Cops kill yet another black guy for probably no reason

[Skeptic Ginger]

The evidence fits the story of the Police far more closely than it fits anything the passenger claimed happened.

At what point did the passenger claim there was no Officer on the hood of the vehicle?

At what point did the passenger deny Officers were injured by the vehicle (remember, news reports indicate that multiple Officers were treated for injuries)


I have been given no reason, as of yet, to believe the Media reports were incorrect in stating that Officers were injured by the vehicle, that an Officer was riding on the hood, and that the vehicle crashed into a Police Cruiser.

Those are all verifiable facts, Ginger. Facts that have direct bearing on what occurred. Do you deny this?

From the OP link:

Paul said Cox called him Monday morning and expressed concern that the shooting circumstances were being portrayed “in a different light” than what had occurred. On Sunday afternoon, Henry’s father, Danroy Henry, vowed to sort through the conflicting accounts, including reports from witnesses at the scene.

From UY's link, post #20:

But Parks disputed the police account. She said Henry and others in the car were waiting for a friend to come out of the establishment "when a police officer banged ... on the window." She said Henry began driving after her son, Brandon Cox, told him that he thought police wanted him to move his car.
"Another police officer with his gun drawn just ran out in front of DJ's car," said Parks, insisting Henry had no time to stop.

Also from the same link:

Henry's father was "very articulate ...
"His coach called him today a man of high moral character."
...Parks said that the young men in the car shot at by police have never been suspended or arrested.
"They've done everything that we, as parents, have asked them to do," she said.

You are making assumptions about which facts are "verifiable". You cannot make that case based on what we see in these reports.

I'm not concerned that people are not drawing the same conclusion and using the same underlying premises I am using. But I am amazed you all cannot distinguish your own assumptions from actual "verifiable" facts.

 

[Whiplash]

So .. Skeptigirl was assuming and passing judgment before the facts were in. And she was called on it.

And her response is to tell everyone else they are passing judgment and assuming as well. And now on a crusade to demonstrate how everyone else was "just as bad".

Just totally missing the point in a defensive manner.

It reminds me of a former roomate who, after being asked when he'd be washing the silverware that sat in the sink for 2 weeks, responded that it took me at least a week to wash them the time before. As if that had any bearing whatsoever in the discussion at all. Even if he was right, they still needed to be done. He was someone whom it was impossible to ask or say anything even remotely critical of. His response was always "Well what about YOU.." and so forth.

I think it's just a common defensive mechanism. "Who are YOU to judge ME?".

 

[Uncayimmy]

From the OP link:

From UY's link, post #20:


Also from the same link:


You are making assumptions about which facts are "verifiable". You cannot make that case based on what we see in these reports.

I'm not concerned that people are not drawing the same conclusion and using the same underlying premises I am using. But I am amazed you all cannot distinguish your own assumptions from actual "verifiable" facts.

None of your quotes answer the questions asked, which were:

At what point did the passenger claim there was no Officer on the hood of the vehicle?

At what point did the passenger deny Officers were injured by the vehicle (remember, news reports indicate that multiple Officers were treated for injuries)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

From the OP link:

From UY's link, post #20:


Also from the same link:


You are making assumptions about which facts are "verifiable". You cannot make that case based on what we see in these reports.

I'm not concerned that people are not drawing the same conclusion and using the same underlying premises I am using. But I am amazed you all cannot distinguish your own assumptions from actual "verifiable" facts.

1) Nothing you have quoted from any source has indicated that evidence free assumptions were made on my part (or, indeed, on the part of anyone who has not taken the same stance as yourself).

2) You have pointed out one (1) discrepancy between the official account and the account of a passenger as related through a parent that was not present. This discrepancy does not even deny that an Officer was in front of the vehicle, rather the passenger's parent claimed the Officer jumped in front of the vehicle (possibly a fleeing vehicle - so that doesn't deny the driver was attempting to flee. Nor does it deny that multiple Officers were indeed treated for injuries. In fact, I challenge you to find me a news article that makes absolutely no mention of the Officers being injured - that should be infinitely more easily accomplished than the alternative of finding an article that clearly states no Officers were injured in the incident) but does not mention whether this was after other Officers had been injured or been knocked onto the hood. The best this account does for the driver is claim he did not have time to stop before the Officer opened fire, but does nothing to negate the claims that a) an Officer was on the hood (and opened fire) and b) another Officer was injured attempting to help the other Officer off the hood.


In other words: You have chosen to believe a story that you conjured up out of thin air based solely on a single, minor, discrepancy between the passenger's account and that of the Officers and other witnesses.

ETA: And you still have not shown where I posted a stereotype of the driver.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So .. Skeptigirl was assuming and passing judgment before the facts were in. And she was called on it.

So Whiplash is making stuff up and patting himself on the back about it.

And her response is to tell everyone else they are passing judgment and assuming as well. And now on a crusade to demonstrate how everyone else was "just as bad".

I take it you don't have the ability to discuss things with different amounts of certainty? All or none, is that it?

Just totally missing the point in a defensive manner.

Whether or not this is your perception, it doesn't make it an accurate perception.

The rest of your comments were irrelevant to the comments I posted. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything about even remotely certain conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

None of your quotes answer the questions asked, which were:

At what point did the passenger claim there was no Officer on the hood of the vehicle?

At what point did the passenger deny Officers were injured by the vehicle (remember, news reports indicate that multiple Officers were treated for injuries)

This is a debate tactic based on a false premise. You can answer these questions if they go to some point you are making. They don't go to any point I made. There is no reason I need to or care to answer your questions since they don't go to the arguments I made.

The passenger's account contradicted the cops. To say the cop's statement is verifiable evidence when an eyewitness claims it was a false statement is to assume one of the two parties was truthful and the other wasn't.

One can decide either party is more likely the truthful one. We've all done that here. I explained my reasoning. I made no claims about any absolute truth, only that as I weighed the evidence at that point I had a tentative conclusion.

For others to claim they made no assumptions and only went by the evidence on the table is simply mind boggling. Two people tell two different accounts. Whatever goes into deciding one is more likely true than the other has to involve applying certain assumptions, IN EITHER CASE.

Whatever you are on about with your 2 questions is your issue, not mine. Answer your own questions if you have something to say.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm convinced.

If only the guy hadn't done that cartwheel.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything about even remotely certain conclusions.

Yes, you have. You have repeatedly claimed it is impossible for someone to be struck by a mirror and end up on the hood, but that's only limited by your imagination. It's plausible. You said the "only" way somebody could end up on the hood is if the he got in the way of the driver, which is patently ridiculous. The cop could have had his back turned or the driver could have steered into him. You essentially dismiss all explanations of improper conduct by the driver based the nice things his friends and family said about him. You essentially dismiss proper conduct by the cops based on your prejudicial attitude towards them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1) Nothing you have quoted from any source has indicated that evidence free assumptions were made on my part (or, indeed, on the part of anyone who has not taken the same stance as yourself).

Are you sure you are reading my posts carefully? I did not say anything about "evidence free assumptions". We are both applying evidence.

I'm applying the evidence that cops lie and you are applying evidence that kids do stupid things, and/or criminal things.

I quoted your assumptions. You made these statements early on and when I showed them to you you cited evidence you did not have at the time as 'evidence' for your assumptions. Did you time travel? Or were these assumptions? These are your words:

post 49: "At what point, while an Officer is hanging onto your hood, does one continue to drive forward? At what point in the process of hitting at least one more Officer (possibly a 3rd) should one realize: "whoops, that must be the accelerator"?"

That assumes the kid had time to react. It assumes the officer was "hanging on the hood" but he could have been exaggerating that claim to cover up over reacting.

post 59: "The kid in the driver's seat was endangering lives of Officers (and bystanders - his view was definitely obstructed) with a lethal weapon (yes, a vehicle is considered a lethal weapon)."

This assumes the kid had time to react to the cop jumping in front of the car. It assumes the cop was telling the truth. Yet we have evidence cops do lie, they do exaggerate, they do cover up their mistakes.

post 59 continued: "At what point in time can you guys denouncing the Officers actions claim that this kid was not at fault here? Because Officers rapped on his window, so he was just trying to move the car? Really. He was just trying to move the car to a legal parking space - with an Officer on the hood? Really. You're really going to defend that preposterous position? Good luck, I think you'll need it.

You cannot see this is assuming the kid was a bad kid? Seriously? Were you able to mind read here when you traveled back in time?

post 83: This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with [assuming] a dumb kid reacted poorly to a Police Officer rapping on his window. What followed was [your assumption] the lives of 2 other Officers put in danger - and for that, they defended themselves.

Fixed that one for you unless you are also claiming you read everyone's minds here and determined the cops were truthful.


You are trying to claim you are not making judgements about these kids based on assumptions you have about young criminals. But you are assuming the kids were likely to run from cops, likely to have something to hide, likely to have a reason to run including a reason to run a cop down.

You are just as welcome to that assumption as I am to assume cops lie. But your denial you have a preconceived negative view of these kids is contradicted by the facts.

2) You have pointed out one (1) discrepancy between the official account and the account of a passenger as related through a parent that was not present. This discrepancy does not even deny that an Officer was in front of the vehicle, rather the passenger's parent claimed the Officer jumped in front of the vehicle (possibly a fleeing vehicle - so that doesn't deny the driver was attempting to flee. Nor does it deny that multiple Officers were indeed treated for injuries. In fact, I challenge you to find me a news article that makes absolutely no mention of the Officers being injured - that should be infinitely more easily accomplished than the alternative of finding an article that clearly states no Officers were injured in the incident) but does not mention whether this was after other Officers had been injured or been knocked onto the hood. The best this account does for the driver is claim he did not have time to stop before the Officer opened fire, but does nothing to negate the claims that a) an Officer was on the hood (and opened fire) and b) another Officer was injured attempting to help the other Officer off the hood.

I have no objection to your reasoning for coming to the conclusion you've come to. We differ in what we are giving credence to. We have a legitimate disagreement in how we are summing up what likely occurred.

In other words: You have chosen to believe a story that you conjured up out of thin air based solely on a single, minor, discrepancy between the passenger's account and that of the Officers and other witnesses.

You are telling a lie here. I cited numerous reasons I did not take the police at their word. Go back and re-read my posts, I should not have to repeat myself to defend against this straw man you've built up to do battle with.

ETA: And you still have not shown where I posted a stereotype of the driver.

Oh, I've shown it, in detail. You are ignoring your bias against the kids. You are trying to claim my bias against the cops is a real bias, but your bias against the kids has not contributed to how you've interpreted the evidence. But it clearly has.

You cannot see that you have made assumptions the kid was not just moving out of the fire lane, he was fleeing. The cop didn't move in front of the car not allowing the kid any time to react, the kid must have run the cop down. The cop couldn't be exaggerating about being trapped on the hood to cover up a trigger happy over hasty decision to shoot, he must have been afraid for his life.


This is not an argument about who has assessed the information correctly. I have said twice now, this being the third time, if the kid was drunk, that evidence changes things.

But clearly you are not aware of your own bias if you cannot see that you and others here have based your conclusion partially on a bias the kid must have screwed up. I don't have an issue at all with the fact I have a bias that with no evidence of the kids being bad kids, the cops could be covering up their own mistakes.

There is nothing wrong with bias and assumptions here. But there is something wrong with not recognizing you are applying that bias and there is something wrong with not being able to support that bias with a rationale.

How many kids, third year in college, no criminal record, intact supportive family, articulate parents who value education, do you suppose have run ins with the cops in front of bars? Should you make the assumption all kids must be fleeing the cops in this scenario? Should you make the assumption cops never overreact and never lie to cover up their mistakes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, you have. You have repeatedly claimed it is impossible for someone to be struck by a mirror and end up on the hood, but that's only limited by your imagination. It's plausible. You said the "only" way somebody could end up on the hood is if the he got in the way of the driver, which is patently ridiculous. The cop could have had his back turned or the driver could have steered into him.

This is another non sequitur to what that comment was referring to as well as an irrelevant issue. Are you vying for pedantic king of the forum or just looking for pissing contests?

You essentially dismiss all explanations of improper conduct by the driver based the nice things his friends and family said about him. You essentially dismiss proper conduct by the cops based on your prejudicial attitude towards them.

This is a lie. It is a false representation of what I've posted.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Are you sure you are reading my posts carefully? I did not say anything about "evidence free assumptions". We are both applying evidence.

I'm applying the evidence that cops lie and you are applying evidence that kids do stupid things, and/or criminal things.

I quoted your assumptions. You made these statements early on and when I showed them to you you cited evidence you did not have at the time as 'evidence' for your assumptions. Did you time travel? Or were these assumptions? These are your words:

post 49: "At what point, while an Officer is hanging onto your hood, does one continue to drive forward? At what point in the process of hitting at least one more Officer (possibly a 3rd) should one realize: "whoops, that must be the accelerator"?"

That assumes the kid had time to react. It assumes the officer was "hanging on the hood" but he could have been exaggerating that claim to cover up over reacting.

post 59: "The kid in the driver's seat was endangering lives of Officers (and bystanders - his view was definitely obstructed) with a lethal weapon (yes, a vehicle is considered a lethal weapon)."

This assumes the kid had time to react to the cop jumping in front of the car. It assumes the cop was telling the truth. Yet we have evidence cops do lie, they do exaggerate, they do cover up their mistakes.

post 59 continued: "At what point in time can you guys denouncing the Officers actions claim that this kid was not at fault here? Because Officers rapped on his window, so he was just trying to move the car? Really. He was just trying to move the car to a legal parking space - with an Officer on the hood? Really. You're really going to defend that preposterous position? Good luck, I think you'll need it.

You cannot see this is assuming the kid was a bad kid? Seriously? Were you able to mind read here when you traveled back in time?

post 83: This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with [assuming] a dumb kid reacted poorly to a Police Officer rapping on his window. What followed was [your assumption] the lives of 2 other Officers put in danger - and for that, they defended themselves.

Fixed that one for you unless you are also claiming you read everyone's minds here and determined the cops were truthful.


You are trying to claim you are not making judgements about these kids based on assumptions you have about young criminals. But you are assuming the kids were likely to run from cops, likely to have something to hide, likely to have a reason to run including a reason to run a cop down.

You are just as welcome to that assumption as I am to assume cops lie. But your denial you have a preconceived negative view of these kids is contradicted by the facts.


I have no objection to your reasoning for coming to the conclusion you've come to. We differ in what we are giving credence to. We have a legitimate disagreement in how we are summing up what likely occurred.


You are telling a lie here. I cited numerous reasons I did not take the police at their word. Go back and re-read my posts, I should not have to repeat myself to defend against this straw man you've built up to do battle with.

Oh, I've shown it, in detail. You are ignoring your bias against the kids. You are trying to claim my bias against the cops is a real bias, but your bias against the kids has not contributed to how you've interpreted the evidence. But it clearly has.

You cannot see that you have made assumptions the kid was not just moving out of the fire lane, he was fleeing. The cop didn't move in front of the car not allowing the kid any time to react, the kid must have run the cop down. The cop couldn't be exaggerating about being trapped on the hood to cover up a trigger happy over hasty decision to shoot, he must have been afraid for his life.


This is not an argument about who has assessed the information correctly. I have said twice now, this being the third time, if the kid was drunk, that evidence changes things.

But clearly you are not aware of your own bias if you cannot see that you and others here have based your conclusion partially on a bias the kid must have screwed up. I don't have an issue at all with the fact I have a bias that with no evidence of the kids being bad kids, the cops could be covering up their own mistakes.

There is nothing wrong with bias and assumptions here. But there is something wrong with not recognizing you are applying that bias and there is something wrong with not being able to support that bias with a rationale.

How many kids, third year in college, no criminal record, intact supportive family, articulate parents who value education, do you suppose have run ins with the cops in front of bars? Should you make the assumption all kids must be fleeing the cops in this scenario? Should you make the assumption cops never overreact and never lie to cover up their mistakes?

1) What evidence did I not have? As I clearly stated in my 2nd or 3rd post in this thread, this is fairly local to me - as in, it's in my local paper. I read about it in the NY Daily News before I even read this thread (probably before this thread was even started). Therefore, I was basing my initial comments on the evidence/reports I did have.

2) You have failed, again, to show where I stereotyped the driver as a stupid kid based on anything other than his actions on the night in question. Given the evidence that was stacked up against him (multiple Officers injured due to his actions), I would say that referring to the kid (and his actions on that night in particular) as "stupid" is roughly evidenced. Contrarily, you have failed to provide evidence that any Officer involved was that night, or at any time, a bad cop.

3) In accusing me, again, of bias against the driver, you refuse, again, to acknowledge that it's not simply bias when there is evidence that the driver injured multiple Officers. If it were a single Officer hit by the car, perhaps I would be a little more on the fence regarding what happened. Given that there were multiple Officers injured, I'm quite inclined to believe the driver did, indeed, do something stupid.

4) Here we go stereotyping again - first you stereotype the kid as "good" based on biased accounts and his status as a college student which you then present as a defense - as though somehow his being a good student negates that he acted stupidly on the night in question. It does not. This incident has zilch to do with his grades or whether he spent his summers at bible camp or any of that. It doesn't even have to do with whether there are any other college kids that do the same thing (newsflash - college kids drink and drive quite often.). We are discussing the actions of those involved on the night of the incident.

On the same token, there are literally millions of Police Officers who quietly do their jobs every day - and yet you choose not to invoke them when referring to the actions of the Officers involved in this incident.

Likewise, for every Ted Bundy, there are literally millions of law students in the United States that will never kill anyone. Does that mean Ted Bundy couldn't be guilty as he was just another law-student? Can you spot the fallacy here, Ginger?

 

[Belz...]

So .. Skeptigirl was assuming and passing judgment before the facts were in. And she was called on it.

Surprising, isn't it ?

His response was always "Well what about YOU.." and so forth.

Reminds me of my mother.

 

[Tricky]

Keep it civil in here folks. Address the argument, not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Architect]

Why doesn't everyone just calm down and wait for the investigation, for Heaven's sake???

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Well then what does it matter whether the cop was in front of the car or not?

It is ridiculous to to suggest that the cops had no reason to stand in front of a car parked anywhere near that chaos. In many cases where there is a shooting in a situation like this, the shots come from a car that pulls up to the crowd - not from someone within the crowd. Using a car as a base to spray a gathered crowd with semi-automatic weapons fire is a common gang tactic. Why is obvious - a stolen car provides quick access, cover, and escape. Any seasoned cop will immediately focus on a car as a number one threat and neutralize it for the protection of the crowd and to keep their jobs the next day when they are asked about their procedure during the fracas.

We have had several incidents this past summer in Philly where gathered groups of people were shot at by cars which sprayed the crowd as it pulled away. In one case, a innocent little girl was shot dead. In another, a young man was killed in his living room as he slept on the couch. What cop wouldn't know this and see a car as the preferred refuge of violent cowards?

 

[brenn]

OK, same thing keeps coming up here so let me ask you all, why are you applying stereotypes to the kid's behavior and then complaining about me applying the same to the police behavior?

In fact, you are all just equally wrong.

I've been away for a few days - ironically, teaching police officers about the law governing their use of force - so I thought I'd check back for progress on this thread. Not much, it looks like.

Did anybody post the information that his blood alcohol was .13 at the time of his death, according to the autopsy? Seems relevant to that whole "he wasn't running from a DUI arrest" thing.

 

[brenn]

It is ridiculous to to suggest that the cops had no reason to stand in front of a car parked anywhere near that chaos. In many cases where there is a shooting in a situation like this, the shots come from a car that pulls up to the crowd - not from someone within the crowd. Using a car as a base to spray a gathered crowd with semi-automatic weapons fire is a common gang tactic. Why is obvious - a stolen car provides quick access, cover, and escape. Any seasoned cop will immediately focus on a car as a number one threat and neutralize it for the protection of the crowd and to keep their jobs the next day when they are asked about their procedure during the fracas.

We have had several incidents this past summer in Philly where gathered groups of people were shot at by cars which sprayed the crowd as it pulled away. In one case, a innocent little girl was shot dead. In another, a young man was killed in his living room as he slept on the couch. What cop wouldn't know this and see a car as the preferred refuge of violent cowards?

That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

That makes no sense to me at all.

Which part? You dont believe that a car is often used as a "base of operations" for gangs to conduct "hits" on gatherings of rival gang groups - or hits on gang members within larger groups?

Or my writing makes no sense to you?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Which part? You dont believe that a car is often used as a "base of operations" for gangs to conduct "hits" on gatherings of rival gang groups - or hits on gang members within larger groups?

Or my writing makes no sense to you?

There was no gunfire, at least, not that I've seen in any news reports, (ETA) other than the shots fired by the Officers.

I do agree that the Officer who rapped on the driver's window was doing the correct thing (large brawl, clearing the scene) and was not racially profiling or attempting to start an altercation with the driver.

 

[Thunder]

"what was he doing in that neighborhood anyways?"

"well, maybe he was up to no good"

"probably had a criminal record"