Featured Officer kills 17 year old:'How in the world could this happen?' Guilford family speaks out

I think 777 was talking to me guys. Apparently I'm a cop hater for questioning their actions and training instead of taking part in the self righteous dehumanizing the victim process like a "good citizen" should.

The kid is dead at 17. I see no reason to try to paint him as a lower life form because he didn't act like the people defending the cop would have in the same situation.

 

I mean no Insult toward You or Zaac, but this seems like Something that He would write.

 

I think the cop was afraid the militia might show up before his own back up could arrive.

My questions are why is this cop so fearful of the militia? Why are cops today so afraid of constitutionalists, gun owners , anti illegal immigration, anti government or other "right -wing extremist" groups?

Who's putting this fear in them and why?

 

Perhaps because of some of the anti-police rhetoric found on the Internet?

 

Define "anti police" rhetoric.

I think it has more to do with the DHS and SPLC "anti - American" rhetoric and fear mongering in the training process personally.




Consider the following facts:

Item: In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

That official document of an agency of the United States government said “Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movement, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Item: Two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled: “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” designed to provide specific definitions of just who may be Right wing extremists.

That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism: Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the “end times;” stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; and use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/02/the-threat-to-freedom-the-southern-poverty-law-center-and-dhs/

Consider this . . . Captain America started out by taking on Nazis and defending freedom, now, however, Marvel has him siding with Democrats in Washington and beating up on conservatives who quote the US Constitution.

A video by the MacIver Institute boils the development down into a minute long analysis:

http://www.infowars.com/new-villains-in-captain-america-comic-are-opponents-of-illegal-immigration/

Consider this . . .

Under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program. Funded by the State Department through 2016, after which “charities are expected to take over funding,” the cities included in the global network include New York City, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Paris, London, Montreal, Beirut and Oslo.

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the communityin order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...global_police_precrime_and_the_war_on_domesti

And this . . . In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...a_child_for_life_in_the_american_police_state

 

The cop' s actions were judged by the gold standard for justifying a use of force, Graham vs. Connor, and found justified. End of story.

Anything else is emotional second guessing. Unless you can place yourself in the cop's head, and actually feel the same emotions, you have no idea what you are talking about. And no one here can do that.

Just the usual carping. Done here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Is this gold standard written somewhere?

 

Yep. You've been told where. Go fish


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I believe if you two go back and read my posts I never questioned the "use of force" I questioned whether this officer's fear of "militias" caused him to escalate the situation.

He had already called for back up. He could have waited until it arrived. But he didn't.

 

Why does that matter? You asked the question and were answered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You're right I got an answer. It didn't answer the question I've been asking for two or three pages though.

Why is this cop so fearful of militias?

Did it cause him to escalate the situation unnecessarily, which led to the use of force and the need to apply your gold standard in his defense?

 

But it answered the question you asked.

Have no idea and don't care. But you're not really interested in the answer to your militia question. You're only looking for another place to expound on your own interests. So have at it. This should be good for another couple of pages for you, at least.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You're right it answered the question I asked. Yes I am interested in the militia question.

It's wrong to be interested in why the police consider you and everyone else on this board extremists? Okay. Now that we've got that out of the way I guess you can go back to chewing on your lemon now.

 

I didn't want to post in this thread again but I wanted to answer this post. No, it was not you, it was aimed to the people that thinks cops are all abusive tyrants, and there is that mentality with some here. I think it was just a traffic stop gone horribly wrong.

If Deven had never flashed his headlights (he should've know it was illegal to do that in that state, being a new driver and all) and if the cop would have decided not to pull him over for a little thing like that and if Deven had had his license on him or he had been willing to articulate where the license was and if Deven hadn't been high and on some police brutality video kick and if the cop had done what you said, wait for the backup and dismissed his militia idea and if Deven hadn't decided to film the whole thing on his phone even when he was being dragged out of the car and tazed and if the cop didn't shoot at him, or any other if, things would have turned out differently. The cop had no idea who or what Deven was.

The parents might have had a case if the cop wasn't a cop because then you could say the cop broke into his car to assault him. As for the idea that he was killed for being stoned or he was killed for flashing his headlights, that's a matter of reducing this to an absurdity. There are dirty cops out there, for sure, but I don't think the majority of them are at all. The cop has the right to use deadly force and there's no limit on how many times he could fire his gun. ITL should tell his son to be careful around the police because the rules are different for them. Now done for real I hope.

 

I don't care if cops consider me an extremist or not, I won't give one a reason to shoot me on a traffic stop.

In Texas, if they seem on edge, handing them your concealed carry license seems to relax them. They know your background has been checked and checked again.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk