BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
90sBear said:
Wangchung said:
No, you're ignoring the fact he drew his knees up and refused to lay flat on his stomach. If he was complying from the start he never would have been able to get up and run away with no handcuffs on him. The lack of video of what preceded the stop is not evidence the cops are guilty any more than its absence is evidence of Tyre's guilt.
That's it? Flat on the stomach? He was on the ****ing ground surrounded by police officers. He had no weapons. He had made no threats, verbal or physical. Gee, I wonder if he might have been concerned about his personal safety with these guys. Nah, he shouldn't have to worry about that…
Show me why he was stopped. Show me why they were aggressive with him from the start when there is no physical threat visible in any way. They are the ones that murdered a man. The burden is on them. Perhaps they should not have turned off their body cameras and removed them.
But hey, Chris Rock!!! (Did I do that right?)
On the ground squirming and fighting arrest, knees draw up and twisting around to try and argue against his arrest. Doesn't matter if he was calmly stating that he was complying while he was arguing the arrest, because he wasn't complying. Again, no way he is able to get up and run without any handcuffed wrists if he had been complying with the arrest.
Now it's "squirming"? "Fighting arrest?" Did he punch, kick, hit, bite etc.? Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him?
Are punching, kicking, hitting and biting the only way a person can resist arrest? If he was cooperating, how was he able to eventually get up and run without being handcuffed?
Why was he being arrested? Did they tell him he was being arrested? Or did they just grab him? What exactly was he resisting if he wasn't informed that he was being arrested? Being shoved to the ground with a taser shoved into his leg? Why are they grabbing him? What was the threat? What was the probable cause?
Show me something, anything, that explains why this encounter began the way it did.
As we have discussed, repeatedly, we don't have that video of pre stop but that doesn't mean we get to make up whatever we want in its place. All we have is video of him being pulled from the vehicle, refusing to comply and eventually running, then being caught again and beaten to death. That's it. He DID struggle and refuse commands, which is proven by the fact he was able to get up and run and they hadn't gotten even one hand cuffed. That's not something that can happen if a suspect has been complying with commands.
The only person I have seen make up something is the police officer that lied and said he heard his partner claim Tyree was grabbing his gun.
What lawful command do you say he refused? Was he lawfully told why he was being pulled over? Was he lawfully told he was being put under arrest?
Did he attempt to run away from being placed under arrest or did he attempt to run away from a beating without cause?
Was he complying when he got pulled out of the car? Was he complying when he went to his knees? Was he complying when he went all the way down to the ground? If he did not comply with commands to roll onto his stomach, was he being lawfully detained and arrested or was was he refusing to comply with commands to get a beating without cause?
You say he was a suspect. What was he suspected of doing?
The problem with this is that it seems to assume everything the officers did was legal up to the point that he ran away. That they had cause to physically grab him and detain him in the manner that they did. Without video evidence that is just as much making up what happened as anything else. I'm sorry if I'm not inclined at the moment to give these 5 officers the benefit of the doubt without further evidence.
I notice you've yet again failed to acknowledge that one cannot both comply with police commands and at the same time never get handcuffed until after one gets up and starts running away and later is caught again. You say an entire police department and some EMTs conspired to kill the guy and then followed through.
I say the guy most likely broke the law, ran from cops or drove dangerously and then struggled with police once he was apprehended, played innocent while not complying, jumped up and ran again completely uncuffed thanks to his previous struggling with police, and was murdered by the pissed off police when they caught him a second time. But hey, maybe you're right and an entire police department pulled off a murder of a random black man because racism or cop privilege or something.
The list is long of things you have not acknowledged and questions you have avoided. I have not said anything about any conspiracy. I have said I have seen no reason for the police to begin or carry through the encounter in the manner they did.
Now who is making up scenarios? I have not made one statement about what I think happened because I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know why these officers acted the way they did. Have you ever seen anything like this ever within your lifetime? I have never seen anything like it.
I still agree that would be the most likely scenario and would normally give police the benefit of the doubt. But there is absolutely nothing I have seen to make me give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't look at what happened to that guy and think, "Should have watched Chris Rock." I think, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?"
Yes, I stopped addressing questions when mine were ignored and if they had already been answered. "He complied so why..." is a flawed premise. But like you said, you and I agree here. The only part where we disagree is I believe "Should have watched Chris Rock." AND, "What in God's name were those officers doing and why were they doing it?" can be true at the same time. There is no justification for the police beating this man to death.
Can be, yes.
What I say is depending on what led to the officer's handling of the situation, those may not have been legal/lawful/moral whatever commands and that man was not trying to evade arrest because they weren't trying to lawfully arrest him. He was just trying to not get beat.
I think all that's being said here is that 1) did he or did he not resist arrest (it appears he did) and 2) if he had not resisted arrest he would not have been beaten to death. That's all. No one is exonerating the cops for what they did in response to him resisting.
If you acknowledge that the lead up to the arrest is pivotal in determining whether or not the police's demeanor towards him was justified/understandable, why are you being so committal when that is still an unknown?
I think what seems to be implied here is that the police officers did nothing wrong up until when they beat him to death. Based on the Police Chief's statement that there is no video evidence to support the claim of reckless driving (despite how many officers present?), the police officer lying about the victim grabbing a gun, and the follow-up behavior by the police officers (turning off body cameras or removing them entirely, beating a man to death, taking pictures of his body and sending it to other people) I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
So show me what happened. That's what I'm asking for. What did the police officers observe that led them to begin the interaction in the way they did?
What I see on this thread is commitment to a Chris Rock video that never shows police officers starting an incident the way those police officers did. I see posters who seem to be certain in saying, "If he just would have done this he would have been fine." and I don't know if that's true.
Would he he still be alive if he had not run away? Maybe. But you know what that sounds like to me? "If she wouldn't have resisted me raping her, I wouldn't have had to kill her."
So yes, I want to know why they pulled him over and what led to a violent interaction with guns drawn before he ever set foot out of the car and I want to know if they handled this lawfully from the get go because I have seen little to support that claim.
You admit ignorance regarding what led up to the pull over, yet you are committed to the cops' guilt regarding their pullover being unlawful based on speculation. You are free to do that, but in that same vein, so are others in speculating that the pull over was lawful, and that all Nichols had to do was not resist, and he would not have been beaten to death. If you are going to say that he would have still been beaten if he complied, well, that's even more speculation, and pointless at that. And comparing the initial pull over to rape is just ludicrous, especially considering you admit that the cops' behavior during the pull over might be justified depending on the situation leading up to the arrest.
No, I have said "show me"...repeatedly. I have said, "Tell me what they saw". I have said their subsequent actions cause me to not give them the benefit of the doubt that I would give to the 99% of other LEO's so I would like to see proof one way or the other. Can you do either of those things?
We are all speculating. Because there is reportedly no video evidence available from several of the police officers who are required to activate their body cameras at every encounter. I don't know if he would have been beaten or not, and neither does the dead man. Who was beaten to death. I guess we will have to wait and hear it from the police officers. Who have already lied in their reports.
If you want to believe that the stop was all fine and kosher, that the man clearly presented himself to be dangerous enough to necessitate the response from the officers, ok. Just don't expect everyone else to automatically buy that at face value after what played out and without, so far, any corroborating evidence.
We don't know what the nature of the initial pull over was. No video from that yet either. I do know the first words I heard were the cops threaten to "blow his ass the **** off."
So I have already stated, repeatedly, that if we get evidence that the man was driving recklessly and could have killed someone in the process that I will say, "Well, looks like he is part of the 99% of victims out there that did something grievous and that started all of this in the first place. If only he had listened."
What will others on this board say if there is never any video, eyewitness testimony, anything, that supports the initial report of "reckless driving"?