New_Earth_Mud
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by New_Earth_Mud
-
-
I duno.... The more n more i hear about this case this Slager guy is not a very good cop. Horrible at his job.
Sounds like he was pissed off he lost a tussle and the tazzer didnt work for whatever reason so he shot him then wanted to set the scene. I dont even think race played a part in it.
I've seen nothing to substantiate this opinion. Lost a tussle so he shot him? Does the suspect bear any responsibility for running, fighting, assaulting and running again?
Of course he does.... But with his life? So your opinion is everyone that does this should just be shot?
Look at the case with the 73 year old pretend cop. That dude just sold a cop a gun and ran away. They didnt open fire and shoot him.
The 73 year old shooting was an accident and possibly a case of an under-trained volunteer. It wasn't a choice by the officer to engage in activity he believes was lawful.
As for your first question, everyone does what? Run from a lawful police stop? Resist arrest? Assault an officer? Attempt to wrest control of a potentially lethal weapon?
If someone attacks a cop with his fists, should the cop remove his utility belt and square off? After all that would be equal force. If someone attacks the cop with a knife, should the cop produce his own and engage in a knife fight?
If someone pointed a gun at you and ordered you to stop, would you attack that person or would you think "gee he has a gun, I should immediately comply with his directives"
I've repeatedly stated that the loss of life in this instance was tragic and preventable. But from initial reports of racist white cop guns down poor innocent black man for no reason, we've come to a far different conclusion. The ultimate conclusion is yet to be written. From everything I am seeing, the officer felt his actions were lawful.
Do you know this to be any fact at all?
It all the time ive been watch ive never heard once the guy assaulted the cop. Not once. Even the cop never mentioned he was assaulted. Ever.
A witness said there was a tussle and the cop was in control but the guy got away and ran.
Only the cop said the guy tried to grab his tazzer. Dont you think that at some point the cop might have said the guy assulted me and tried to grab my tazzer? Even in the phone call he never mentioned that. Thats an odd thing to leave out id think.
Was the tussle the cop trying to tackle the guy and they fell to the ground and then the guy got away?
We dont know any of that. We dont even know they guy went after the cops tazzer.
We cant just start adding in things we dont know and just assume. Same thing as i said before.... You cant add in whats happen to you and then say... Well ive had a knife pointed at me .. so this is what the cop felt because thats what you felt. Its nothing near the same thing.
Cmon now.... Of course a cop shouldnt drop his belt and go fist to fist. That has nothing to do with anything.
Again there is nothing that says there was any assult. And again why wouldnt the cop say it. Eh the guy ran and i caught him he punched me in the face and tried to grab my tazzer. Then id agree there was an assult. These guys are trained to add in detail when making a report... thats an odd thing to leave out.
Even the other cops on the scene are being looked at for writing false reports to what actually went on.
-
I duno.... The more n more i hear about this case this Slager guy is not a very good cop. Horrible at his job.
Sounds like he was pissed off he lost a tussle and the tazzer didnt work for whatever reason so he shot him then wanted to set the scene. I dont even think race played a part in it.
I've seen nothing to substantiate this opinion. Lost a tussle so he shot him? Does the suspect bear any responsibility for running, fighting, assaulting and running again?
Of course he does.... But with his life? So your opinion is everyone that does this should just be shot?
Look at the case with the 73 year old pretend cop. That dude just sold a cop a gun and ran away. They didnt open fire and shoot him.
-
I think he will go to UFA and take the highest offer.
Think he will go to a crap team for more money?
How much is more money for a guy like him anyway? Youd think around 4ish is what a guy like him is worth. How much more will he get?
Will he go to TO for 4.5? or stay here at 4? Is that money worth all the loosing or all the winning?
Offer them what our fair value is and what they are worth.
-
Just my opinion but i think a difference will be we have 4 lines putting points up.
Also like the idea have one of Myers, Buff, Trouba on the ice at pretty much all times. This might frustrate Getzlaf, Perry, and Kesler.
Getzlaf is a hard player to get off his game. They key will be to take out the players around him.
Ducks are a a really good team.... But if we can do our thing... play relentless banging not only once but again the night after then have to come here and its a freaking mad house .. I wonder if it all wears the Ducks out.
-
Someone who is more familiar with the Ducks, how deep are they?
Uh...first place in the conference deep!
Just because their top line is a monster doesn't mean they're a one-line wonder. They also have Lowrys and Stempniaks on their team.
And as strange as it sounds, I consider Ryan Getzlaf underrated. If cups were won on the sheer willpower of a team's captain...well the season would never end, as Getzlaf, Toews and Dustin Brown would be beating each other to death for eternity. Outside of knocking him out of the series with an injury, there is no amount of physicality that the Jets D can bring that will get Getzlaf to change his game.
That said, Getzlaf normally plays setup man for Perry, and Perry can be taken off his game. Setup without the finish will work just fine for the Jets.
I agree with this guy. ^^^
-
I duno.... The more n more i hear about this case this Slager guy is not a very good cop. Horrible at his job.
Sounds like he was pissed off he lost a tussle and the tazzer didnt work for whatever reason so he shot him then wanted to set the scene. I dont even think race played a part in it.
-
I agree that police should be held to higher standards due to their training. I can also tell you I've seen video of police in action that would indicate they either did not remember their training or had not used it in enough time to have forgotten it. Plus, in tense situations, if you are very well trained to the point your body reacts to the training, it will simply react to the normal fight or flight response in all humans. I've had some training and experience. The first time someone pulled a knife on me when I was 18 years old, I panicked and freaked out. I literally couldnt even speak properly and couldnt remember anything that happened in detail (ie. description of suspect). In later years, a knife being pulled on me resulted in the suspect being disarmed and restrained.
Same for medical. First time I come across an injured, bloody person = panic. In later years, dealt with all the time and its an instinctive reaction to immediately spring to work assisting. It used to be difficult to go to bars on days off because my partners and I would instinctively be "on patrol" scanning the crowd and reacting to movements and whatnot. Hard to relax. One of my trainers actually advised wearing a cup (some guys did, I never did) and wore his every moment of every day that he was outside his home.
Anyway, enough about me. I also agree that once the suspect fled, the danger was over. I could argue the point that a suspect that has a premeditated plan to evade capture (remember his brother said he would run rather than risk jail) and was willing to assault an officer in the process represented a danger to officers at large. We dont know what else the suspect might have done had he escaped. Car jack? Take a hostage? Go home and watch Family Guy? We dont know. We only know what he did in those few moments.
I have actually been generally unimpressed with the actions of police officers in recent years. The tazer mentality has made it too easy and instinctive for police to take an arms-length approach to policing. I want officers to be safe but the job requires risk. It requires them to step forward and risk injury or death to defend the community. You see instances where 20 cops surround a guy with a knife and they shoot him. I can say they were justified at the same time as saying "really? Twenty cops couldnt have taken him down?"
But I think the officer in this case could likely find experts that would testify that he followed his training because at the moment he reached for his gun, he was under duress and felt in grave danger. It's not for you or me to say how that person felt. They feel how they feel. But a jury will get to hear all about his training, how he is taught to react, what he *should* feel in that situation and if he was justified in shooting whether the suspect was two feet in front of him or twenty.
***EDIT*** to add, on the subject of the Warrants. I was talking to a buddy and he asked that question, did the officer know of the warrants when the suspect fled. And I said we dont know. I thought his point was going to be "well if its just a child support payment issue, so what, let him run" but he said "If he didnt know, then as far as the officer knew, the suspect could have been armed, dangerous, a fugitive etc...he ran for a reason, why did he run? The cop couldnt know and had to assume there was a reason and if the suspect felt he needed to run then the cop had to stop him." Interesting perspective.
Good post dude and i can somewhat agree.
Just to change the subject a bit.... I just watched that Jodi Aries sentencing.... Man that girl is a whole bunch of crazy. She pretty much just flipped off everybody. LOL
-
Its not about me being wrong and them right. This is my opinion.
Im only giving you personal experience to support my opinion because I know what its like to be under grave threat.
The problem with your position is you're taking the image of the cop shooting a person running away as if its the total story, which it isnt.
I read a story on this but dont have it as I cant remember which story it was but it explained that Murder in that jurisdiction requires premeditation. Clearly that was not the case. Im sure you'd agree. I think he was charged with murder because it looked really really bad and there was political pressure. I think on its surface this looked like a racially motivated bad shooting. I think what we have learned since and upon further reflection, there is no evidence that this was racially based. In fact, the interaction of the officer with the suspect didnt indicate anything unusual. The officer's attempt, after the suspect fled, to use a stung gun demonstrates that the cop was going by the book, and had no desire to use lethal force. That changes when the officer was under threat.
How many seconds passed from the moment the officer made any motion towards his gun, to the time of the shooting? I think you previously admitted had the cop shot him at the location of the altercation that this would be a "good shooting". The defense will surely have several shrinks and experts detailing the fight or flight response, the body's reaction to threat, the time it took to fire etc. How a person perceives situations can be very different.
Remember when Vince Li killed that guy on the bus? The witnesses described him as huge. He's actually very small. They all perceived him, due to the threat and their reactions, to be this massive person. That answered the question as to why did nobody try to stop him. They were all petrified and felt under grave threat. Now, we hold cops to a higher standard. I have no problem with that. That's going to be up to a jury to decide. I bet the DA will ask for the jury to be given the option of manslaughter.
Fair enuff.... these are all just our opinions.
As for you using your experience to support your opinion ... thats all good and may support your opinion as far as your concerned but not me.
Your not trained to be a cop or be in these situations so i wouldnt expect you to react the same as a trained cop. Id expect more from a trained cop. Its his job.
And as for my position.... Im basing it off what we have seen and heard. Im not trained to be in these situations. Im basing my position off what i have watched and learned about this case.
Yes i keep bring up the running away part because of a few things ive watched and learned from people who know....
The warrant thing..... The cop had no idea of any warrants at the time of the shooting.
The grave danger...... Every cop and lawwyer ive seen on TV have all said the grave danger was over at the time the dude ran away. He had no weapon and the cop had nothing to show him the guy was any danger to anyone else. This is why as soon as the vid came out the cop was fired and arrested for murder. As for the fighting over the tazzer? Well we dont really know but the 2 witnesses that have come forward neither has said the guy tried to get the cops tazzer. From the vid it looks like either the cop missed or the leeds got hooked into the guys cloaths and didnt hit his skin.
This is a good discussion and debate. Fun to learn others opinions and point of views.
-
I've been reading this thread, reading other articles, and scratching my head for the past few days.
Running away from Police is a strange decision to make - sometimes people make strange decisions. Does that mean they should be shot?
I dare say not.
I get that some of you are arguing semantics and commenting on the rights of Police Officers in general - but why defend a cop who shot and killed an unarmed, fleeing suspect?
If you really read the thread you know the answer. The narrative of "oh he was just running away" isn't accurate. Add in the warrants, the assault, the struggle over the stun gun....the bigger picture isn't as near and tidy as originally thought. In a perfect world the cop would not have shot the guy. The victims actions lead to the shooting. The cop made the choice to shoot.
Honestly the worst thing the cop did was plant the stun gun. That's going to be the hint hole in any Defense even if he's innocent. And again by the law this ain't mirder.
Then why is he being held without bond and charged with murder?
-
New Earth. I'm sorry you are wrong. Regardless of this specific situation a cop does have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect of he feels the suspect represents a risk to himself or others. That will be the crux of this case.
I guarantee you, if the cop had not shot and this suspect ran around the corner and killed someone the question would be why didn't the cop do more.
Here's another cop shooting showing cops fighting for their lives. They shot and killed. Not comparing. Just showing a story not getting as much media
Ive said from the start that if the cop feels himself or others are imminent danger then yes he can use his gun.
But this is not the case here. The guy was running away and did not have the cops tazer.
The witness said they were in a tussle and the cop was in control untill the guy got away and ran... we dont know if he went for the cops tazer.
The cop had no idea the guy had warrants. Its not like this guy was some young gangbanger dude. The cop had no reason to assume that anybody life was in danger when he ran from the car or ran from the cop after the tussle. The danger to the cop was over when the guy ran away because he had no weapon.
Hence the cop being fired and charged with murder and held without bail.
Attacking a cop and potentially trying to kill him does not represent a person who could be an imminent threat? Let me ask you this, if that cop just shrugged and said oh well he ran off and the suspect rounded the corner and car jacked a loved one of yours, killing them in the process would you still think the cop did the right thing?
Regardless it's not for you to interpret the law, what imminent threat means or if this officer was lawfully permitted to use his weapon under the circumstances. Because his Defense is likely to be that 1) he had the legal right to shoot 2) having just been assaulted he was felt under threat
I've been assaulted many times. Been hit with weapons. Had guns pointed at me. Bear sprayed. Etc. sometimes you're a slave to your physical reaction when under threat and pressure. Some people freeze. Some people run. Some people attack.
This certainly isn't murder and I wouldn't be surprised to see the charge reduced though there will be political pressure not to.
I duno.... You seem to debating your point on ifs and buts. Then you switch it to things that happened to you. Kinda makes it hard to discuss the situation with you like that.
As of right now and when the video came out the cop was fired and charged with murder and is being held without bail.
So maybe they are all wrong and your right.
-
We will offer guys what we think they are worth and thats that. We wont get into any bidding wars for anybody.
Our attitude will be this is what we think your worth ... they either take it or not and we will move on.
Im pretty impressed with Chevy and i dont think hes going to beg anyone to stay. We will put out fair offers. But overall team first. We wont put out crazy money for one or two guys to stay.
-
New Earth. I'm sorry you are wrong. Regardless of this specific situation a cop does have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect of he feels the suspect represents a risk to himself or others. That will be the crux of this case.
I guarantee you, if the cop had not shot and this suspect ran around the corner and killed someone the question would be why didn't the cop do more.
Here's another cop shooting showing cops fighting for their lives. They shot and killed. Not comparing. Just showing a story not getting as much media
Ive said from the start that if the cop feels himself or others are imminent danger then yes he can use his gun.
But this is not the case here. The guy was running away and did not have the cops tazer.
The witness said they were in a tussle and the cop was in control untill the guy got away and ran... we dont know if he went for the cops tazer.
The cop had no idea the guy had warrants. Its not like this guy was some young gangbanger dude. The cop had no reason to assume that anybody life was in danger when he ran from the car or ran from the cop after the tussle. The danger to the cop was over when the guy ran away because he had no weapon.
Hence the cop being fired and charged with murder and held without bail.
I have to say.. Your pretty liberal with the assumption that this guy was some kind of angel and the cop was straight outta "sin
city" just because of a snap judgement by police chief doesnt mean he's already set to be drawn and quartered..
Im not assuming anything..... Im going off what we know happened.
Is the cop not fired and in jail without bail and charged with murder? Seems so.
The problem for the cop is going to be is once the guy got away the danger of the situation is over and the cop has no info to give him reason to think the guy is a danger to others.
-
it is tragic whenever someone dies this way, but the reality is that it is avoidable. Bottom line is that a cop can shoot you For various reasons and if you fight back or run you are putting yourself in grave danger.Don't run and you have a better chance of not being shot. Better yet, don't be in a stolen car, have warrants out for your arrest or don't be a thug and you have a better chance of not being shot.
So breaking a law... any law is cause for you to be shot dead.
Thats just nuts. Steal a car and yup a cop can kill you. Have a warrant for unpaid child support and yup cops can shoot you dead. Steal some **** from a store and cops show up and person runs... shoot them dead.
Awesome.
they are trained to keep the peace, and if you break that piece you might get shot. So don't be stupid. If I get pulled over by the police or whatever I try to be as polite and cooperative as can be. My first reaction isn't to grab his gun or punch or run.
Right.
It wasent the guys first reaction. He didnt punch or go for the cops gun. He just ran away. The cops in his car with the guys ID and the car with a passenger in it. The cop had no reason to give chase ... he should have called for backup. Every cop ive seen on CNN or whatever says the same thing.
When the guy first ran backup should have been called and the passenger of the car should have been cuffed and placed in the cop car while backup give chase.
I guess IMO of the overall situation was a mess from the guy running away but i want cops to have more control over their actions then what this cop showed. He is trained to be the peace keeper and in control of these situations.
-
New Earth. I'm sorry you are wrong. Regardless of this specific situation a cop does have the right to shoot a fleeing suspect of he feels the suspect represents a risk to himself or others. That will be the crux of this case.
I guarantee you, if the cop had not shot and this suspect ran around the corner and killed someone the question would be why didn't the cop do more.
Here's another cop shooting showing cops fighting for their lives. They shot and killed. Not comparing. Just showing a story not getting as much media
Ive said from the start that if the cop feels himself or others are imminent danger then yes he can use his gun.
But this is not the case here. The guy was running away and did not have the cops tazer.
The witness said they were in a tussle and the cop was in control untill the guy got away and ran... we dont know if he went for the cops tazer.
The cop had no idea the guy had warrants. Its not like this guy was some young gangbanger dude. The cop had no reason to assume that anybody life was in danger when he ran from the car or ran from the cop after the tussle. The danger to the cop was over when the guy ran away because he had no weapon.
Hence the cop being fired and charged with murder and held without bail.
-
Don't run and you have a better chance of not being shot. Better yet, don't be in a stolen car, have warrants out for your arrest or don't be a thug and you have a better chance of not being shot.
So breaking a law... any law is cause for you to be shot dead.
Thats just nuts. Steal a car and yup a cop can kill you. Have a warrant for unpaid child support and yup cops can shoot you dead. Steal some **** from a store and cops show up and person runs... shoot them dead.
Awesome.
-
Also as far as shooting him five times, is the same reason why people get upset when a cop lawfully shoots someone and kills them and people say why can't he shoot him in the leg. Cops aren't trained to shoot in the leg. And they aren't trained to shoot once, stand back and see if it's effective, shoot again, stand back, shoot again. It's shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot until the suspect is down.
Ever see video of an armed suspect being shot by a group of cops? If it's two cops of 50, they all fire.
besides which it's going to come down to definition of danger. If the Boston bomber set off his bomb and ran off and a cop shot him (by the way they did shoot him while he was laying prone in a boat) you could say he was not an imminent threat but his prior actions were enough of a threat tjay he had to be stopped.
The cop will argue perception. He had a fleeing suspect. He was assaulted. He fought over his weapon and he feared for his life when he went for his gun. By the time he fired the suspect was several feet away but the argument will be reasonable fear on behalf of the cop.
Boston bomber and a traffic stop?
Cmon dude your way smarter then to stretch this into that.
That cop was **** at his job and killed someone for no reason at all.
We have zero idea if the guy went for the cops gun and even if he did he didnt get it and was running away. He didnt have a gun. And was shot 5 times in the back.
You've completemy missed my point. You said it's never legal for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect and I gave you an example of where the officer would be considered a hero. Ofcourse the crime isn't comparable but as soon we enter into the idea tjay its okay sometimes, that's when things get cloudy.
If the cop had pulled his gun three seconds quicker, if the guys hadn't sorinted away and was instead shot right at the scene of the physical altercation, would you consider it a lawful shooting?
Ok Im sry i missed your point. The thing is tho its not about ifs and buts.
I agree with you.... IF the cop pulled his gun and shot the guy during a tussle when a guy is going for a gun or the cops gun then yes its an ok shot.
But thats not the case at all. You said is allowable for a cop to shot a perp running away and thats just not true at all. They can pull it and point it but they are not allowed to discharge it. The guy had no weapon and did not pose a threat to anyone. He ran away. Thats not enough reason for a cop to stand up and pull his gun and shoot a person dead.
The cop in this case committed murder.
Ifs and buts are not an argument or even a discussion in this case.... The vid says it all. At the time of the murder there was no threat or danger to anyone.
If a threat for his life is this cops defence for his shooting a guy 5 times in the back while hes running away... this cops going to spend a bunch of time locked up. As he should.
Cops can not ever be allowed to just start shooting people that they feel might be a danger to them.... They are cops. Everything thing they do is somewhat of a danger. Its the job they signed up to do. Most situations are in some way or form going to be dangerous to them.
They just cant start saying ... i felt in danger so i shot everyone. Thats crazy and not their job.
-
Build on structure and depth not super stars and cash. Hawks are a good example of this.
Hawks are very top heavy with salaries and have several stars on their team.
read the first part
-
I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.
The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.
He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.
Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.
But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.
Like ive asked. Ever watch cops on TV? LOL They never just start shooting people that fight n run.
That's because they are aware there is a TV camera following them. Hard to say that none of the other 300 plus shootings this year alone that weren't caught on camera didn't go down the same way.
You have got to be kidding. So thats the way the law works? On film or not on film determans how the law comes into play?
I wont shot a guy running cuz im on film. Yet if there was no film id shoot the prick dead.
The law is the law and no cop can ever ever ever pull his gun and just shoot anyone. That aint the way it works.
An imminent danger needs to happen..... Like during a fight and the guys going for a weapon......The guy just killed other people or a person.... Or he pulls a weapon.
None of that happened. The guy just ran away. This stupid cop had no clue about that guy. He new he had no insurance for the car but was told a reason why. He had no clue of anything else.
The way the law is "supposed" to work and the way it works are too different animals. Seems pretty naive to believe police forces the world round don't administer their own system of justice in specific circumstances. There are literally millions of examples of this behaviour from bribery to beatings, rape to robbery to draw on. If you asked around amongst close family and friends you could probably uncover a few examples for yourself.
Not saying all police officers bend the law but a great many will and do when given the opportunity. After-all they're only human and the mechanism to cover their tracks with the encouragement and assistance of brethren is empowering.
Good grief.
Im going to assume you are wrong. LOL
Ive got no doubt some cops will bend the law..... But just shoot a guy dead like that?
Thats a pretty big bending of the law. Hell im a loyal type guy but thats a bit much.
If this was some big time bad dude thats been problems then ya... but this guy was a nobody.
-
I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.
The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.
He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.
Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.
But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.
Like ive asked. Ever watch cops on TV? LOL They never just start shooting people that fight n run.
That's because they are aware there is a TV camera following them. Hard to say that none of the other 300 plus shootings this year alone that weren't caught on camera didn't go down the same way.
You have got to be kidding. So thats the way the law works? On film or not on film determans how the law comes into play?
I wont shot a guy running cuz im on film. Yet if there was no film id shoot the prick dead.
The law is the law and no cop can ever ever ever pull his gun and just shoot anyone. That aint the way it works.
An imminent danger needs to happen..... Like during a fight and the guys going for a weapon......The guy just killed other people or a person.... Or he pulls a weapon.
None of that happened. The guy just ran away. This stupid cop had no clue about that guy. He new he had no insurance for the car but was told a reason why. He had no clue of anything else.
-
I don't think the KINGS are as good as they were last year, there is a reason they missed the playoffs, it's not because of the last 3 games either, it's because the entire season they just weren't as good as 8 other teams in the west... Time catches up with some teams, Confidence might play a role but i would expect the kings to make some changes this summer, they can't go in to next season with Richards and that contract taking all that cap space.. there are some teams and the kings may be one of them who are tight against the cap and may have to shed significant amounts of salary just to actually be at the cap next year, Hawks are another, Bruins are one too, I believe the Flyers might be also.. Theres actually about 5 or 6 teams who are going to be in cap hell, they don't have much room to sign guys unless they dump some salary first really... This is gonna be an interesting off-season to say the least in the NHL. Penguins are another team who might have to make some changes... It's gonna be interesting for sure. Some of these teams have like 2 million in cap space and need to sign like 6 7 8 guys still for next season, The tides they are a changing a wee bit...
Believe someone on here or elsewhere asked whats the likilhood that both the jets and flames get in and the kings and sharks don't... Moving forward, i'd say its more likely the Jets and Flames get in than the kings and sharks...
This might be true and usually happens but its about how you continue to build and keep competitive all the time.
Ive got no idea why you add the Flyers into this.
Elite teams stay that way because they can loose people but stay on top because of the leadership base they build on. The learning and building never ends.
Kings.... Lost players and figured it all just come without the work
Boston.... To old n slow and cant compete like they have.
Pens.... Rely on The Kid and a few others to do to much.
Build on structure and depth not super stars and cash. Hawks are a good example of this. And so were the Devils.
-
Also as far as shooting him five times, is the same reason why people get upset when a cop lawfully shoots someone and kills them and people say why can't he shoot him in the leg. Cops aren't trained to shoot in the leg. And they aren't trained to shoot once, stand back and see if it's effective, shoot again, stand back, shoot again. It's shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot until the suspect is down.
Ever see video of an armed suspect being shot by a group of cops? If it's two cops of 50, they all fire.
besides which it's going to come down to definition of danger. If the Boston bomber set off his bomb and ran off and a cop shot him (by the way they did shoot him while he was laying prone in a boat) you could say he was not an imminent threat but his prior actions were enough of a threat tjay he had to be stopped.
The cop will argue perception. He had a fleeing suspect. He was assaulted. He fought over his weapon and he feared for his life when he went for his gun. By the time he fired the suspect was several feet away but the argument will be reasonable fear on behalf of the cop.
Boston bomber and a traffic stop?
Cmon dude your way smarter then to stretch this into that.
That cop was **** at his job and killed someone for no reason at all.
We have zero idea if the guy went for the cops gun and even if he did he didnt get it and was running away. He didnt have a gun. And was shot 5 times in the back.
-
I'll try to find the law but read it in an article where the law actually was yes a cop can shoot a fleeing suspect if he is a danger to the officer or community. The word imminent was not used.
The danger to the cop and or community was over. If there was any in the first place.
He cannot discharge his weapon in this case. Its against the law and its cold blooded murder.
Now if this guy had just killed someone and this all went down then yes he can pull his gun and discharge it.
But this was not the case. This was a simple traffic stop that a guy with a warrant freaked out and ran away... cop gives chase and a tussle happens a tazer is used and the guy runs away. The danger is over and the cop cannot get up and pull his gun and shoot the guy dead. Thats called murder. The point of the guy running away it was the cops job to report the guy ran and that he had his ID and a passenger in the car he stopped and ask for backup.
Like ive asked. Ever watch cops on TV? LOL They never just start shooting people that fight n run.
-
Kings let their confidence lead them down the wrong path. There was a game last week where they were losing and at intermission one of the Kings players said they wanted to win in regulation because they had their eye on home ice advantage in the playoffs. They thought they could coast all season and then try when it mattered. They forgot it mattered now.
Wouldn't surprise me to see them dominate next season with something to prove.
IMO The Kings lost some players last year and i think the lack of some leadership in the room hurt them. They were to cocky i think.
They brought in some new guys but failed to teach them what it takes to be Champs and just assumed they could get it done again and not remembering the effort it takes to actually do it.
I think Maurice said it best.... " You cant go play fight and expect to win, You have to go out and actually punch people in the face.
Or something like that lol
-
White Cop Shoots Black Man, Charged With Murder
in General Discussion
Posted
People that know more then you and i have charged him with murder. Held without bond yet.
I havent watched not one cop or anyone for that matter say that.
Maybe a jury will say its not murder ,,, but the fact is hes been charged with it and not only that but held with no bond.