Archives: [f] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [news / qst] [trash] Boards: [meta]
/b/stats 2.0: beta edition
since 27 Jan 2013
Please send questions/comments/spam/death threats/love letters to webmaster (at) b-stats.org
All times EST/EDT
Active development is on GitHub



Thread #242583
Thread is dead.

Replies 35 (35)
Image Replies 0 (0)
Lifetime 3d 22h 41m 29s
Deleted Posts 0
race war.jpg (189 KB, 1200x1200, 1522616849963.jpgiqdb google reposts full
Just when you thought the protests over the shooting of Stephon Clark >>241031 were dying down, last night a sacramento police car ran over a female protestor at one of the rallies... and then flees the scene
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/01/sacramento-sheriffs-cruiser-hits-woman-during-stephon-clark-protest-and-speeds-away-video-shows/?utm_term=.793807106c71
>>
>>242583
>Dat thread title
I.. I think I love you, Anon-kun..
>>
>>242583
I would have gone with electric jigaboo.

Also fuck these protesters. He was hit a victim.
>>
The rioting is growing to the point where we may not be able to contain it.
>>
>>242589
>He was hit a victim.
surely you have some evidence of that

all the video shows is an SUV accelerating into a protester as she motions for it to stop.
>>
>>242595
in all fairness, according to the article the cruiser was surrounded and he ordered them to move 4+ times.
and by 'ran over' what is really meant is that she was tapped by the vehicle and suffered very minor injuries.
they shouldnt have been literally obstructing justice
>>
>>242592
Soon we will have to set up back riots in surrounding neighborhoods
>>
>>242599

OK but since when is essentially ramming someone with a vehicle acceptable police tactics to disperse protesters blocking a thoroughfare? They can arrest people who don't comply, they can wait for riot police to fire tear gas.

In any case, this was a hit and run. If I did this to someone and the exact same series of events were caught on video, I would probably be liable. Let alone that it was a hit-and-run.
>>
>>242606
When your car is surrounded by people who won't let you pass what else can you do. You either wait it out and hope they don't bash their way in or start rolling and hope they are smart enough to move. Also the fact that she was morning for it to stop shows that she saw him coming and chose not to move. Dumbass protestors need to learn that the street is for cars
>>
>>242606
>>242606#
>If I did this to someone and the exact same series of events were caught on video, I would probably be liable. Let alone that it was a hit-and-run.
i agree.
>but since when is essentially ramming someone with a vehicle acceptable police tactics to disperse protesters blocking a thoroughfare?
legally they are allowed to protest, but not to obstruct the duties of a peace officer.
i think it is perfectly legal for a peace officer to continue doing his lawful duty even if someone is trying to obstruct him. if the person gets injured trying to obstruct the peace officer's lawful duty, that is their fault, not the officers
>>
Why hasn't blm figured out that nobody will ever care about niggers getting shot or black protesters getting run over?
>>
>>242619
This isn't true, people will care just as soon as they're not the cause of most of the violent crime
>>
>>242611
>i think it is perfectly legal for a peace officer to continue doing his lawful duty even if someone is trying to obstruct him. if the person gets injured trying to obstruct the peace officer's lawful duty, that is their fault, not the officers

But letting "I was just doing my job; she just happened to be in the path of my vehicle" be considered acceptable excuse sets a ridiculous precedent on an ethical level, and on a legal level it isn't recognized as a valid excuse for violence by any laws I know of.

In just about all states, people generally have the right to use reasonable force to escape circumstances in which violence is being used against them. Blocking traffic is illegal but that alone isn't enough to justify hitting someone with a vehicle as a reasonable response. Yeah, it'll work, but effectiveness isn't the only dimension along which actions are judged as right or wrong in this context.

It's better for someone to suffer inconvenienced and then perhaps later the offender blocking traffic is arrested and meets justice, than to escalate and cause bodily injury just to avoid inconvenience.
>>
>>242626
if you are a peace office and a bunch of people surround you and block your movement, im pretty sure you can use force to regain your freedom of movement
>>
>>242626
so by your definition of whats ok and whats not ok, you could simply surround an entire police station with protesters and then start looting and rioting the city and the police would not be within their rights to forcibly move the protesters out of the way to do their job and stop crime?
>>
>>242632
>>242633

They legally can and generally should forcibly remove people from the road who are illegally blocking traffic, and that's done by arresting people or waiting for riot police to disperse the crowd.

Accelerating an SUV into protesters being inconvenient and blocking traffic isn't acceptable because it involves otherwise avoidable violence.
>>
>>242635
But it they did this more often it would deter people from blocking the road it the future
>>
>>242640
If you want harsh punishment for crimes so that we have greater deterrence, I can understand how that can at least be arguably justifiable on a case by case basis.

But deterrence is something the criminal justice does using sentencing done by a judge. Putting law enforcement officers themselves in charge of deciding punishment is generally something a society of law and order tries to avoid because it gives too much power to the executive branch to circumvent the judicial branch. The roll police play in law enforcement is to arrest people, deescalate tense situations,.and prevent imminent violence. It's not desirable to have a society where non-violent people live in fear of cops.
>>
>>242635
>Accelerating an SUV into protesters being inconvenient and blocking traffic is awesome because it involves otherwise avoidable violence.
ftfy
>>
>>242583
Where are all the gun nuts? They love to post videos in their basement waving their AR15s around, but when police start gunning down and running down, they stfu.
>>
>>242632
> peace officer
> Hit and run on a 63 year old woman
How's that peace coming along?
>>
>>242673
Cunt had it coming.
Why even protest? He's not a victim.
>>
>>242606
So? As said before. Fuck her and all those who protest this dead thug.
>>
>>242619
it's funny how little media attention this while thing has gotten.
>>
>>242671
We support the police in this case.
>>
>>242691
>>242690
CNN has video of the attack
>>
>>242691
Typically I just support who ever will piss off the most people. We already hate each other here, why not just encourage people to be honest?
>>
>>242599
in all fairness, knowingly hitting someone with a car you're driving is considered assault with a deadly weapon.
>>
>>242804
But, to add to your statement, was deadly force justified in that situation?
Cop cant just let protestors destroy his car, and if they threatened his life (idk if they did or didnt) then the car is the easiest means of self defense available.
>>
>>242803
Dishonesty generates some of that hatred/hatefulness. If people were open and honest, and if while we were talking to each other we remember we are talking to another human, fallible yet worthy, then a lot of this mess could be swept away.

As it is, """they""" have us infighting, never thinking to pull our heads out of our asses to look up (big picture) and identify the actual problem.

Defeat will come with echo chambers and the masses fighting/discussing the problems of our time (ancient problems, really), never using our hands for anything other than typing away on a keyboard.

Words do not equal action
>>
A lot of different factors at play.
Patrol lights were on and flashing, meaning people shouldn't be fucking around in front or behind them, even camera guy. The car did clearly hit her, but again, lights were on and patrol partner car was leaving, implying that they got a call. However, this call did not seem too urgent because first car did not just tear away, it looked more like a normal acceleration rate unless partner was going slow so as not to lose visual contact with surrounded car. And he did order the people crossing to move.
Ultimately, I think the lady is in the wrong for knowingly and intentionally crossing the path of a law enforcement vehicle that was clearly attempting to do its duty, but the officer could have used more tact and slowly pushed through instead of the small but abrupt acceleration.
>>
>>242671
>why don't drug legalization advocates party hard when someone ODs?
>>
>>242671
Police don't have to worry about fun laws we do. Really dumb to think there is some connection between gun owners and cops. How about you trash your car for owning a dangerous machine used by a cop to run over a woman.
>>
>>242673
> Pieces officer.
Fify

Don't want to get run over stay out of the fucking road. We teach 3 year olds that much.
>>
>>242583
there were two police vehicles closely following each other and she jumps in front of the second vehicle.
she deserved it, even if this were a normal driver there is no way the operator would be found at fault.
did the driver even know his vehicle tapped her?
with all the people banging on the vehicles body it would be near impossible to tell you lightly struck somebody with the passenger side of the vehicle
>>
>>242671
>but when police start gunning down and running down, they stfu.
Because the retards that get gunned down deserve it. In 99% of police shootings these dumb niggers had it coming same in this case.

page took 0.0139 seconds to execute