Agree. Your overall point is?

You do pretty well in that department as well. You do a real good job of pissing people off on this forum. The fact that you are bringing imagination or fiction novels into the discussion here, indicates a weak argument on your points. I looked back at the post again. The way you type thing up, and leave things out, leads very well to implications. Just like TW's post. You agreed that past history has no bearing. So why did you bring it up? It wasn't revelant.

The thread isn't a pissing match over a woodcarver....

this whole thread is fucking worthless. let the investigation conclude and the judge jury decide afterwards.



MODS PLEASE LOCK THIS FUCKING THING@!!

No, the thread is running just fine... Let's try to get it back on topic and make sure that we don't edge closer to the CoC areas and we should be fine.

I have a feeling that the Pasco Fiasco (Copyright, 2015 Massivedesign) is going to get interesting now that we have nationwide media on it. Do we have an Al Sharpton for the Hispanics?

I just would like a out side group of LE to do the investigation not cops from the next city over who most likely know each other maybe the WSP

So because I leave things out, I'm actually saying something?



Someone asked a question (was he drunk). I posted some more info about what he was wearing (headphones) and his prior history. Not unreasonable to conclude he may have been drunk. Does it mean I think he should have been shot? No. And in fact, as I pointed out, someone who is drunk, wearing headphones and deaf, not likely to be responding really quickly to surprise verbal commands from behind.

So you came up with your own implication, that I thought he should be shot, based on your imagination. I didn't say anything because there wasn't anything new to be said about the justification for shooting him (because there wasn't any!). I was filling in some context around the victim.

The cops in all three cities there know each other pretty well. Having WSP do the investigation is a good idea.

Don't worry. No matter what the regional group comes up with in their investigation you can be assured that the FBI will be conducting their investigation as well.

Regardless, nobody will be satisfied with the results. If the police are exonerated by the Fed's the local community will riot aka Ferguson. If they're indicted, the police will more likely than not just suddenly contract a bad case of "Blue Flu" in protest.

In other conversations outside this forum I find it amazing the number of people in our society that don't believe "rocks" are potentially lethal weapons.

The entire thing is steaming shit.
Cops shouldn't have shot, period and yet shouldn't have been put in a situation that could lead to shooting.
Man shouldn't throw rocks at cops.
Man shouldn't have ANY history of negative contact.

So......Cops don't shoot. Man eventually gets caught, gets released that and due to prior experience, will be more cautious about getting caught next time. Cops are just control freaks and arresting minorities for no reason, I mean hey, throwing rocks at cops ISN'T like murder and no big deal.

It's a no win situation any fucking way you want to look at it. Oh, sure, victimless crime because although he threw a rock, nobody hot hurt, right? This time.....
And right there is a perfect example of how some seem to think that minor crime, victimless, is no big deal. If the idiot had the book thrown at his ass in the prior contact(s) just maybe he would have thought twice about putting his ass in trouble again. But no, this shit hole society has deemed that engaging police with rocks is acceptable and encouraged behavior and one that is victimless so minor crimes are rewarded, supported and defended.

The idiot put himself in that situation.
The police should not have shot.
So, your left with negative subjects. How do you prevent BOTH of them in the future?
Look at preventing both instead of bashing one another people.

It looks like you are arguing both sides of this issue at the same time. The cops shouldn't have shot at him but the fact that they did was caused by the victim himself.

Yes, the root cause is the fact that our "feel good liberal approach to Justice" today is all about rehabilitation, not a good ass kicking for bad behavior.

Rocks can be lethal. Duh.

Shots were fired as he was running away, and again after he turned around and his hands were visible.

If he was shot whilst throwing a huge rock, I don't think people would be as upset.

us commoners would most likely get in trouble for shooting someone, who was breaking into our house, in the back as they were fleeing. The law would say the threat was now gone so why did you shoot him anyway?? for some strange reason, once again, its ok for johnny law to NOT follow the laws the rest of us are bound by.


For the same reason you cant let the fox guard the henhouse, we should never allow another police agency investigate any other police group. Everywhere else that would be part of a conflict of interest plain and simple. They operate as a single unit so to expect an impartial investigation or decision is just stupid


If some of the above mentioned theories were applied across the board then why dont they break out the heavy machine guns and level the crowd at riots and protests, those folks throw rocks, bottles and whatever they can get ahold of. Yup the idea of a good shoot kinda falls apart there now doesnt it??

No, police aren't bound to the same guidelines as common citizens in the use of force and they aren't for a reason. Police are commissioned through a rigorous process to enforce the law. Common citizens are not and a citizen's rights regarding trying to detain or gain compliance of another citizen are extremely limited. Gaining compliance and/or neutralizing a threat generally requires a level of force greater than the threat being presented. There ARE situations that call for use of deadly force by police that will result in shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect and there is legal precident to support it. See Tennessee v. Garner.

Claiming police from multiple agencies operating as a "single unit" is highly ignorant. We can, in emergencies, work together but you would be surprised how politics divide law enforcement. I would trust any WSP investigation of non-WSP incidents because there isnt the same familiarity between them and the city and county guys. They aren't as embedded with their communities and are very unlikely to destroy their credibility for officers they neither know or give a shit about. WSP takes on a robotic persona because of they are isolated from everyone else for the most part.

I heavily disagree with civilian investigations of alleged law enforcement excessive force. A scenario, by law, is viewed under the scrutiny of the "totality of circumstances" which can not be identified by anyone who has never been law enforcement because training and experience of the officer is a part of that totality. Civilians don't have the context in which to view a scenario.

Use a group of retired police officers as the investigators.
....the "you haven't been there, you can't understand" is a self supporting philosophy.
Try applying it to any other research and you'll find it immediately raises questions on the validity of any conclusion.
So use people who have the background, but are now civilians.