Discussion for article #233934
Oh, I didnât realize he was convicted of a felony and served his time. Clearly on this basis alone he deserved to die. Fill him full of holes. Thanks for letting us know this LAPD. Douches.
11 Likes
Yes, certainly a bank robber who pistol-whipped someone during his robbery couldnât possibly be any danger to anyone. And Iâm sure he never would have tried to grab one of the copâs guns.
Be careful who you choose as the poster child for âall police shootings are murder.â
4 Likes
Itâs the Michael Brown excuse. Thatâs enough for the ignorant white supremacist Christo-fascists who believe all people of color are thugs.
1 Like
Who is making a pre-judgement here???
3 Likes
The captain of a local universityâs football team was dismissed from a larger school for pistol-whipping his robbery victim, and they had no problem offering him a football scholarship. Are you saying heâs a danger to the community? Because if he is, why, we should contact the local police immediately and have him executed.
The question is not whether this individual has a criminal past, rather, whether the man was a danger to the police officers. And of course, because âno police shootings are murderâ whatever they say, goes. Never mind that the police are supposed to be trained professionals that we entrust with the use of deadly force, dealing with a public that fears them and as in this case, may have mental health issues, and certainly has no such training in conflict deescalation.
Be careful who you choose as a poster child as well.
1 Like
I am. Itâs not a pre-judgement at all. The evidence in our nation is overwhelming. You are free to make whatever judgements you please.
Iâm speaking of the throngs of people who automatically consider police slayings of unarmed black people to be justified on their face. And Iâm saying that once again, the police are playing the media to paint this guy as a thug as an excuse for their actions. This manâs criminal past is not relevant to his death. And, there is no other reason for the police to bring this to light than to play the Christo-fascist white supremacist bigots. Just watch Fox News cover the story and get back to us.
4 Likes
WellâŚa convicted bank robber with a fake name. No wonder!
Of course he deserved to be shot down in the street like a dog.
4 Likes
Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (copied by most states) says evidence of what the law calls âprior bad actsâ is not admissible to prove action in conformity with the prior bad act at a later date. You canât introduce evidence that a guy robbed a bank a decade ago to prove he robbed a liquor store last year. You canât introduce evidence that a guy was convicted of drunk driving in 2005 to establish that heâs was the guy behind a hit and run in 2013. And you couldnât introduce evidence that a guy went to prison thirteen years ago to prove he went for a copâs gun in 2015.
The reason we have a blanket prohibition against that kind of evidence in court is because it is highly prejudicial and the improper prejudice greatly outweighs its probative value, which is almost nil. And cops know this. So when they put stuff like this out in the wake of a police shooting, theyâre inviting the public to judge their actions based on whether the guy they shot is worth worrying about rather than on whether itâs okay for cops shoot unarmed people as a result of poorly handled, and usually unnecessary, confrontational interactions with powerless people.
8 Likes
What the matter? The LAPD couldnât find any more cartoonishly blurred images from a viral video to inconclusively âproveâ their case?
Right; so a convicted criminal that served his time in jail should pay with his life for any transgression that people like you believe warrants a death sentence?
You honestly donât see how fucking vile that is, do you?
1 Like
âOfficials said Tuesday that the man whose fatal shooting by police on Los Angelesâ skid row had been caught on video was a convicted bank robber using a stolen identity.â
This now is a reason or justification to kill him??
1 Like
Oh, so theyâre doing that thing again. The articles and comments will just write themselves. I should just play a drinking game for how many times I read the word âthugâ and âcriminalâ over the next week.
Excellent strawman!
The police are media-savvy. They know full well that in regular courts past criminal acts cannot be used to infer guilt during a regular court trial, but in the court of public opinion itâs copacetic. By the time the media and police get done with this story in a couple more days, the general public take will be âThanks, LAPD, for getting this bad guy and cleaning up the streets!â
Irrelevant. Typical smear-the-victim campaign from the pigs.
âpistol-whipping an employee in an effort to pay for acting classes at the Beverly Hills Playhouse,â
Isnât this how Gwyneth Paltrow got her start?
What matters is what happened during the incident in which he was shot to death, not what happened 14 years ago and the loose inferences you wish to draw from it to assuage your guilt for being part of a society that allows these shootings of unarmed people by police to take place regularly. The robbery didnât involve an altercation with police during which he attempted to grab their weapons, so the inference is illogical, irrational and broken. Moreover, the manâs long history of mental illness, homelessness, etc., destroys any argument that there was anything consistent or patterned about his behaviors over such a long period of time. At best, they could claim he was a known quantity, that his mental illness and history were known and that it was his history of ERRATIC behavior (if known) and (far more importantly) his ERRATIC behavior at the time of the incident, not some imagined pattern thereof, that made them reasonably believe they were in immediate danger of suffering grave bodily injury or death. Note the implication of reason in the analysis and the fact that the inference theyâre inviting is irrational.
If you canât recognize that, regardless of whether the LAPD was in the right or in the wrong for shooting this man, the LAPD is absolutely in the wrong for attempting to poison any potential jury pool (or grand jury pool) or investigation by prominently and publicly releasing this information, which is clearly designed to entice anyone who hears it into making the impermissible inferences you made, then youâre the poster child for why they do it despite how wrong it is. Iâm sure theyâd appreciate a heads-up if you draw jury duty for this case. However, they have no business waging a public opinion campaign over an incident of this nature that is still under investigation or that has not completed its travel through the court system. None. And it is a disservice to the justice system and public they supposedly serve for them to be engaging in one.
Edit: And if that headline is indeed backwards, then shame on you TPM. If he was a nameless mentally ill person who stole the identity of a convicted bank robber, then clearly, the LAPDâs claim that he was in fact the bank robber is a far more egregious insult to justice than I stated above. Not only woudl they be waging a PR campaign to poison the jury pool with the impermissible inference, but they are grossly misrepresenting the facts to achieve it. If thatâs the case, someone should be fired just for that alone.
2 Likes
Hey, Iâm not the one creating strawmen, here. We have a few posters who instantly claim that every police shooting should be prosecuted, with no regard to the unique circumstances of the situation.
My point is simple, folks. Out there in the real world, there are some people who really are very dangerous. Theyâre ready, willing, and able to do significant harm to others. Thatâs why law enforcement personnel carry guns. Sometimes, offering someone a cookie and a sympathetic ear is not going to defuse the situation.
Someone on here (canât remember who it was) with a background in a prosecutorâs office made a very cogent point. He said that as soon as a suspect tries to grab a copâs gun, that instantly changes the dynamic of the encounter. When that happens, someone is going to end up with a bullet in him. No one realistically expects the cop to sacrifice his life in that situation.
Prior bad acts are certainly not admissible at trial. But someone with a history of doing violence to others doesnât get the benefit of the doubt in the real world. Anyone who makes judgments about people without any regard to how theyâve behaved in the past is a fool. âYes, this person is a convicted child molester, but heâs done his time, so letâs hire him at the daycare center.â Very noble, and very stupid.
2 Likes
Your headline is backwards and terribly misleading. He was using the fake name of a man convicted of bank robbery. From what Iâve read he was Not the robber.
1 Like