For the FTP's amongst us

Bounty Hunters Mistakenly Raid Phoenix Police Chief

Video available immediately. Bounty hunter under arrest.
Ever see a cop arrested when they raid the wrong house?

 

This actually sounds more like a keystone cops setup...

 

What was this cops problem ? Draws his gun on a guy in his driveway.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...d-on-Paid-Administrative-Leave-320989391.html

 

One of my co workers just showed me this. Unfuckin believable but then again.... there is surely more to the story. He must've pissed off that dept in the past and now they like to stop by for a friendly visit?

 

Heres a good one...........

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/us/seneca-teen-dead-police-shooting/index.html

Killed for smoking a joint in a fast food parking lot.

 

Bogart at your own peril. :tut:

 

More outstanding officers in action...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/cops-filmed-behaving-badly-say-pot-shops-camera-illegally-recorded-raid/

 

Johnny tell him what he's won....

 

So we just learned from the events in Ferguson that it is indeed possible to release video during an investigation without causing all the evidence to suddenly dissolve into the atmosphere, preventing the completion of said investigation. Is there a reason that only works for thugs without a badge?

 

Really? Is that what happened?

Fact: the video is grainy, I can't make out facial features how is that conclusive that it shows Tyrone Harris Jr?

Fact: the video does not show the moment of Harris' shooting which occurred at a different location.

It is quite possible that 1. The person in the video may not have been Harris or 2. Harris ditched the gun prior to the shooting leaving him unarmed at the time of the shooting.

I'm not saying that is what happened but they are plausible alternatives. For all we know the witnesses may have been right and Harris was unarmed and fleeing when the cops shot him

 

What does anything you just said have to do with the fact that it is a video reviewed by police in the course of their investigation and that it's usually the excuse for not releasing them?

It is funny to watch you give the thug the benefit of the doubt, though, in your attempt to justify anything the police does. It's almost as if you're saying that everyone in Ferguson may not be animal after all. Desperation at its finest.

 

Inference.

You did it.

You watched a 13 second video and decided the cops made a clean shoot when there is zero evidence on that video to support that, at best it may show Harris had a gun.

You saw a video, were fed a narrative, accepted it and posted here to gloat. What you really did was prove my point, thanks:up:

 

Really, I did? I said that the cops made a clean shoot? Where? Find it. I'll be waiting.

Again, what narrative was I fed? And what did I say about it? Be specific. I'm really curious to find out what I think about Harris getting shot.

edit: I don't even know the name of the guy who was shot in Ferguson. I'm guessing that's who you're calling Harris?

 

Okay, let's keep it simple.

Why did the cops release the video?

Because they needed to change the narrative that was building that Tyrone Harris Jr., was shot while fleeing and unarmed.

So you say "Here is an example of a video , evidence released by the police which does not taint the process".
Of course the whole reason the video was released was to sell the narrative that Harris was indeed armed at the time of the shooting so that the masses and probably more specifically the media, wouldn't latch on to the story of "cops shoot unarmed black teen".
So is the evidence itself tainted?
What does the video show? An indistinguishable black male brandishing a gun. The video is poor quality, I can't make out a face. I have no idea who that is. The video is in black and white so I can't even tell you if the color of his clothes.
So what you have is a video of an unknown black male brandishing a gun at a convenience store.
But what that evidence is now in the minds of a lot of people is a video of Tyrone Harris Jr. firing a gun at the cops.

The is a huge difference between what that video is and what people think it is, that is tainted evidence.

 

No, you're not going to weasel your way out of it. You made some specific claims about what I allegedly concluded regarding the shooting; show where I did that or admit you made that up.

That's BS. What random people think of it doesn't change the nature of the evidence. If it's valid evidence, it will do the job in court if/when needed. If it's crap, it's not going to turn into solid evidence in court just because it was hidden from the public.

 

Interesting development in California


http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...rand-juries-in-police-lethal-force-cases.html

Brings a higher level of scrutiny to the legal process associated with police shootings.

 

Shit..I'm going buy a snow shovel. Moonbeam got 2 right in 1 day.

 

Tyrone deserves the benefit of doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. His daddy said he was a nice boy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alled-Glocks-posed-guns-boasted-gangster.html

 

It's called inference. You inferred it by posting a claim that evidence was released without it being tainted. You did not outright state it.

Think what you want but it isn't BS. That video has been widely disseminated along with that headline which attaches a narrative to the video. Very few people are going to be shown that video with the discription I gave. It gives a misleading slant to the video and that slant is what people will remember, not the actual merit of the evidence.