Discussion on Police killing of Black people and out of propotion

MaggieD · Jul 10, 2016

Caine said:

Lololo!

Excon · Jul 10, 2016

Caine said:
[video=youtube;8rwPovyR9HY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwPovyR9HY[video]

Funny, but no.

Excon · Jul 10, 2016

NO1 · Jul 11, 2016

VanceMack said:
In 2011, over 62.9 million U.S. residents age 16 or older,
or 26% of the population, had one or more contacts with police during the prior 12 months.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf

As I said...I have heard the 12million figure cited as a figure regarding physical confrontations with Law Enforcement. The BJS puts the total number 5 times that amount.

Ok, first thing 50.8% of the interactions (62.936.500) are people calling the police for help; people came across police due to traffic accidents and people who participated in anti-crime programs. In addition it cited that some questions in the survey are not giving any room for complains so that should factor in.

Second, the other 49.2 % (were the police initiate the interaction) which include arrests (5%), traffic stops(42%) and street stop (2.3%) the vast majority of people said the police behaved properly (except the street stops 47.5% thought Police did not behave properly or Police were not respectful).

Last, the police is doing great job according to that but there is room for improvement, Blacks were pulled over much more than whites and Hispanic and relatively many complains about street stops.

NO1 · Jul 11, 2016

Excon said:
Painting with a broad brush of a few occurrences doesn't negate the facts of the majority.

I'm sorry I don’t believe the police is perfect nor do I think the majority of cops are bad, not even close. In the last two cases I think they didnt behave properly and were rushing to shoot.

Haven't seen a case yet where an officer who used lethal force wrongly wasn't punished.

From your viewpoint also in Castile case the officer didn’t do any mistake, so I guess it's fine.

You are substituting what she actually said with what you want it to be.
She made it clear he was reaching for his wallet in order to satisfy the request for his drivers license and registration. This is what he had been doing.
While doing that he told the Officer he had a gun, which then prompted anther set of commands. None of which she said he was following.
Matter of fact in an interview video she complained that this was confusing for her. [paraphrased] Either he is supposed to reach or he is not. He can't do both. [paraphrased] She is so ill-educated/stupid that she doesn't understand the changing of the dynamics and then
listening to the order being given at that time.

What is clear is the officer didn't gave clear orders and was very stressed. Castile comply to the commands and reached out to his wallet and at the same time he let the officer know he has a gun license, from that point it seems the officer was to stressed and didn't handle the situation well (Castile 's girlfriend words prove the orders were not clear), and it result with couple bullets and dead innocent man. A simple police check shouldn't ended with a dead man, the officer needed to do better.

I read that Castile was pulled over by the police at least 52 times in the recent years- https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stopped-52-times-by-police-was-it-racial-profiling/2016/07/09/81fe882a-4595-11e6-a76d-3550dba926ac_story.html, I guess this time he encounter a very stressed and scared officer.

Are you really this oblivious to what occurred?
1. That is not how you approach someone just because they match a description.
2. They also did not get to that point in this specific situation because Castile did not listen when the Officer told him not to reach for it or when the Officer told him to take his hand off it.

1. I wouldn't come close to a dangerous armed man, I was doing it from distance but never mind.
2. As I said it's not like as you say so, there was miscommunication due to unclear orders. Again Castile was pulled over by the police at least 52 times in the recent years, why this time ended with 4/5 bullets being shot at him?

When it is referring to criminal interaction, it is not categorically vague and is not any type of warning sign.

Interactions with law enforcements as Vence said is vague definition, also criminal interactions is a little vague too.

Excon · Jul 11, 2016

NO1 said:
From your viewpoint also in Castile case the officer didn’t do any mistake, so I guess it's fine.

You haven't shown his actions were wrong, let alone unreasonable.

NO1 said:
What is clear is the officer didn't gave clear orders and was very stressed.

Stop with the nonsense.
It is clear he gave the proper orders. Nor is it obvious he was stressed before the encounter. Listen to his call to dispatch.
The stress you see is after the fact of shooting someone, which has absolutely nothing to do with what what lead up to it.

NO1 said:
Castile comply to the commands and reached out to his wallet and at the same time he let the officer know he has a gun license,

1. You are not paying attention.
2. You are wrong again because you are not paying attention.

Her account was that as he was reaching for his wallet he told the Officer he had a gun. She is the one who "yell"ed (do you not see the quotation marks) at that moment that he was licensed to carry. She said it, not him. And if you do not understand, there would have been no reason for her to "yell" that had he informed the Officer tha the was licensed. (Not that it would have mattered anyways because he didn't follow what the Officer told him to do from that point forward.)

From that point on it was the Officer gave him new instructions which he did not follow.

His failing to listen would also be how the gun supposedly ended up in his lap.

NO1 said:
(Castile 's girlfriend words prove the orders were not clear),

BS! She didn't say they weren't clear. She tried making excuses for why he didn't follow the commands the Officer gave. Only an idiot or a person trying to spin a narrative would say they are confused by receiving a new set of orders.
That is just stupid. You do what you are told when you are told.
If you are told not to reach fo rit and then to get your hands off it, there is no ambiguity in those commands and would lead to no confusion in what you are supposed to do.

NO1 said:
and it result with couple bullets and dead innocent man. A simple police check shouldn't ended with a dead man, the officer needed to do better.

The results are as they are because Castile did not listen to the commands given. The Officers actions under the circumstances was reasonable.

NO1 said:
I guess this time he encounter a very stressed and scared officer.

And you are making things up to believe. There is no indication the Officer was stress or scared before hand.

NO1 said:
1. I wouldn't come close to a dangerous armed man, I was doing it from distance but never mind.

Again. That is not how you approach someone just because they match a description. How you think you would do it is irrelevant.

NO1 said:
2. As I said it's not like as you say so, there was miscommunication due to unclear orders.

Yeah it is like I said and you have failed to show otherwise.

NO1 said:
Again Castile was pulled over by the police at least 52 times in the recent years, why this time ended with 4/5 bullets being shot at him?

Irrelevant.
Was he pulled over for matching a description of of an armed robbery suspect before? And did he not listen to commands not to reach for his gun and to take his hand off it?
If not it is even more irrelevant.

NO1 said:
Interactions with law enforcements as Vence said is vague definition, also criminal interactions is a little vague too.

No.
When it is referring to criminal interaction, it is not categorically vague and is not any type of warning sign.

VanceMack · Jul 11, 2016

NO1 said:
Ok, first thing 50.8% of the interactions (62.936.500) are people calling the police for help; people came across police due to traffic accidents and people who participated in anti-crime programs. In addition it cited that some questions in the survey are not giving any room for complains so that should factor in.

Second, the other 49.2 % (were the police initiate the interaction) which include arrests (5%), traffic stops(42%) and street stop (2.3%) the vast majority of people said the police behaved properly (except the street stops 47.5% thought Police did not behave properly or Police were not respectful).

Last, the police is doing great job according to that but there is room for improvement, Blacks were pulled over much more than whites and Hispanic and relatively many complains about street stops.

Wondeful. Awesome. Also irrelevant to the post. But carry on.

Caine · Jul 11, 2016

NO1 said:
Ok, first thing 50.8% of the interactions (62.936.500) are people calling the police for help; people came across police due to traffic accidents and people who participated in anti-crime programs. In addition it cited that some questions in the survey are not giving any room for complains so that should factor in.

Second, the other 49.2 % (were the police initiate the interaction) which include arrests (5%), traffic stops(42%) and street stop (2.3%) the vast majority of people said the police behaved properly (except the street stops 47.5% thought Police did not behave properly or Police were not respectful).

Last, the police is doing great job according to that but there is room for improvement, Blacks were pulled over much more than whites and Hispanic and relatively many complains about street stops.

Blacks also statistically commit more crimes than whites and hispanics....

There are typically more officers assigned to the small divisions that are high crime, high poverty, and unfortunately high black populations in most cities.

This creates a situation where black people are pulled over much more than whites and hispanics.

Shall police departments assign fewer cops to the crime infested areas and more cops to the suburban areas of cities just so things can be..... "Fair".

Or should police be focused on handling crime..... not ignoring it for the sake of trying to equal out racial statistics (which wouldn't happen anyways).

Caine · Jul 11, 2016

NO1 said:
I'm sorry I don’t believe the police is perfect nor do I think the majority of cops are bad, not even close. In the last two cases I think they didnt behave properly and were rushing to shoot.

From your viewpoint also in Castile case the officer didn’t do any mistake, so I guess it's fine.

What is clear is the officer didn't gave clear orders and was very stressed. Castile comply to the commands and reached out to his wallet and at the same time he let the officer know he has a gun license, from that point it seems the officer was to stressed and didn't handle the situation well (Castile 's girlfriend words prove the orders were not clear), and it result with couple bullets and dead innocent man. A simple police check shouldn't ended with a dead man, the officer needed to do better.

I read that Castile was pulled over by the police at least 52 times in the recent years- https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stopped-52-times-by-police-was-it-racial-profiling/2016/07/09/81fe882a-4595-11e6-a76d-3550dba926ac_story.html, I guess this time he encounter a very stressed and scared officer.

1. I wouldn't come close to a dangerous armed man, I was doing it from distance but never mind.
2. As I said it's not like as you say so, there was miscommunication due to unclear orders. Again Castile was pulled over by the police at least 52 times in the recent years, why this time ended with 4/5 bullets being shot at him?

Interactions with law enforcements as Vence said is vague definition, also criminal interactions is a little vague too.

Dude.... officers are quite stressed when they are pulling over what they believe to be an armed robbery suspect who has a firearm in his lap and isn't following commands.

But hey, thats just me... you can keep pretending that the oddly calm female friend of Castile is telling the truth, despite the numerous times that family members and loved ones have been proven wrong in these police shooting situations, and their statements have only been used to fuel the fires of hatred against police.

NO1 · Jul 11, 2016

Excon said:
You haven't shown his actions were wrong, let alone unreasonable

You haven't shown Castile actions were wrong.
Anyway there is no footage of the shooting but I think the officer should act better.

Stop with the nonsense.
It is clear he gave the proper orders. Nor is it obvious he was stressed before the encounter. Listen to his call to dispatch.
The stress you see is after the fact of shooting someone, which has absolutely nothing to do with what what lead up to it.

No it's not clear at all. Castile was pulled over at least 52 times and he didn’t have any problem with complying to cops, also his girlfriend said he told the officer he has license when he have been asked for papers by the officer.

1. You are not paying attention.
2. You are wrong again because you are not paying attention.

Her account was that as he was reaching for his wallet he told the Officer he had a gun. She is the one who "yell"ed (do you not see the quotation marks) at that moment that he was licensed to carry. She said it, not him. And if you do not understand, there would have been no reason for her to "yell" that had he informed the Officer tha the was licensed. (Not that it would have mattered anyways because he didn't follow what the Officer told him to do from that point forward.)

From that point on it was the Officer gave him new instructions which he did not follow.

His failing to listen would also be how the gun supposedly ended up in his lap.

You are assuming he didn’t tell the police he has license. Here my assumption- he did tell the officer he has gun and license for it and his girlfriend just repeat that to show the viewers (and answer the officer) that even though he has gun license he got shot by the police.

52 times Castile had no problem with complying to cops, so why do you think this time is different? Why he told the officer he have gun license (you can ignore the license if you want)? It's clearly Castile didn’t want to cause any problem and he did what he have been told but sadly he still got killed.

From some reason you expect me to hold your assumption as the truth.

BS! She didn't say they weren't clear. She tried making excuses for why he didn't follow the commands the Officer gave. Only an idiot or a person trying to spin a narrative would say they are confused by receiving a new set of orders.
That is just stupid. You do what you are told when you are told.
If you are told not to reach fo rit and then to get your hands off it, there is no ambiguity in those commands and would lead to no confusion in what you are supposed to do.

I said the orders weren't clear based on her words and based that Castile killed even though he has no intention to harm anyone.

Now you just mad because my opinions are different from yours, there is no need to use Ad hominem .

The results are as they are because Castile did not listen to the commands given. The Officers actions under the circumstances was reasonable.

See above.

And you are making things up to believe. There is no indication the Officer was stress or scared before hand.

I said it based on what we know which is the cop shot 4/5 times even though the victim let him know he carry a gun, so I assumed the officer was stress and scared (just like you assumed Castile didn't obey the officer orders even though you haven't see any video before the shooting).

Again. That is not how you approach someone just because they match a description. How you think you would do it is irrelevant.

I just tried to show the officer could prevent this if he acted in different way.

Yeah it is like I said and you have failed to show otherwise.

Mmm… No.
It's not as you say so.

Irrelevant.
Was he pulled over for matching a description of of an armed robbery suspect before? And did he not listen to commands not to reach for his gun and to take his hand off it?
If not it is even more irrelevant.

Wrong. It is relevant, his history shows he has no problem obeying orders when he have been pulled over, so why this time will be any different?
It seems the problem was the officer that let his fears take over his judgment.

No.
When it is referring to criminal interaction, it is not categorically vague and is not any type of warning sign.

You just repeated what you already said word by word.

Harry Guerrilla · Jul 11, 2016

Caine said:
Blacks also statistically commit more crimes than whites and hispanics....

There are typically more officers assigned to the small divisions that are high crime, high poverty, and unfortunately high black populations in most cities.

This creates a situation where black people are pulled over much more than whites and hispanics.

Shall police departments assign fewer cops to the crime infested areas and more cops to the suburban areas of cities just so things can be..... "Fair".

Or should police be focused on handling crime..... not ignoring it for the sake of trying to equal out racial statistics (which wouldn't happen anyways).

It doesn't matter at this point.
The narrative is set, being a cop is guilty, without a chance to prove innocent, worse if you're White and a cop.

Did you see that Facebook has put up a giant BLM sign at their headquarters.
This **** is insane.

NO1 · Jul 11, 2016

Caine said:
Dude.... officers are quite stressed when they are pulling over what they believe to be an armed robbery suspect who has a firearm in his lap and isn't following commands.

But hey, thats just me... you can keep pretending that the oddly calm female friend of Castile is telling the truth, despite the numerous times that family members and loved ones have been proven wrong in these police shooting situations, and their statements have only been used to fuel the fires of hatred against police.

If the police will release another footage of the whole incident (if they have any) maybe we will be more smart, and if it turn out that the cop acted as he should Ill be the first one to admit I was worng. Right now it seems the officer was too quick to use deadly force.

Excon · Jul 12, 2016

NO1 said:
You haven't shown Castile actions were wrong.

Holy ****.
The only information we have says his actions were wrong.

What exactly did not you not understand about the Officer saying he told him not to reach for it?
What exactly did not you not understand about the Officer saying he told him to get his hand off it?
What exactly did not you not understand about the gun ending up in Castile's lap?

You simply are not putting the available information together, because the above information shows Castile was in the wrong.

NO1 said:
No it's not clear at all. Castile was pulled over at least 52 times and he didn’t have any problem with complying to cops, also his girlfriend said he told the officer he has license when he have been asked for papers by the officer.

Wrong.
You are not paying attention to the information provided.
She is the one who yelled that information out. No him. Or do you not realize she wouldn't have felt compelled to "yell" it out if he had told the Officer. Duh!

Then it doesn't matter one bit if anyone told the Officer that.
What mattered was Castile not complying with what eh was told to do.

And again what ever happened 52 time before is irrelevant to what happened now. ****, not that it matters, but you don't even know if he was carrying before.

NO1 said:
You are assuming he didn’t tell the police he has license.

No. I am citing the evidence which is that he didn't tell the Officer that. She did.

NO1 said:
Here my assumption-

Your assumption is stupid as well as not based in the available evidence.
And again , what happened 52 times before is irrelevant.

What we know is the following.
He was reaching for his wallet to get the requested drivers license and registration.
While reaching he told the Officer he had a gun.
She then immediately "yells" out that he is licensed to carry.
The Officer orders him not reach for it, and then has to order him to get his hand off it.
The gun ends up in his lap.

NO1 said:
From some reason you expect me to hold your assumption as the truth.

You are the one assuming here.
What I want you to do is stop assuming. and recognize the evidence as it is.

NO1 said:
I said the orders weren't clear based on her words and based that Castile killed even though he has no intention to harm anyone.

The orders were obviously clear. and she did not say they were not.
She complained because they were contradictory. That does not make the order unclear.

And her arguing that they were contradictory is hilarious.
The gun coming into play changed the dynamics of what was happening.
A new set of orders was given.
You are supposed to follow the command given at the time.
Not play dumb like she is doing in an attempt to deflect.

As for Castile's intentions? Stop You have no idea what his intentions were and neither did the Officer.

NO1 said:
Now you just mad because my opinions are different from yours, there is no need to use Ad hominem .

Mad? No. You lame assumption again.
Ad Hom? Not towards you. SO chill.
Towards her yeah, she is acting like an idiot with her deflections.

NO1 said:
I said it based on what we know which is the cop shot 4/5 times even though the victim let him know he carry a gun, so I assumed the officer was stress and scared (just like you assumed Castile didn't obey the officer orders even though you haven't see any video before the shooting).

You assume is all we need to know.
And again, the evidence is that she "yelled" it, not that Castile told the Officer.
And again, it doesn't matter one bit who said it.
It was the gun that escalated the situation and the orders which Castile did not follow that got him shot.

NO1 said:
Mmm… No.
It's not as you say so.

Yeah, it is. Nothign you provided showed anything. All you did was assume. That is called making things up to believe.

NO1 said:
Wrong. It is relevant, his history shows he has no problem obeying orders when he have been pulled over, so why this time will be any different?
It seems the problem was the officer that let his fears take over his judgment.

Yes you are wrong.
The fact that you are going to sit here and argue that nonsense just says you are being irrational about this.
What matters is how he acted at the time of the incident. Not how you think he may or may not have acted at earlier times.

NO1 said:
You just repeated what you already said word by word.

Of course. Because you failed to refute it, so it still stands.

NO1 · Jul 12, 2016

Caine said:
Blacks also statistically commit more crimes than whites and hispanics....

There are typically more officers assigned to the small divisions that are high crime, high poverty, and unfortunately high black populations in most cities.

This creates a situation where black people are pulled over much more than whites and hispanics.

Shall police departments assign fewer cops to the crime infested areas and more cops to the suburban areas of cities just so things can be..... "Fair".

Or should police be focused on handling crime..... not ignoring it for the sake of trying to equal out racial statistics (which wouldn't happen anyways).

I know that blacks statistically committing more crimes than whites but also you should be aware that Statistics of crime can be misleading sometimes.
The police focus on blacks much more than whites/Hispanic because of their high crime rate but by doing it they help to feed the statistics due to larger enforcement on blacks than other parts of population, so it result with much more blacks been caught than others.

NO1 · Jul 12, 2016

Excon said:
Holy ****.
The only information we have says his actions were wrong.

What exactly did not you not understand about the Officer saying he told him not to reach for it?
What exactly did not you not understand about the Officer saying he told him to get his hand off it?
What exactly did not you not understand about the gun ending up in Castile's lap?

You simply are not putting the available information together, because the above information shows Castile was in the wrong.

Wrong.
You are not paying attention to the information provided.
She is the one who yelled that information out. No him. Or do you not realize she wouldn't have felt compelled to "yell" it out if he had told the Officer. Duh!

Then it doesn't matter one bit if anyone told the Officer that.
What mattered was Castile not complying with what eh was told to do.

And again what ever happened 52 time before is irrelevant to what happened now. ****, not that it matters, but you don't even know if he was carrying before.

No. I am citing the evidence which is that he didn't tell the Officer that. She did.

Your assumption is stupid as well as not based in the available evidence.
And again , what happened 52 times before is irrelevant.

What we know is the following.
He was reaching for his wallet to get the requested drivers license and registration.
While reaching he told the Officer he had a gun.
She then immediately "yells" out that he is licensed to carry.
The Officer orders him not reach for it, and then has to order him to get his hand off it.
The gun ends up in his lap.

You are the one assuming here.
What I want you to do is stop assuming. and recognize the evidence as it is.

The orders were obviously clear. and she did not say they were not.
She complained because they were contradictory. That does not make the order unclear.

And her arguing that they were contradictory is hilarious.
The gun coming into play changed the dynamics of what was happening.
A new set of orders was given.
You are supposed to follow the command given at the time.
Not play dumb like she is doing in an attempt to deflect.

As for Castile's intentions? Stop You have no idea what his intentions were and neither did the Officer.

Mad? No. You lame assumption again.
Ad Hom? Not towards you. SO chill.
Towards her yeah, she is acting like an idiot with her deflections.

You assume is all we need to know.
And again, the evidence is that she "yelled" it, not that Castile told the Officer.
And again, it doesn't matter one bit who said it.
It was the gun that escalated the situation and the orders which Castile did not follow that got him shot.

Yeah, it is. Nothign you provided showed anything. All you did was assume. That is called making things up to believe.

Yes you are wrong.
The fact that you are going to sit here and argue that nonsense just says you are being irrational about this.
What matters is how he acted at the time of the incident. Not how you think he may or may not have acted at earlier times.

Of course. Because you failed to refute it, so it still stands.

Nothing new here and it becoming pointless, your are taking the officer side and assuming the office is right and Castile is wrong.
I dont believe that as I said and explained before.

Excon · Jul 12, 2016

NO1 said:
Nothing new here and it becoming pointless, your are taking the officer side and assuming the office is right and Castile is wrong.
I dont believe that as I said and explained before.

Wrong.
I have taken the side of the evidence which you choose ignore to say the Officer was wrong.

Caine · Jul 12, 2016

NO1 said:
I know that blacks statistically committing more crimes than whites but also you should be aware that Statistics of crime can be misleading sometimes.
The police focus on blacks much more than whites/Hispanic because of their high crime rate but by doing it they help to feed the statistics due to larger enforcement on blacks than other parts of population, so it result with much more blacks been caught than others.

That may be the case....

But that doesn't change that divisions within cities and officer assignment is based upon CFS volume (calls for service volume).

Officer's don't initiate calls for service. The residents call 911 to request for police assistance. Thus if a certain area has higher calls for service, the area is spliced down into its own small division with the same amount of Officers as other areas that are much larger divisions.

So if black people don't want officers up their ass in these predominately black neighborhoods, then they should stop calling police so much. And if people are calling police often to report they are victims of crime (which is usually the case), then there is a reason for that. It has to do with the needs of the community, not police running around huntin' black people like some would have you believe.

Officers in these smaller high crime districts spend 80% of their time handling calls for service, and often don't have the time to go be proactive. Meanwhile me in my suburban, mostly white, and mostly affluent white district, I was answering calls for service only about 30-40% of the time with the other amount of time to spend on traffic stops, DWI arrests of wealthy drunk white people, etc.

NO1 · Jul 13, 2016

Excon said:
Wrong.
I have taken the side of the evidence which you choose ignore to say the Officer was wrong.

Thankes for proving my point.

Ikari · Jul 13, 2016

radcen said:
Unacceptable government forces does not mean no force ever.

I didn't say it does. It is, in fact, why I stated "unacceptable", meaning that there is another category of government force....."acceptable".

Thought that was pretty obvious.

NO1 · Jul 13, 2016

Caine said:
That may be the case....

But that doesn't change that divisions within cities and officer assignment is based upon CFS volume (calls for service volume).

Officer's don't initiate calls for service. The residents call 911 to request for police assistance. Thus if a certain area has higher calls for service, the area is spliced down into its own small division with the same amount of Officers as other areas that are much larger divisions.

So if black people don't want officers up their ass in these predominately black neighborhoods, then they should stop calling police so much. And if people are calling police often to report they are victims of crime (which is usually the case), then there is a reason for that. It has to do with the needs of the community, not police running around huntin' black people like some would have you believe.

Officers in these smaller high crime districts spend 80% of their time handling calls for service, and often don't have the time to go be proactive. Meanwhile me in my suburban, mostly white, and mostly affluent white district, I was answering calls for service only about 30-40% of the time with the other amount of time to spend on traffic stops, DWI arrests of wealthy drunk white people, etc.

You ignored the times where the police initiate the interaction like in traffic stops, street stops and such.

By the way I dont think the police is racist as you implied.

Excon · Jul 13, 2016

NO1 said:
Thankes for proving my point.

Hilarious.
You haven't had a rational point yet.

NO1 · Jul 13, 2016

Excon said:
Hilarious.
You haven't had a rational point yet.

Nonsense.

Caine · Jul 13, 2016

NO1 said:
You ignored the times where the police initiate the interaction like in traffic stops, street stops and such.

By the way I dont think the police is racist as you implied.

Yes, but traffic stops aren't the basis of how the Department planners map out their districts and man power. That is what I was getting at with the CFS volume comment.

More police officers are in smaller, sadly predominately black poverty neighborhood districts, because of the higher calls for service volume in those areas necessitated it in order to reduce wait times to provide faster service for those areas.

Even then, I had to go into other parts of the city from far out to assist because every single officer was on a call during weekends.

Excon · Jul 13, 2016

NO1 said:
Nonsense.

I am glad you realize that is all you have been spewing.

Discussion on Police killing of Black people and out of propotion

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.