Jump to content
Thailand Forum
webfact

Family of Australian woman fatally shot wants Minnesota cop charged

Recommended Posts

iReason    8,003
2 hours ago, jesimps said:

It does when you're unqualified to do the job and are there purely due to PC quotas.

 

Care to substantiate those statements?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tryasimight    460
6 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

I think being banned from a forum would be the least of your worries , clearly you need to see a mental health practicioner.

Why...he has his belief, you have yours.

I tend to agree with the poster not you.

What do they call it in Afghanistan...blue on green killing or something like that, you know when the locals are taken in by the US soldiers as trusted people and then the go nuts and kill as many US soldiers as they can.

 

What a perfect job for a an islamic nutter to have....a US policeman.

Kill someone and then have the loony left not only protect but support you!!!

 

Of course you will eventually get found out, but wow....what damage you can do in the meantime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawker9000    3,963
13 hours ago, mrdome said:

It's not as simple as that and this isn't a "PC stunt" as you've called it. Some cops seem heavy handed/"totally unsuited" at one point in their career.

 

Most of all, we do need cops from all segments of the population on the street, period. Your skin color or your religion - since you brought it up, Freddie - has obviously nothing to do with your actions.

 

No!   What we need, "most of all", is cops who can handle the job.  I don't care where they're from.

 

PCness and the perceived "need" for a "diverse" police force (IOW, a police candidate chosen, and even fast-tracked, on the basis of race and national origin) does NOT trump actual qualification and being well-suited for the job.  You have a perverted sense of priorities when it comes to public safety.  Noor's history documents the fact that he obviously had no business with a badge and a gun.  The taxpayers will now no doubt enjoy doling out a hefty damages award as soon as the master-shyster gets around to filing the civil suit.

Edited by hawker9000
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer90210    1,218

Somali, Muslim and USA bashing time....ready, get set....goooo!!!!

 

For the kind information to our friends the white supremacists or racists, stigmatizing the cop's ethnicity, issues involving malslaughter or use of lethal force by US cops are nothing new and it has nothing to do with being white, black, muslim, male or female....

 

It is the US Criminal Justice system that is thus, like it or not, that permits use of lethal force by the Police not on a proportionate basis of retaliation, but on the sole basis of the officers individual assessment if he/she felt threathned  - the fact that the adverse party was armed or not is not a sine qua non criteria of consideration to the use of lethal force.

 

Edited by observer90210
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
halloween    10,016
5 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Somali, Muslim and USA bashing time....ready, get set....goooo!!!!

 

For the kind information to our friends the white supremacists or racists, stigmatizing the cop's ethnicity, issues involving malslaughter or use of lethal force by US cops are nothing new and it has nothing to do with being white, black, muslim, male or female....

 

It is the US Criminal Justice system that is thus, like it or not, that permits use of lethal force by the Police not on a proportionate basis of retaliation, but on the sole basis of the officers individual assessment if he/she felt threathned  - the fact that the adverse party was armed or not is not a sine qua non criteria of consideration to the use of lethal force.

 

Officers have to reasonably feel they are threatened. There are also a few common sense rules for fire-arm use, such as identifying your target, considering the likelihood of hitting those behind and between you and your target.

Firing across your partner at a target with very limited view, in the dark, because somebody slapped the car to gain your attention or because of aerial fireworks fails all safety and reasonability tests.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joecoolfrog    1,144
10 hours ago, tryasimight said:

Why...he has his belief, you have yours.

I tend to agree with the poster not you.

What do they call it in Afghanistan...blue on green killing or something like that, you know when the locals are taken in by the US soldiers as trusted people and then the go nuts and kill as many US soldiers as they can.

 

What a perfect job for a an islamic nutter to have....a US policeman.

Kill someone and then have the loony left not only protect but support you!!!

 

Of course you will eventually get found out, but wow....what damage you can do in the meantime.

 

Im sure your mate can refer you to his mental health specialist , there is hope !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lovelomsak    3,747
19 hours ago, taipan1949 said:

Lets be serious, the Koran kicked into the brainless Somali and he shot a woman not covered from head to toe. He needs murder two and after a supposed release from jail he should be deported. I can't believe I held my temper writing this piece so I better quit before I am banned.

There may be more truth to that than most of us realize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dick dasterdly    3,438
Just now, lovelomsak said:

There may be more truth to that than most of us realize.

More likely that an easily frightened person that should never have been been given a gun - was given one :sad:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer90210    1,218
5 hours ago, halloween said:

Officers have to reasonably feel they are threatened. There are also a few common sense rules for fire-arm use, such as identifying your target, considering the likelihood of hitting those behind and between you and your target.

Firing across your partner at a target with very limited view, in the dark, because somebody slapped the car to gain your attention or because of aerial fireworks fails all safety and reasonability tests.

One could obviously argue and debate the issue with the usual lexical syntaxal tricks  for months -  I think the only who gain in such arguments are the US lawyers and nobody else, as the police fraternities in the US are powerful lobbies so as the NRA...so no messing with them!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hawker9000    3,963
11 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Somali, Muslim and USA bashing time....ready, get set....goooo!!!!

 

For the kind information to our friends the white supremacists or racists, stigmatizing the cop's ethnicity, issues involving malslaughter or use of lethal force by US cops are nothing new and it has nothing to do with being white, black, muslim, male or female....

 

It is the US Criminal Justice system that is thus, like it or not, that permits use of lethal force by the Police not on a proportionate basis of retaliation, but on the sole basis of the officers individual assessment if he/she felt threathned  - the fact that the adverse party was armed or not is not a sine qua non criteria of consideration to the use of lethal force.

 

'A very simple-minded, PC, and agenda-driven (i.e., cop-hating) narrative version.  You entirely leave out the word "reasonableness" from your indictment of U.S. law enforcement.  It is NOT enough that the police officer "feels threatened" in order to deploy deadly force, if that threat isn't reasonable.  And THIS situation DOES have all to do with race and ethnicity because the policeman in question was hired and placed ON THAT BASIS, and was obviously not qualified by reason of temperament or judgment.  'Not racial in the sense of any particular race or ethnicity, but racial in the sense of this individual having been placed on the force BASED ON RACE rather than competitive aptitude.

 

Cops - a few - CAN BE surly and self-important.  I know; I've experienced it.   But I think this rarely extends to the point of shooting somebody without justification.  This simply isn't such a case.  This cop was obviously incompetent, and the public was not well served by a hiring and placement decision based on a "diversity" mandate rather than suitability.   I strongly suspect that he went all the way through his academy or training regimen with instructors observing but looking the other way at shortcomings because they were under political pressure to "pass" him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer90210    1,218
12 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

'A very simple-minded, PC, and agenda-driven (i.e., cop-hating) narrative version.  You entirely leave out the word "reasonableness" from your indictment of U.S. law enforcement.  It is NOT enough that the police officer "feels threatened" in order to deploy deadly force, if that threat isn't reasonable.  And THIS situation DOES have all to do with race and ethnicity because the policeman in question was hired and placed ON THAT BASIS, and was obviously not qualified by reason of temperament or judgment.  'Not racial in the sense of any particular race or ethnicity, but racial in the sense of this individual having been placed on the force BASED ON RACE rather than competitive aptitude.

 

Cops - a few - CAN BE surly and self-important.  I know; I've experienced it.   But I think this rarely extends to the point of shooting somebody without justification.  This simply isn't such a case.  This cop was obviously incompetent, and the public was not well served by a hiring and placement decision based on a "diversity" mandate rather than suitability.   I strongly suspect that he went all the way through his academy or training regimen with instructors observing but looking the other way at shortcomings because they were under political pressure to "pass" him.

Was not attacking the police officers but the CJ system.

 

One can reasonably doubt that you would have had a similar reaction had the officer been a white and the victim a somali.

 

Sorry, but I won't take your path of the very biased racial issue of your post. You will surely find other people willing to entertain your racial concerns. 

Edited by observer90210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
halloween    10,016
40 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

One could obviously argue and debate the issue with the usual lexical syntaxal tricks  for months -  I think the only who gain in such arguments are the US lawyers and nobody else, as the police fraternities in the US are powerful lobbies so as the NRA...so no messing with them!!

What "usual lexical syntaxal tricks"? Any use of lethal force has to be justified as the response of a reasonable person. There is no such justification here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer90210    1,218
1 minute ago, halloween said:

What "usual lexical syntaxal tricks"? Any use of lethal force has to be justified as the response of a reasonable person. There is no such justification here.

Let's relax here.... I was refering to the cunning lawyers who play topsy turvy during court hearings to bail out the guilty...remember our friend OJ?......nothing else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 20 September 2017 00:12
Sponsors
×