street thug that robbed stores and assaulted the police.

(08-18-2014 01:19 PM)mlb Wrote:  It may be hindsight, but the SOP for Cincinnati police is completely different than that of Ferguson. That is the point I'm making... the local conservative media here (700WLW) has been putting the Ferguson PD on blast all day (I didn't listen over the weekend) and had a captain on talking about all the things done wrong.

They talked about how they would have handled it, how they would have gotten information out within hours, not days. Talked about how they would have put out the name of the officer because you need to be transparent (they would have put him and his family up somewhere to keep them safe).

There were already _DEATH THREATS_ less than a day into the shooting. Yeah, let's put an officer's name out there.

They had the first autopsy already, but there was a request for the 2nd autopsy already out there.. Yeah, let's put the first one out there, and then look like total idiots if the 2nd one came back with a different result.

Quote: They talked about their community out reach that obviously not in place in Ferguson.

"obviously not in place"? Does he know.. or is he just ASSUMING.

Quote:They also talked about when Cincinnati had riots in 2001 they found that the officer was not completely honest through the investigation... which was a turning point for them as a department. How did they find out? There was video evidence that showed he was lying. He was fired from the police force but never charged because, while he lied, he did not commit a crime. Integrity first...

Except right now the Ferguson officer is NOT lying. Big difference. Yeah, let's compare a cop that LIED about what he did against one that so far, the evidence has corroborated his story.

Yeah, let's go out and tell an ALREADY infiltrated group of people, "it was a justifiable shooting" (which it seems to be right now). Let's see how well that goes over and see what happens.

The Cincy police chief really needs to sit down and really PAY attention to what's going on here before running off at the mouth about something he knows nothing about here.

(08-18-2014 09:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  But wait, I thought removing the militaristic police teams was supposed to make these protestors feel warm and fuzzy and let all the explosive air out of their balloons, no??

They were fine until the police chief released an irrelevant video.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-18-2014 01:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You play right into the populist movement that doesn't understand how the police operate. You do not disclose information to the public until the investigation is nearing its end.

You are acting like this is the President who got shot by and outside, unknown force. This was a street thug that robbed stores and assaulted the police.

So I'm not supposed to believe the words from a captain of the City of Cincinnati Police Department saying that they should have held a press conference the next day giving out the details that they knew? That Cincinnati PD has it set in their SOP to do it within hours, usually less than 12?

Oh yeah, I forgot, this is the guy who knows everything about everything and no matter how many facts go against your opinion you'll never change it.

(08-18-2014 01:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 09:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  But wait, I thought removing the militaristic police teams was supposed to make these protestors feel warm and fuzzy and let all the explosive air out of their balloons, no??

They were fine until the police chief released an irrelevant video.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-18-2014 01:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 01:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You play right into the populist movement that doesn't understand how the police operate. You do not disclose information to the public until the investigation is nearing its end.

You are acting like this is the President who got shot by and outside, unknown force. This was a street thug that robbed stores and assaulted the police.

So I'm not supposed to believe the words from a captain of the City of Cincinnati Police Department saying that they should have held a press conference the next day giving out the details that they knew? That Cincinnati PD has it set in their SOP to do it within hours, usually less than 12?

Oh yeah, I forgot, this is the guy who knows everything about everything and no matter how many facts go against your opinion you'll never change it.

WTF does the Cincinnati police captain have to do with this case? The Furguson Police chief has given a media statement several times.

If there is an ongoing investigation, you do not divulge sensitive details.

You should know this after watching Obama handle Benghazi.

The chief is an idiot for releasing that video.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-18-2014 03:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The chief is an idiot for releasing that video.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Explain....

Actually Fit.. People pressing the PD wanting to have the Cop's name released opened this Pandora Box, they wanted all the information that pertained to that time period, that included the video.

The video, while certainly inflammatory, was not at all irrelevant.

(08-18-2014 03:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  The video, while certainly inflammatory, was not at all irrelevant.

You mean the robbery video that showed he was aggressive when everyone said he wasn't? The piece that showed that when Officer Wilson stopped him, it gave him a reason to be aggressive because he thought he was busted?

(08-18-2014 03:27 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-18-2014 03:25 PM)Smaug Wrote:  The video, while certainly inflammatory, was not at all irrelevant.

You mean the robbery video that showed he was aggressive when everyone said he wasn't? The piece that showed that when Officer Wilson stopped him, it gave him a reason to be aggressive because he thought he was busted?

That'd be the one.