Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

3 officers killed, 4 others hurt when man opens fire on police serving warrant in Kentucky


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

PA:  Poverty is a far bigger factor than skin colour in crime statistics.

 

Doug

The fact is that blacks commit more crimes than whites and therefor interact with police much, much more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

3. Got the statistics on how many mentally ill people are murdered by police? Or is this just an appeal to emotion? 

In my case it was a friend's son.  He was having a mental meltdown and she called the police for help.  They came and shot him.  The excuse:  he was acting irratioanlly.  What do these braintrusts think a mental crisis is?  It was murder, but as usual, the police were never held accountable.

 

I haven't got the time to look up all the studies for you.  You'll have to do that yourself.  Try Google Scholar.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Myles said:

The fact is that blacks commit more crimes than whites and therefor interact with police much, much more.  

According to the FBI 2019 crime statistcs, 4,729,290 whites were charged with crimes.  During the same year, 1,815,144 blacks were charged.

The staitistic is a little misleading, however in that it only counts those who made it to the station to be charged.  Those who committed crimes and got away with it are not in these figures.  As many as half of all crimes go unsolved, so that could be a big number and it's also a biased number because police patrol black areas more heavily.

Doug

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Myles said:

The fact is that blacks commit more crimes than whites and therefor interact with police much, much more.  

Hi Myles

Not really, it depends on the types of crimes you are recognizing.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/white-collar-crime.html

The term "white-collar crime" was coined by Edwin Sutherland in 1939. It describes a wide variety of financial crimes, from fraud to embezzlement, tax evasion to money laundering. insurance fraud to insider trading. What sets these crimes apart from, say, "blue-collar crimes" is who is committing the crime, how the crime is committed, and often, the scale of the crime.

This article defines white-collar crime and blue-collar crime and provides examples of different types of white-collar crime. Because of the high dollar amounts involved in white-collar crime, these are charged as felonies.

Who commits white-collar crimes? Most are white men with at least some higher education, from middle-class backgrounds. They are in their late 30s to 40s, employed, usually married, with religious and community affiliations. Most have engaged in less serious criminal activity in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Myles

Not really, it depends on the types of crimes you are recognizing.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/white-collar-crime.html

The term "white-collar crime" was coined by Edwin Sutherland in 1939. It describes a wide variety of financial crimes, from fraud to embezzlement, tax evasion to money laundering. insurance fraud to insider trading. What sets these crimes apart from, say, "blue-collar crimes" is who is committing the crime, how the crime is committed, and often, the scale of the crime.

This article defines white-collar crime and blue-collar crime and provides examples of different types of white-collar crime. Because of the high dollar amounts involved in white-collar crime, these are charged as felonies.

Who commits white-collar crimes? Most are white men with at least some higher education, from middle-class backgrounds. They are in their late 30s to 40s, employed, usually married, with religious and community affiliations. Most have engaged in less serious criminal activity in the past.

But still, even if you bundle all crimes together, blacks commit more crimes than their 13% of the population should.   Armed robberies and violent crimes end up in altercations with the police more often than other crimes.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Myles said:

But still, even if you bundle all crimes together, blacks commit more crimes than their 13% of the population should.   Armed robberies and violent crimes end up in altercations with the police more often than other crimes.

Hi Myles

There are no okay crimes, crime is crime. I know and am related to black people hell my daughter and grand-daughter are black and so are several of my cousins and I can assert that none of them are criminals and yet I have a past, me the white guy. I would suggest if you wish to make comparisons that you look at specifically crime in known impoverished white and black districts and will see very little difference in numbers of types of crimes.

Do you really understand the effects of white collar crime or dollars involved?  It is not an insignificant amount and does adversely affect victims.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Myles

There are no okay crimes, crime is crime. I know and am related to black people hell my daughter and grand-daughter are black and so are several of my cousins and I can assert that none of them are criminals and yet I have a past, me the white guy. I would suggest if you wish to make comparisons that you look at specifically crime in known impoverished white and black districts and will see very little difference in numbers of types of crimes.

Do you really understand the effects of white collar crime or dollars involved?  It is not an insignificant amount and does adversely affect victims.

I, in no way, advocated that "white crimes" are OK.   I said that they do not usually end up in confrontations with the police.  I hope all criminals are brought to justice.   Blacks commit more crimes in the USA.  Most in inner cities where cops have to be on the guard much more than other places.   There are some bad cops with bad training, and they should be held accountable, but the farce that most police are racist and want to kill blacks is absurd.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I, in no way, advocated that "white crimes" are OK.   I said that they do not usually end up in confrontations with the police.  I hope all criminals are brought to justice.   Blacks commit more crimes in the USA.  Most in inner cities where cops have to be on the guard much more than other places.   There are some bad cops with bad training, and they should be held accountable, but the farce that most police are racist and want to kill blacks is absurd.  

Hi Myles

You are still looking at a specific set of crimes focusing on black only crime involves all crime sure some crimes seem to be less noticed or focused in media on but one has to look at all crimes across the board and not discount that because no one got physically hurt that it is a lesser crime. If you took the total of all crimes committed in your country I suspect you would be surprised at who does what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wrong topic

Edited by el midgetron
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Myles

You are still looking at a specific set of crimes focusing on black only crime involves all crime sure some crimes seem to be less noticed or focused in media on but one has to look at all crimes across the board and not discount that because no one got physically hurt that it is a lesser crime. If you took the total of all crimes committed in your country I suspect you would be surprised at who does what.

The crimes that are committed that would more likely end up in a confrontation with police are mostly committed by black people.  I'm not discounting other crimes, just focusing on the crimes that result in police confrontations.  

Homicides would be a good indicator:

According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" 3.0% in cases where the race was known. Among homicide victims in 2019 where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I'm not discounting other crimes, just focusing on the crimes that result in police confrontations.  

Hi Myles

I don't know what happened in each of the instances of conflict with police but have had 2 cops beat me unconscious because they thought I was First Nations and yes it was racially motivated. I was charged for resisting attest and yet there was no charge given that I was resisting arrest for because there wasn't one. I refused to pay the fine and went to jail for 2 weeks on principal. You can't beat me and expect me to pay for it, I took a holiday to do the time and when I got in there a black prison guard that I knew wanted to pay my fine because he read the report and didn't think I should be there. I told him that if they wanted to punish me for something that I didn't do they would have to foot the bill and feed me for the next 2 weeks.

I have seen my share of fixed convictions over the years due to police testimony and put little stock in how things got confrontational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

In my case it was a friend's son.  He was having a mental meltdown and she called the police for help.  They came and shot him.  The excuse:  he was acting irratioanlly.  What do these braintrusts think a mental crisis is?  It was murder, but as usual, the police were never held accountable.

 

I haven't got the time to look up all the studies for you.  You'll have to do that yourself.  Try Google Scholar.

Doug

I obviously don't know the situation that you witnessed or experienced about your friend's son. I don't know what sort of investigation was carried out or whether there was bodycam footage. But on the face of it, I don't buy into your description of it as "murder" when there was obviously an investigation that cleared the officers involved. Considering you have a propensity to declare deaths that you disapprove of to be "murder" regardless of the available evidence (Brian Sicknick immediately pops to mind), I find it impossible to take you at your word on this one.

I find it more likely that the police investigated and found that the officers were involved in a tragic but justified shooting, in which they followed the protocols and their training and their department policies. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I find it more likely that the police investigated and found that the officers were involved in a tragic but justified shooting, in which they followed the protocols and their training and their department policies. 

How is it ever possible to justify shooting an unarmed man, even if he appears to be a "raving lunatic?"  I find officers often pull the trigger because they are simply too lazy to step out of the way.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

How is it ever possible to justify shooting an unarmed man, even if he appears to be a "raving lunatic?"  I find officers often pull the trigger because they are simply too lazy to step out of the way.

Doug

Step out of the way? Do raving lunatics run in straight lines?

I searched online for the alleged incident you mentioned, but didn’t find anything that matches your description. Can you provide a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Step out of the way? Do raving lunatics run in straight lines?

I searched online for the alleged incident you mentioned, but didn’t find anything that matches your description. Can you provide a link?

I was referring to an incident that happened to a friend of mine's son.  They live in Cushing.  The incident happened several years ago.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I obviously don't know the situation that you witnessed or experienced about your friend's son. I don't know what sort of investigation was carried out or whether there was bodycam footage. But on the face of it, I don't buy into your description of it as "murder" when there was obviously an investigation that cleared the officers involved. Considering you have a propensity to declare deaths that you disapprove of to be "murder" regardless of the available evidence (Brian Sicknick immediately pops to mind), I find it impossible to take you at your word on this one.

I find it more likely that the police investigated and found that the officers were involved in a tragic but justified shooting, in which they followed the protocols and their training and their department policies. 

There have been an average of over two mass shootings per day for the last six months.  Why is it you want to arm these people with the best weapons a lunatic could want?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Step out of the way? Do raving lunatics run in straight lines?

Way back when I worked as a faller.  I have dodged numerous trees that had my name on them.  One was a western redcedar about 6 feet in diameter that I actually ran underneath as it fell.  It would have turned me into a grease spot.  If I can dodge falling trees on 100% slopes, the local cops can dodge an unarmed man who is staggering towards them on level ground.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Considering you have a propensity to declare deaths that you disapprove of to be "murder" regardless of the available evidence (Brian Sicknick immediately pops to mind), I find it impossible to take you at your word on this one.

Which murders do you approve of, PA?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

3 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

How is it ever possible to justify shooting an unarmed man, even if he appears to be a "raving lunatic?"  I find officers often pull the trigger because they are simply too lazy to step out of the way.

Doug

Without even trying I can think of half a dozen situations where an unarmed person could be shot! I could double that easily if I put five minutes of thought into it.  And honestly, I don't think it requires that much creativity to think of situational reasons why a police officer might be required to take out their gun and shoot an unarmed person. 

Police must follow their use of force guidelines, which outline when a gun can be used. If the police were cleared of wrongdoing, then the situation warranted the use of their weapons. Unless you can provide specific details to the contrary to explain yourself, this is the assumption I must make because you have a track record of labelling any deaths you disapprove of as being murders even when the medical examiners contradict your opinion.  

With that said, deaths as a result of unarmed killings are exceedingly rare - in 2020 there were 33 people killed while unarmed, in a country of 330 million! That's roughly 1 in 10 million chance of being killed while unarmed in that particular year - I don't know which year your situation is referring to but unarmed shootings are always similarly low figures (2020 is just the year I know without searching the numbers, as it was the stats that were current when I first looked into detail of the situation).  

To have seen a person who was killed as a result of an unarmed police shooting is truly lottery-level odds to occur. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

There have been an average of over two mass shootings per day for the last six months.  Why is it you want to arm these people with the best weapons a lunatic could want?

Doug

I don't understand your question. Who do I want to arm, and why? I don't think I've ever advocated arming anyone! If anything, I think America should tighten gun control laws, make it harder to buy a gun, and more rigorous vetting of potential buyers. Where did you get the impression that I wanted to "arm these people with the best weapons a lunatic could want"? 

 

39 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Which murders do you approve of, PA?

Doug

None! Murder is wrong under all circumstances! I am not challenging the issue of whether murder is wrong or whether anyone should ever approve of it! I am challenging your interpretation of someone's death as a "murder", as your track record is objectively terrible in this particular matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

None! Murder is wrong under all circumstances! I am not challenging the issue of whether murder is wrong or whether anyone should ever approve of it! I am challenging your interpretation of someone's death as a "murder", as your track record is objectively terrible in this particular matter. 

Neither do I.  Murder is the intentional infliction of death.  That is not the legal definition.  It is the moral one.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to kill to defend one's life.  That is the only time I would give anyone a pass for murder.  But even then, I'd be looking very carefully at the circumstances,  In the case of police killing someone, I'd insist on a full murder trial.  If they think they had a good excuse, hen put it out there where everybody can judge.

Guidelines be damned.  Those are an excuse for negligence, not justification to kill someone.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go, PA:  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2022/07/03/jayland-walker-akron-police-release-videos-fatal-shooting/7789130001/

The police all agree it was a justified killing, but the ME says it was homicide.

The victim went down on the first shot and was hit by 60 rounds.  He was unarmed.  Police thought he had a gun.  They might have hallucinated one - that's called "buck fever" when you're hunting.  I expect greater competence from my police.  60 rounds is not self-defense.  That's panic because you know you can't hit the broad side of a barn when it counts.  Akron needs to get a professional police force.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 11:49 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Law seems to allow for “righteous kills” when it comes to many folks. 

What do you mean by “righteous kills”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Here you go, PA:  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2022/07/03/jayland-walker-akron-police-release-videos-fatal-shooting/7789130001/

The police all agree it was a justified killing, but the ME says it was homicide.

The victim went down on the first shot and was hit by 60 rounds.  He was unarmed.  Police thought he had a gun.  They might have hallucinated one - that's called "buck fever" when you're hunting.  I expect greater competence from my police.  60 rounds is not self-defense.  That's panic because you know you can't hit the broad side of a barn when it counts.  Akron needs to get a professional police force.

Doug

Suspected moron criminal got shot (whatever times). Good. Policemen did their job.

Blue lives matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what you get when you second guess police officers and cry murder despite what the facts show.

 Police officer missed chance to shoot Uvalde gunman by seeking permission: Report

There were several missed opportunities to stop the massacre at Robb Elementary School before it started, a new assessment of the law enforcement response to the Uvalde shooting released Wednesday said, while also providing some new details.

A Uvalde police officer was at the scene where the suspect, Salvador Ramos, had crashed his car. The officer had a rifle and sighted to shoot the gunman but paused to seek permission.

cont...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-officer-missed-chance-to-shoot-uvalde-gunman-by-seeking-permission-report/ar-AAZhrAh?li=BBnbcA1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Here you go, PA:  https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/local/2022/07/03/jayland-walker-akron-police-release-videos-fatal-shooting/7789130001/

The police all agree it was a justified killing, but the ME says it was homicide.

"Homicide" and "justified killing" are not exclusive terms. A homicide is a legal term that covers any death that occurs as a result of one human being killing another. The term "homicide" does not indicate guilt or innocence. It is entirely consistent for the ME to rule something a homicide (a human killed another human) but also agree it was a justified killing that was in line with the law. On that note: 

 

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

The victim went down on the first shot and was hit by 60 rounds.  He was unarmed.  Police thought he had a gun.  They might have hallucinated one - that's called "buck fever" when you're hunting.  I expect greater competence from my police.  60 rounds is not self-defense.  That's panic because you know you can't hit the broad side of a barn when it counts.  Akron needs to get a professional police force.

Doug

The police thought he had a gun because the guy was literally shooting his gun at them during the car chase. No sympathy for him, he played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. The fact that so many police officers all fired so many rounds demonstrates that they ALL perceived the same threat. Bodycam footage would demonstrate if one officer shot and the other 12 then unloaded their clips in response to that. They all perceived that the guy was going to shoot at them again, and at that point they were totally justified in their use of force. 

 

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Neither do I.  Murder is the intentional infliction of death.  That is not the legal definition.  It is the moral one.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to kill to defend one's life.  That is the only time I would give anyone a pass for murder.  But even then, I'd be looking very carefully at the circumstances,  In the case of police killing someone, I'd insist on a full murder trial.  If they think they had a good excuse, hen put it out there where everybody can judge.

Guidelines be damned.  Those are an excuse for negligence, not justification to kill someone.

Doug

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree on this. I appreciate your intentions but I don't think it's reasonable. The State is asking these people to put their life on the line, to go into dangerous situations where they might be forced to take out their gun and shoot someone, and then when that happens the very same State that asked them to go into this dangerous situation is then going to prosecute them during a full murder trial. Murder trials are for people who commit murder. Unlike you I don't use a moral definition for this. Moral definitions muddy the waters. If you want moral definitions go to the Psychology and Philosophy or the Spirituality section of the boards.  

To consider how unproductive, by your same reasoning I would argue that the guy who shot Ashlii Babbitt is guilty of "murder" (in a moral sense), and by your own words he should be the subject of a full murder trial (not just an investigation, but a full trial). The State ordered him to that place, to protect those people, and then the State is going to prosecute him for murder for following orders?????? 

Sorry, I can't express just how many ways this is WRONG to me! 

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.