The Pitters' Place

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/south- ... th-murder/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope this doesn't go the way of the NY case (chokehold) and the guy gets off.

Not just a minority...a black person.

Cassius Clay wrote:Not just a minority...a black person.

I stand by my title.

That's nice.

Shooting him in cold blood, when he's not a threat, then planting a fucking taser on the guy.



Hope that guy rots in jail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PclPI54NvNM

We always need to hear both sides of the story

What other side are you possibly expecting here?

OurGloriousLeader wrote:What other side are you possibly expecting here?

I think he just wanted to make a Phil Collins reference.

The side of the officer, and the side of the victim.

The problem with the latter is that he can't defend himself. So it's up to the physical evidence, including videos. See if they match the version of the officer.

It doesn't match up, but I should think the video evidence speaks for itself anyway.

We already heard the officer's side and the video contradicts it. The officer's side was actually the only one being heard before the video came out.

http://fair.org/blog-entries/media-were ... ploded-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

phe_de wrote:The side of the officer, and the side of the victim.

The problem with the latter is that he can't defend himself. So it's up to the physical evidence, including videos. See if they match the version of the officer.

Or, we can act like a human adult capable of critical thinking and realize there's no justification for what happened in that video.

I didn't see much in the video, and to paraphrase the CNN crew: What happened before the video began remains in question.

So I'm not going to join the "Sometimes we just know when a person is guilty" crowd. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

But as mentioned before: The policeman shot a person, not a minority.

phe_de wrote:I didn't see much in the video, and to paraphrase the CNN crew: What happened before the video began remains in question.

So I'm not going to join the "Sometimes we just know when a person is guilty" crowd. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

But as mentioned before: The policeman shot a person, not a minority.

How the fuck does it matter what happened before? He was unarmed and running away. How is it anyone thinks that shit is fucking justifiable?

The only reason for a police officer to open fire is if they believe their life or the life of a member of the public is at risk. This dude was running away with no weapons in his hand. It's clear cut. And it also contradicts what the police officer had claimed happened. This man is guilty of murder, that is not in doubt. I can understand the doubts in cases such as Trayvon Martin, or the Ferguson shooting, but we have a video of a man running away, unarmed, being shot in the back and having a taser planted next to him.

EVEN IF the police officer is only half lying, and the dead man had indeed gone for his taser, it doesn't change the fact that when he was shot, he had no weapon, and he was running away. At the point he was shot 8 times, he was not a threat to the officers life.

EVEN IF the police officer is only half lying, and the dead man had indeed gone for his taser, it doesn't change the fact that when he was shot, he had no weapon, and he was running away. At the point he was shot 8 times, he was not a threat to the officers life.

Fine. If the jury comes to the same conclusion, then the police officer will be sentenced for murder, or at least manslaughter.
I am not the jury.

Holy shit.

"Sometimes we just know when a person is guilty" because we saw on video that he shot at him eight fucking times in the back when he was fucking running away, you fucking dumbass.

Do you not have any basic sense of right and wrong? How can you watch the video and not see the egregiousness of what happened?

Derived Absurdity wrote:"Sometimes we just know when a person is guilty"

No, we don't.

I was quoting you, dipshit, and I was making fun of you for it. Jesus Christ, you're too fucking stupid to know when you're being mocked. I was illustrating that that quote, since you seem to need to have it spelled out for you, obviously doesn't apply here when we saw on video that the cop shot at the guy eight times as he was running away from him, when they were apart fifteen yards apart and when he was unarmed AND when he didn't have a violent criminal record besides one charge almost thirty years ago. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature and a conscience would be able to tell that that shit's not kosher.

The quote doesn't apply? This would mean that this time we don't know when a person is guilty.

If the cop did something wrong, then he should be sentenced accordingly. I never said otherwise.
Whether the jury accepts a shaky video as evidence, is up to them.

phe_de wrote:

EVEN IF the police officer is only half lying, and the dead man had indeed gone for his taser, it doesn't change the fact that when he was shot, he had no weapon, and he was running away. At the point he was shot 8 times, he was not a threat to the officers life.

Fine. If the jury comes to the same conclusion, then the police officer will be sentenced for murder, or at least manslaughter.
I am not the jury.

The thing is, in most cases we don't have this clear cut kind of evidence.

This, we have the most clear cut evidence we could hope for especially as it proves the cop was lying. If the cop had actually provided a justification that also lined up with the video evidence I think we'd have to wait and see(though it's difficult to see ANY justification for his actions). In this case we saw a man killed in cold blood, evidence planted, and the perpetrator has lied about it as clear as day.

The jury are just people like me and you, the only difference being that their opinion will decide the actual conviction. They will draw conclusions based on the evidence, and with this video and the proven lies of the cop there is no doubt that they should find him guilty. In general I don't like labelling someone as guilty before the courts do, but this is so clear that there's no other logical way to see it. You're allowed an opinion, and when it's about something as clear as this, it's as good as fact.

Whitey wrote:The jury are just people like me and you, the only difference being that their opinion will decide the actual conviction. They will draw conclusions based on the evidence, and with this video and the proven lies of the cop there is no doubt that they should find him guilty. In general I don't like labelling someone as guilty before the courts do, but this is so clear that there's no other logical way to see it. You're allowed an opinion, and when it's about something as clear as this, it's as good as fact.

Well then, let's hope that the jury will come to the right decision.
Your guess about that is as good as mine.

phe_de wrote:The quote doesn't apply? This would mean that this time we don't know when a person is guilty.

If the cop did something wrong, then he should be sentenced accordingly. I never said otherwise.
Whether the jury accepts a shaky video as evidence, is up to them.

MOTHERFUCKER. I give up. You know perfectly well what I meant - and I know you know, because I saw your post before you edited it. You dishonest prick.

You're fucking hopeless. I don't know you learned to use a computer, honestly.

phe_de wrote:

Whitey wrote:The jury are just people like me and you, the only difference being that their opinion will decide the actual conviction. They will draw conclusions based on the evidence, and with this video and the proven lies of the cop there is no doubt that they should find him guilty. In general I don't like labelling someone as guilty before the courts do, but this is so clear that there's no other logical way to see it. You're allowed an opinion, and when it's about something as clear as this, it's as good as fact.

Well then, let's hope that the jury will come to the right decision.
Your guess about that is as good as mine.

So you agree that the jury should find him guilty if they are to make the right decision. Therefore you think he's guilty. Ok then, thanks for playing.

Both sides here are misunderstanding that quote from Vegas. That's okay since he's long since forgotten the context himself, or at least pretends he has.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I don't know you learned to use a computer, honestly.

Don't worry, I know how I learned to use a computer. I also know English grammar.

What I don't know, but believe, is that people who use this kind of language:

you fucking dumbass
dipshit
MOTHERFUCKER

should not be lecturing others about basic sense of right and wrong.
But that's just me.

CashRules wrote:Both sides here are misunderstanding that quote from Vegas.

If I remember correctly, it was about the death penalty. But I could be mistaken.

Your attempts at condescension are fucking pathetic. You are literally the last person on this board who should be condescending to anyone.

Dumbass.

I showed Vegas that even if we could be 99% certain of a person's guilt, that would mean we would only have to execute 70 such prisoners before there is better than a 50% chance that we have executed at least one innocent person. This was all in explaining to him why the death penalty should never be used. The standard for conviction is, and should be, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The death penalty, however, is permanent, nobody comes back from death, this is an absolute certainty. Therefore, the standard for applying the death penalty should be absolute certainty. Since such a standard is impossible to meet, the death penalty should be abolished. Ever since, Vegastard has been confusing "guilt with absolute certainty" and "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as the same thing, because he's a moron. He then likes to point out cases where doubt about the person's guilt approaches the limits of reason, such as the guy in Ohio who kept three women prisoner in his house for years, as though they prove his case that "sometimes we know a person is guilty, thus showing he can't even remember what the argument is about or he really is that fucking stupid. The entire point is that to be absolutely certain we would have to rule out even the most unlikely of all scenarios, including the extremely unlikely possibility that the guy in Ohio was actually kept prisoner himself all those years while a body double was the one who kidnapped, raped and imprisoned those three women. Nobody in this thread is applying that standard to the case in question since nobody has even mentioned the death penalty. The only question here is does the video show a cop gunning down an unarmed man who was running away from him and then plant a taser by the man's body? The answer "Hell yeah, that's exactly what it shows." Can it be proved with absolute certainty that the video hasn't been altered or faked and that the "cop" isn't actually a body double himself using an empty gun to "shoot" at somebody who falls on cue and that this isn't all some elaborate set-up to frame the cop? Well no, that can never be proven with absolute certainty which is why a sentence where death is absolutely certain should never be considered. But this thread isn't about absolute certainty of guilt, it's about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no room for any reasonable doubt in this case.

I don't think derived was contradicting the story behind the quote. He was using it as a way to make fun. I think. That's how I took it anyway.

CashRules wrote:The only question here is does the video show a cop gunning down an unarmed man who was running away from him and then plant a taser by the man's body? The answer "Hell yeah, that's exactly what it shows." Can it be proved with absolute certainty that the video hasn't been altered or faked and that the "cop" isn't actually a body double himself using an empty gun to "shoot" at somebody who falls on cue and that this isn't all some elaborate set-up to frame the cop? Well no, that can never be proven with absolute certainty which is why a sentence where death is absolutely certain should never be considered. But this thread isn't about absolute certainty of guilt, it's about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no room for any reasonable doubt in this case.

Thank you. This was exactly my point.
The video looks pretty shaky; but there is more evidence than that. Eight shots in the back, shot at a distance of maybe 10 meters, are pretty indicative that the cop was not shooting in self defence.
But it's the job of the investigation to look at the whole story. Maybe there's stuff we don't know yet. Innocent until proven guilty.

Phe_de is a funny guy. Lemme just clarify that I did not say Walter Scott was not a minority...I said he was not just a minority, but a black person. I said that to address the constant pattern of erasure of the anti-blackness in police brutality. This is specifically anti-blackness occurring and it is important to recognize that...to use an inappropriately broad term like "minority" erases that. Other minorities do not face the type of police brutality inflicted on blacks in America. So, please stop the bullshit. This hearkens back to that stupid fucking impulse people have to change slogans like "black lives matter" to "all lives matter". The erasure of the anti-blackness is itself anti-blackness...and if you have a hard time acknowledging the specific problem and would rather speak in empty generalities, then you are part of the problem. It would be like addressing injustices against women in America by saying "a lot of people face sexual discrimination and objectification".... "a lot of Americans have been raped on college campuses"...etc.

Phe_de is funny because he took my correction and twisted it...deciding to go even more general with it. Not even a minority person...just person lol.

phe_de wrote:

CashRules wrote:The only question here is does the video show a cop gunning down an unarmed man who was running away from him and then plant a taser by the man's body? The answer "Hell yeah, that's exactly what it shows." Can it be proved with absolute certainty that the video hasn't been altered or faked and that the "cop" isn't actually a body double himself using an empty gun to "shoot" at somebody who falls on cue and that this isn't all some elaborate set-up to frame the cop? Well no, that can never be proven with absolute certainty which is why a sentence where death is absolutely certain should never be considered. But this thread isn't about absolute certainty of guilt, it's about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no room for any reasonable doubt in this case.

Thank you. This was exactly my point.
The video looks pretty shaky; but there is more evidence than that. Eight shots in the back, shot at a distance of maybe 10 meters, are pretty indicative that the cop was not shooting in self defence.
But it's the job of the investigation to look at the whole story. Maybe there's stuff we don't know yet. Innocent until proven guilty.

phe_de wrote: What I don't know, but believe, is that people who use this kind of language:

you fucking dumbass
dipshit
MOTHERFUCKER

should not be lecturing others about basic sense of right and wrong.
But that's just me.

Ummm....how do we know this language was offensive and wrong? I for one will be waiting until all the facts come out. There's two sides to every story.

DA is innocent until proven guilty. #Iamsoreasonable

Cassius Clay wrote:Phe_de is a funny guy. Lemme just clarify that I did not say Walter Scott was not a minority...I said he was not just a minority, but a black person. I said that to address the constant pattern of erasure of the anti-blackness in police brutality. This is specifically anti-blackness occurring and it is important to recognize that...to use an inappropriately broad term like "minority" erases that. Other minorities do not face the type of police brutality inflicted on blacks in America. So, please stop the bullshit. This hearkens back to that stupid fucking impulse people have to change slogans like "black lives matter" to "all lives matter". The erasure of the anti-blackness is itself anti-blackness...and if you have a hard time acknowledging the specific problem and would rather speak in empty generalities, then you are part of the problem. It would be like addressing injustices against women in America by saying "a lot of people face sexual discrimination and objectification".... "a lot of Americans have been raped on college campuses"...etc.

Phe_de is funny because he took my correction and twisted it...deciding to go even more general with it. Not even a minority person...just person lol.

I'm sorry that I generalized, but erasure of anti-blackness was not my intent. My intent was simply to avoid anymore backlash on race, which clearly backfired.

I thought you were being intentionally dismissive when you said you stood by the title. It's all good.

Edit: umm..where the hell are my beers?

MINIMIZE YOUR LETTERS!

Thx. Damn phone capitalizing shit I Didn't ask to caPitaLize..

Edit: umm..where the hell are my beers?

Here ->

Cassius Clay wrote:Ummm....how do we know this language was offensive and wrong? I for one will be waiting until all the facts come out. There's two sides to every story.

DA is innocent until proven guilty. #Iamsoreasonable

No matter how it was intended: This statement is completely correct. Which is why I said: "But that's just me".

Anyway, DA and me are not on trial.

phe_de wrote:

CashRules wrote:The only question here is does the video show a cop gunning down an unarmed man who was running away from him and then plant a taser by the man's body? The answer "Hell yeah, that's exactly what it shows." Can it be proved with absolute certainty that the video hasn't been altered or faked and that the "cop" isn't actually a body double himself using an empty gun to "shoot" at somebody who falls on cue and that this isn't all some elaborate set-up to frame the cop? Well no, that can never be proven with absolute certainty which is why a sentence where death is absolutely certain should never be considered. But this thread isn't about absolute certainty of guilt, it's about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no room for any reasonable doubt in this case.

Thank you. This was exactly my point.
The video looks pretty shaky; but there is more evidence than that. Eight shots in the back, shot at a distance of maybe 10 meters, are pretty indicative that the cop was not shooting in self defence.
But it's the job of the investigation to look at the whole story. Maybe there's stuff we don't know yet. Innocent until proven guilty.

Your point was... what? To be pedantic?

From a metaphysical standpoint nothing is 100% provable beyond "I think, therefore I am.", and I'm sure some even look to debate that.

So sure, you could point that out the remote possibility that the video was faked, or maybe this event didn't really happen at all, it was just implanted into our minds by Cthulu. But is it at all prudent to do so? Are you adding anything meaningful to the conversation, or simply derailing it?

Boomer wrote:Your point was... what?

My point was and is: Innocent until proven guilty. Don't precondemn people based on weak evidence; and a shaky video is not strong evidence IMO.

Of course, it is possible, from what I heard on German radio today, that evidence will show up that will suggest that the cop did have a racist agenda.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop committed murder (not just manslaughter), then he deserves maximum punishment. I never said otherwise.

If this guy's name was Walter Scott, there's already Malware out there trying to exploit his death. Yesterday morning some suspicious "click me" bullshit tried to disguise itself as part of the MSN homepage and claimed to have dash cam footage of Walter Scott before he was shot.

I guess the silver lining is that it's targeting racist assholes who are looking for justification for this guy getting gunned down in cold blood.

Oh, and phe de, you're crazy. Video of the entire incident from an unbiased 3rd party is very strong evidence. It's about as strong as you can get.

Well I googled Walter Scott, which I should have done before posting but I'm a lazy son of a bitch, and I guess there is dash cam footage, and it apparently just provides further evidence that the cop was never in danger.

The link on MSN just kinda dropped down like it wasn't part of the page, like the shit that would have a picture of Ellen crying and say "Ellen lied, click here to learn more", and usually when we have a case of police brutality against a black person, shit comes out of the woodworks to show that the black person was actually a savage thug that got what's coming to them, so I assumed that's what this was supposed to be.

phe_de wrote:

Boomer wrote:Your point was... what?

My point was and is: Innocent until proven guilty. Don't precondemn people based on weak evidence; and a shaky video is not strong evidence IMO.

Of course, it is possible, from what I heard on German radio today, that evidence will show up that will suggest that the cop did have a racist agenda.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop committed murder (not just manslaughter), then he deserves maximum punishment. I never said otherwise.

phe_de wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:Ummm....how do we know this language was offensive and wrong? I for one will be waiting until all the facts come out. There's two sides to every story.

DA is innocent until proven guilty. #Iamsoreasonable

No matter how it was intended: This statement is completely correct. Which is why I said: "But that's just me".

Anyway, DA and me are not on trial.

How can we possibly know with 100 percent certainty that you're not on trial! The facts are coming out and I WILL BE WAITING! Two sides to every story!

phe_de wrote:

Boomer wrote:Your point was... what?

My point was and is: Innocent until proven guilty. Don't precondemn people based on weak evidence; and a shaky video is not strong evidence IMO.

Of course, it is possible, from what I heard on German radio today, that evidence will show up that will suggest that the cop did have a racist agenda.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop committed murder (not just manslaughter), then he deserves maximum punishment. I never said otherwise.

Video is actually some of the strongest evidence possible to have, if not the strongest. I'm not sure what you find so ambiguous about the video; what happened before it's beginning is not really relevant since it's content speaks for itself: it's illegal for an officer to shoot a fleeing criminal unless under very, VERY specific conditions that are quite obviously completely non existent from the video.

Also, we're not in a court of law, we're on a message board; yelling "innocent until proven guilty!" to try and stop people from discussing ongoing legal cases is exactly like yelling "freedom of speech!" to stop people from calling out hate speech. So, again:

Are you adding anything meaningful to the conversation, or simply derailing it?

Boomer wrote:Video is actually some of the strongest evidence possible to have, if not the strongest.

We'll see.

Boomer wrote:I'm not sure what you find so ambiguous about the video

Shaky and with cuts.

Boomer wrote:Also, we're not in a court of law, we're on a message board; yelling "innocent until proven guilty!" to try and stop people from discussing ongoing legal cases is exactly like yelling "freedom of speech!" to stop people from calling out hate speech.

I'm not stopping anyone from discussing. I was just expressing my opinion.