Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
What other explanation do you propose that is more plausible? Seems like you're casting a lot of doubt based on your personal incredulity but not offering any other explanation that you find less fanciful.


I have a lot of sympathy for this kid. I spent a lot of time in my youth trying to keep junkers running. For a while I had to park my motorcycle at the top of the hill to bump start it because the charging system didn't work, and I spent more hours than I care to count tinkering in parking lots and auto shops. No cop murdered me for the crime of being too poor for a reliable vehicle, so I guess I have no complaints.
Click to expand...

As did I. Still do, to some degree. What I am noting is that there are an awful.lot of screwey details that make for an eye squint, here.

As a former motorhead trying to nurse a little more power out of the 289 in my 68 Mustang: would you try to chock a truck with a plastic antifreeze jug? That strains credibility. You have someone else's child out with you at 3AM swapping trannys? What is that, a dozen bolts on the bell housing, yoke in the back and the linkage with a 150 lb trans, and the pan and screen? Not an all-nighter for two guys with access to a shop.

I'm thinking this sounds more like a couple guys getting fired up after fixing the truck, which is maybe why they got pulled over during the one mile return trip. We have nothing but the 16 year olds version, remember. When you were 16, did you sugar coat your cover stories or leave out the bad stuff?

I can't think of a reason why the cop would justifiably fire. But im not about to swallow this wholesome tale of innocence hook line and sinker either. Not just yet. I'd like to see the body cams or something else first. Unreasonable?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
As did I. Still do, to some degree. What I am noting is that there are an awful.lot of screwey details that make for an eye squint, here.

As a former motorhead trying to nurse a little more power out of the 289 in my 68 Mustang: would you try to chock a truck with a plastic antifreeze jug? That strains credibility. You have someone else's child out with you at 3AM swapping trannys? What is that, a dozen bolts on the bell housing, yoke in the back and the linkage with a 150 lb trans, and the pan and screen? Not an all-nighter for two guys with access to a shop.

I'm thinking this sounds more like a couple guys getting fired up after fixing the truck, which is maybe why they got pulled over during the one mile return trip. We have nothing but the 16 year olds version, remember. When you were 16, did you sugar coat your cover stories or leave out the bad stuff?

I can't think of a reason why the cop would justifiably fire. But im not about to swallow this wholesome tale of innocence hook line and sinker either. Not just yet. I'd like to see the body cams or something else first. Unreasonable?
Click to expand...

Yeah this 17 year old is going to lose his mechanic certification doing such shoddy transmission work.
 
Thermal said:
...?
Click to expand...

I'm just baffled by your comment that suggests it's routine for 17 year olds to be able to effortlessly and correctly perform automatic transmission repairs.

It's kinda known to be a tricky operation, especially if you're trying to save bucks by rebuilding a broken transmission rather than paying thousands of dollars for a drop in replacement.

There's nothing at all suspicious about the story told by the surviving teen. They botched a transmission repair and the parking gear didnt work.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm just baffled by your comment that suggests it's routine for 17 year olds to be able to effortlessly and correctly perform automatic transmission repairs.

It's kinda known to be a tricky operation, especially if you're trying to save bucks by rebuilding a broken transmission rather than paying thousands of dollars for a drop in replacement.
Click to expand...

The story says specifically that he was replacing the trans, not rebuilding it. I've done a swap out as a (later) teen with nothing more than a Chiltons manual as a guide, and no access to a shop. And I did it with a junkyard replacement. Poor kids don't buy new, sailor.

There's nothing at all suspicious about the story told by the surviving teen. They botched a transmission repair and the parking gear didnt work.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's more that every detail is a little screwy, not that it is implausible. Sounds a lot like saying. "Oh I was on the road at 3AM with somebody else's kid in a wildly unsafe truck (no brakes, no parking brake, bad tranny at a minimum) because we totally fell asleep at the movies. Really, we weren't partying or anything".

As you should know by now, I won't conclude anything from one side of a story, especially a suspiciously wholesome one. Color me untrusting of pure objectivity from one of the actors.

Still, because it needs to be said around here, I can think of no reason to fire. But I'd like to hear what the deputy has to say first. You find that unimportant for drawing even the most tentative of conclusions?
 
Thermal said:
The story says specifically that he was replacing the trans, not rebuilding it. I've done a swap out as a (later) teen with nothing more than a Chiltons manual as a guide, and no access to a shop. And I did it with a junkyard replacement. Poor kids don't buy new, sailor.



As I said, it's more that every detail is a little screwy, not that it is implausible. Sounds a lot like saying. "Oh I was on the road at 3AM with somebody else's kid in a wildly unsafe truck (no brakes, no parking brake, bad tranny at a minimum) because we totally fell asleep at the movies. Really, we weren't partying or anything".

As you should know by now, I won't conclude anything from one side of a story, especially a suspiciously wholesome one. Color me untrusting of pure objectivity from one of the actors.

Still, because it needs to be said around here, I can think of no reason to fire. But I'd like to hear what the deputy has to say first. You find that unimportant for drawing even the most tentative of conclusions?
Click to expand...

"someone else's child" is an odd way of saying a teenager and his similar aged friend. I suppose this is a useful verbiage to make it seem unusual that a couple teenagers might hang out together.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
"someone else's child" is an odd way of saying a teenager and his similar aged friend. I suppose this is a useful verbiage to make it seem unusual that a couple teenagers might hang out together.
Click to expand...

"Child" is just underscoring the obvious peripheral problems. You know how the law views minors driving around together at 3AM. In my State, that's a handful of fairly serious offenses, that a new driver would be fully aware of, having recently studied for his written driver's test.

Just think about the known facts: kids driving unsupervised in the middle of the freaking night in a truck evidently falling apart. The actual facts are breaking multiple laws. Is it so odd to think they were maybe not being quite as wholesome as the 16 yr old claims?

And again: are you coming to even tentative conclusions based on one side of the story? If you were a juror, would you pronounce a verdict based on having heard only one side's opening arguments?
 
Thermal said:
"Child" is just underscoring the obvious peripheral problems. You know how the law views minors driving around together at 3AM. In my State, that's a handful of fairly serious offenses, that a new driver would be fully aware of, having recently studied for his written driver's test.

Just think about the known facts: kids driving unsupervised in the middle of the freaking night in a truck evidently falling apart. The actual facts are breaking multiple laws. Is it so odd to think they were maybe not being quite as wholesome as the 16 yr old claims?

And again: are you coming to even tentative conclusions based on one side of the story? If you were a juror, would you pronounce a verdict based on having heard only one side's opening arguments?
Click to expand...

The known facts are the only witness besides the killer claims that nothing unusual was occurring, and the killer has clammed up has offered no reasonable explanation for shooting an unarmed person.

But yeah, we should probably ask how fast they could both run a mile first.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The known facts are the only witness besides the killer claims that nothing unusual was occurring, and the killer has clammed up has offered no reasonable explanation for shooting an unarmed person.

But yeah, we should probably ask how fast they could both run a mile first.
Click to expand...

Really? A pair of minors driving at 3AM with no adult in an apparently dramatically unsafe ride is "nothing unusual"?

They also had the survivor cuffed for hours. That doesn't suggest that there might be a little more to this story than he chose to disclose?

And yet again: I'm not saying he's lying, or that Brittain wasn't murdered (I think he likely was). I'm saying theres no need to be so gullible just because you like the way that narrative is served up. His side, her side, and the truth. I like the truth. Others like his side only.
 
Thermal said:
Really? A pair of minors driving at 3AM with no adult in an apparently dramatically unsafe ride is "nothing unusual"?

They also had the survivor cuffed for hours. That doesn't suggest that there might be a little more to this story than he chose to disclose?

And yet again: I'm not saying he's lying, or that Brittain wasn't murdered (I think he likely was). I'm saying theres no need to be so gullible just because you like the way that narrative is served up. His side, her side, and the truth. I like the truth. Others like his side only.
Click to expand...

Anytime the cops wrongfully murder someone they pretty much always arrest everyone on the scene.

There's a pretty handy rule of thumb when it comes to police killings. The more justified the shooting is, the faster the police release details and any available video footage that might exonerate them. Seeing as they have yet to do so, smart betters say this smells like another trigger happy cop committing murder.

So far we have an eyewitness that describes the two working on the truck. We have the kid's boss saying that they talked on the phone that night saying he was trying to get the truck running, and the claim that they were pulled over after leaving an auto shop.

But sure, I suppose it's reasonable to wildly speculate and treat those wild speculations as more likely than what all available evidence strongly indicates.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
They also had the survivor cuffed for hours. That doesn't suggest that there might be a little more to this story than he chose to disclose?
Click to expand...

Just like the demented old lady who the cops broker her arm. She was also hilariously handcuffed for hours.
 
Thermal said:
They also had the survivor cuffed for hours. That doesn't suggest that there might be a little more to this story than he chose to disclose?
Click to expand...

Maybe they were told they can't kneel on the suspects heads so they have to cuff them instead.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Anytime the cops wrongfully murder someone they pretty much always arrest everyone on the scene.

There's a pretty handy rule of thumb when it comes to police killings. The more justified the shooting is, the faster the police release details and any available video footage that might exonerate them. Seeing as they have yet to do so, smart betters say this smells like another trigger happy cop committing murder.

So far we have an eyewitness that describes the two working on the truck. We have the kid's boss saying that they talked on the phone that night saying he was trying to get the truck running, and the claim that they were pulled over after leaving an auto shop.

But sure, I suppose it's reasonable to wildly speculate and treat those wild speculations as more likely than what all available evidence strongly indicates.
Click to expand...

You're strawmanning pretty hard there, man. I don't treat anything as more likely except that the objective truth will likely be different from the recounting of a 16 yr old actor in the story.
 
bluesjnr said:
As hard as I try I can't match anything up with the actual incident as it unfolded in the 2nd link. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Twitter thread links are weird. It should be the last video in the thread that corresponds with the PPB version of events.

A bystander caught the moment PPB assaulted and maced peaceful protesters on scene - this video is very intense, warning.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/gravemorgan/status/1408313568299130880

The video shows a protestor approach the riot line and yell at a cop and point their finger. The cops apparently doesn't like being talked to this way, takes a couple swats at the person's pointed finger, then starts charging with his nightstick. All the fellow riot cops charge in and start spraying pepperspray everywhere. If any cop was sprayed, it was friendly fire.

The video is unambiguous in showing that the cops initiated the violence, but you wouldn't get that impression from how the police describe events.
 
Last edited:
It surprises me that the cops still seem unaware that lots of people carry video cameras with a direct link to the internet these days.

They still seem to think they can make stuff up when they know it will be filmed and that people will swallow it.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
It surprises me that the cops still seem unaware that lots of people carry video cameras with a direct link to the internet these days.
Click to expand...

They know. They don't care because they're so well protected. They know their supporters will gobble up the story without checking because that's what the post-fact world has brought.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It surprises me that the cops still seem unaware that lots of people carry video cameras with a direct link to the internet these days.
Click to expand...


Or they don't care. The Chauvin conviction was an exception to the normal course of events. Cops not even being charged, much less convicted. No matter how stark or compelling the evidence against them may be.

They still seem to think they can make stuff up when they know it will be filmed and that people will swallow it.
Click to expand...


They figure they can get away with it.

And most of the time they will be right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom