Why the heck this man man have so much respect? Why does his word mean so much?

you are correct. I thought the first version is the way it happened.

 

I think the cops got run over first accoridng to newspapers as far as I can recall.

 

I agree. Although I dont like either of them much, I like sharpton more than Jesse Jackson. That guy is a joke.

 

I think I was misquoted....sweet, first for me!

Read the article posted to start this thread. Again, true or not...who knows, but that's the point...who knows?

The original article, supported by further articles by Caboose, seem to be valid, imo, though.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. SM posted my incorrect version, and the one in the article. He posted my mistaken version on top of the other, so I was referring to that as the first version.

 

how were you misquoted? that was the point of most of the article, that blacks don't complain about black on black crime which is a lot more prevelant than a few cases of police killing suspects. the article made a point about that, and you responded to that point and I responded to your point.

 

hey...you're right. I did type what you quoted. haha!

I didn't remember typing that, and looked through my original post and for some reason missed it.

which means I have still never been misquoted

as for your response, then:

Of course no one should be expected to be shot by the police if they aren't committing crime.

In this particular case, though, apparently they were committing a crime - attempted running over with a car - and therefore, response in the form of being shot at should be expected. However, there is still fervor about it.

Most black on black crime being criminal on criminal? No idea about those stats. Even if true, though, I'd still wager there is more black on black criminal on innocent shootings than cop shootings, especially if the numebrs in the original article are accurate.

As I prefaced in all my posts, if believing the original article:

My read of that is that 9 people were killed in NYC by police last year, and all nine were acting criminally.

On the other hand, the article points out that:

Now it makes no claims about whether those black on black killings were also criminal on criminal killings, but it does go on to provide recent examples:

Again, not 100% clear, but given the statement about minority neighborhoods, and minority victims, I think the point here is that in just the first week after the Sean Bell incident you at least 5 seperate incidents of black-on-black, criminal-on-non criminal crimes. And there has been no fervor.

So while I have no numbers to validate this hypothesis, my guess that your statement that a lot of black on black crime is criminal on criminal is not entirely true, and I am even more positive that there is significantly more black on black, criminal on non criminal crime that there is random police killings on unnarmed, non criminal civilians.

Apples and oranges? I disagree....certainly not exactly the same thing, but related, for sure.

I'm not saying the lack of complaints about black on black crime should mean no one should complain about police on civilian crime, or vice-versa.

People should most certainly complain about a trigger happy police force, if merited. And if race is part of the issue, it should also be addressed....again, as merited.

But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't also make a big deal about civilian on civilian crime. Who should the black community cry to? Um, how about the black community? Why does everything have to only be an issue by making it racist, or against some type of authoritative organization? Regardless of races involved, or parties involved, shouldn't ALL crime, especially of the violent variety, be something to "cry" about?

And, when the numbers are as they appear to be (9 police shootings last year vs. an average of 873 civilian on civilian crime @ 62% cited in that article = 540 of which on average from 98-00 were committed by black people), shouldn't civilian on civilian "crying" be at least equally, if not more, fervent...even keeping in mind the fact that the police force, by its very nature, shouldn't be committing any violent acts and that when they do act violently, even if justified by the situation, it requires investigation?

anyway, sorry about the quote/misquote confusion

 

alot of the complaint about police misconduct is that there is no policing of the the police. there is a remedy for black on black crime, its the criminal justice system.

 

I think the article says it best.

Is there room for improvement? Always, with any system. But are all police system corrupt, and not being policed themselves? Of course not.

here's the articles take. I agree with it.

I certainly don't think it is done perfectly everytime, but I do think the police police the police!

 

No one should expect to be shot by police, and with how statistically rare it is, no one should. But hate mongers like Sharpton go out and make the the communities suspicious of cops and that makes people have unrealistic worries.

It is an apples to oranges comparison in the way you phrase it. But it is not apples to oranges to say that Sharpton and his ilk should be speaking out against criminals instead of the police.

 

The complaint that there is no policing of the police is unfounded, as the article makes pretty clear, in my opinion.

 

uh.... nowhere in my post did I talk about it being racial. and i think this was more than bad judgement by the cops. They should have been tested for drugs .

 

I hate the notion of black-on-black crime. Crime is crime and it shouldn't be designated by color except if color played a role in the crime (ie. hate crimes). I doubt color plays a part in so-called black-on-black crime cases.

 

This is not the point. If it happens to one citizen, it can happen to anyone else, or someone you know. I'd think civic duty at least requires a thorough investigation so this doesnt happen again.

Sharpton can be an annoying attention monger, but I'd rather he speak up than hope the police polices itself (unlikely).

And I suppose you have proof that he doesnt speak out against criminals (TV soundbites are not proof). The police are NOT above the law. This was clearly a case of crazy excessive force. If speaking out againt crime makes one ilk, it must be a good thing.



Cant believe i just attempted t0 defend Sharpton

 

Actually, the issue is it isn't anywhere near that clear...

 

50 rounds to 0 is excessive. you shouldn't need a report to tell you if it is or isn't.

 

I said it earlier in this thread, but if I'm about to get run over by a car, or my friend and partner is, a Rocket Launcher may not even be excessive.

I wasn't there, so I can't say if it was excessive or not. On face value, it SOUNDS excessive.

But looking a little deeper, with 4 or 5 cops there all shooting, if one of them was still in danger of being run over, they SHOULD have kept shooting until that danger passed, right?