My thoughts were crooked cops and some type of shakedown, but that assumes they knew the guy or he was possibly involved in something shady himself that gave the cops motive to target him. The only other option is they were just a pack of lunatics who snapped at a random person for a petty issue. No good option I see where the cops involved aren’t pos’s.
Supposedly there are 2 more officers to be named in this case they are currently on paid leave pending an investigation After video of Tyre Nichols' beating released, two Memphis deputies under investigation
I have a similar story from when I was being trained for patrol. My FTO was a good dude that tried not to arrest people for doing dumb stuff. We would flush pot rather than arrest a kid. That was back in 1978. We received a call late one night that there’s a suspicious vehicle at the Courtney Campbell causeway. Had vehicle description and all. Sure enough as we arrived there was the vehicle as described, Sitting parked with the lights off. I was driving and turned off my headlights as we approached the vehicle. I pulled up to it as safe as I could and put the car in park. Once parked we noticed the vehicle was kind of moving and saw something in the back seat pop up then down. My FTO had me hit the siren with a short whoop. Immediately a kid pops his head up. We motion him to roll down his window. As he’s rolling the window down we notice he isn’t wearing a shirt, is flushed, and panting rather heavily. My FTO asked the kid what he was doing? He says “We’re just necking officer”. My FTO tells the kid to put his neck back in his pants and get the hell out of here. The kid jumps over the the seat naked, starts the car, and drives off. We looked at each other and busted out laughing.
The five officers have been fired and are justifiably facing serious charges. And unlike others on Too Hot, I am happy there have been no large-scale riots as there is never any justification to allow violence and destruction of private and public property in reaction to any situation. And let’s all face facts here. If five white cops had committed this senseless act, cities in this country would be burning down right now.
While I think the chances are that there would have been a violent reaction if the officers were white we should also keep in mind that there were other differences in addition to the race of the officers than in apparently similar situations involving a black victim. In this case the employment of the black officers responsible for the beating of Nichols was terminated almost immediately and they were formally charged shortly thereafter. In most other cases the (usually white) officers were placed on administrative leave with pay rather than being fired (that may be attributable to union rules) and if formally charged not until several weeks had elapsed following the death of the victim.
The rioting would give apologists to change the subject. They would say the cops murdering a kid was bad, but look at the damage the rioters did, it’s so much worse.
Well the find news is that thy r media is making sure you’re aware of every detail, by bumping pretty much every story to cover it. Yesterday it was the top 5 stories on cnn.com, BBC was ending me alerts, TV is wall to wall. And we wonder how people get a skewed view of the size of the problem, or why coverage like this light lead to manufactured anger (far beyond the justifiable frustration).
The fact that they were fired and are facing charges doesn't change what they did. And while we're speculating about the facts, if it was five white cops, they wouldn't have been immediately fired and charged, which is why people would have reacted differently. Yay, baseless conjecture!
If five white cops had committed this act, #BlueLivesMatter brigade would be working overtime to defend them, mostly by bringing up "But but what about black on black crime in Chicago?"
Why won't you answer the question? I never knew that the police disliked black people, where are you getting this fabricated info that's obviously warping your mind and filling with hate
You fabricated info about me hating white people, so I have the right to fabricate info about the police not liking black people.
Yep, we are reading this completely differently. From their additional posts, you seem to have latched on to parts and pieces of the analogy other than the main point the original presenter of the analogy was trying to make. Sure, so we change who the characters are in the analogy, but that wasn't the point. The point was that someone was punished for doing it wrong, and if they are also punished for putting in the effort to do it right, then they won't continue to put in the effort to handle things better. I didn't see anyone claiming the police were "doing their best" when their officers just murdered a citizen. Who did you see posting that brutal violence was the best the police could do?
completely unsubstantiated. As is usual for team MAGA. Interesting claim in the thread(also unsubstantiated) that Tyre got a beat down because he was getting friendly with the girlfriend. Perhaps that is why his murder seemed so personal.
I didn't. His point was if people riot even when the PD handles the aftermath correctly, why will PDs not just engage in cover ups? And then he used the analogy to try to argue that there's no incentive for PDs to act right. But it's an inane analogy. People who are rioting aren't in positions of authority, aren't organized, and don't have cohesive leadership. There's no real concerted action. It's a bunch of individuals acting out. It's not remotely similar to a parent punishing their child. But the silliness of it is that's not how punishments work. Punishments come from those who are in a position of authority. Hence, why I pointed out that a sibling acting out is a better comparison than parents punishing. In order to use the parent/child argument, you need somebody in a position of authority over the police. That was the entire linchpin of the analogy, that the police did what they were supposed to do and were being punished for it. And you've now basically repeated it in this post. How? Look at the language you used above. You said "if they are also punished for putting in the effort to do it right, then they won't continue to put in the effort to handle things better." But they didn't "do it right." Their officers murdered a citizen. If I blow a deadline, cost the client their case, and my bosses fire me for it, they can't come back to the client and say, "It's really unfair for you to be angry with us when we did everything right. Look, we fired the attorney who screwed up!" It's too damn late! The harm was already done. And the client will have a viable malpractice lawsuit. Holding people accountable after they screw up is the bare minimum. It's what's required by the law here. The idea that we should be grateful for the police doing the bare minimum is ridiculous to me. It's better they did the bare minimum than the alternative, but it's not something deserving praise when their screw up got a person killed. And it really speaks to how low expectations are for them. I expect law enforcement to follow the law regardless of what "rioters" do. Do you not?
Shocker. The Back the Blue crowd still manages to be racist and are too ignorant to know that the city was going to be the one paying the settlement either ways. P.S. I read the Fox News article linked in the Facebook post, and it says nothing to corroborate what the lady is saying.
What relationship would you prefer to use in the analogy so that we can get past this part. We all agree that the rioters are not in the same relationship to the police as parents to a child. The point was that if the police still have negative consequences when they are trying to do better, they will stop trying to do better. You are using an overly legal definition of punishment as compared to the intent of the analogy. I'm happy to use "negative consequences" if that helps you here. Agreed. Agreed. And I also recognize that they are humans. And humans actively seek to avoid negative consequences. And if the negative consequences still are received when efforts are made, however minimal you find them to be, those efforts won't be made in the future. I would like to encourage the police to make more of an effort to do things the right way.
Then they have no business being law enforcement. The bare minimum we should expect of them is that they will follow the law. I already offered what I think is the proper analogy, the sibling. If a parent instructs their child to clean their room, it is irrelevant if the child's brother will punch them in the arm whether they clean their room or not. Because they are still required by their parent's rules to clean their room. The negative consequences to them not doing things the right way (like, for example, engaging in a cover up) isn't a riot. It's them losing their jobs and facing prosecution for criminal behavior.
