Cop shoots and kills 73 year old grandmother during police shoot/dont shoot demonstration

a reply to: Bone75

The response is so stereotypical now, we could make a cop encounter bingo card game for the PC forum.

a reply to: Bone75

I also think it makes him the perfect target for a set up, especially considering the purpose of the demonstrations that he had been conducting for 2 years without a hitch.

Yes we are on a conspiracy site, but that is really clutching at straws....c'mon you do not seriously think that right? you are being facetious surely...

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Regardless of color, police who murder innocent people, are putting their colleagues in other cities and states in danger, via reprisals. Respect for the life of law officers is at an all-time low in the U.S..

a reply to: Bone75

William McCollum comes to mind. While the BS was never fully peeled away, he couldn't hide that he was drunk and somehow shot his wife in the back.

Got a misdemeanor reckless behavior charge. But on the way, pretty much every bingo entry was hit.

I don't expect anything different here.

eta: at one point the Georgia police union was actually trying to argue that since he shot her with his service weapon, he was actually on duty and therefore had qualified immunity because his wife startled him into shooting her he could not be prosecuted because Graham v Connor.

IIRC they actually trotted out the phrase "Monday morning quarterbacking" to quell any questions about how he managed to back shoot her. That phrase ought to go on the bingo card too

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Bone75

I also think it makes him the perfect target for a set up, especially considering the purpose of the demonstrations that he had been conducting for 2 years without a hitch.

Yes we are on a conspiracy site, but that is really clutching at straws....c'mon you do not seriously think that right? you are being facetious surely...

I have a knack for clutching at the RIGHT straws. I attribute it to the process of elimination puzzles I was addicted to as a kid.

This was a setup, not an accident (at least not on the part of the officer in question).

If I'm wrong I'll go back and star every post you've ever made.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Bone75

William McCollum comes to mind.

Not even close by any measure.

a reply to: Bone75

Stars i am not so interested in, however a dollar for every post would be sufficient

a reply to: tigertatzen

I didn't see that there was actual video footage of the shooting...I'm not sure I can watch that.

No, there wasn't, that I'm aware of. At least it's not being released to the public. No, the video I was referring to was the one with the bicyclist and the dog.

The multiple shot thing bothers me, but since you mentioned the roles they were playing, that's bothering me too. If he was the perp and she was the cop, and he was demonstrating why police might use deadly force, why wasn't she the one with the gun?

She was "armed". It was a role playing demonstration in which the woman volunteered to act as an officer on duty, who must determine whether to shoot or not shoot, in a given situation. In my opinion, the cop who was acting as the criminal, intended to hypothetically "kill" the "cop", as part of the demonstration. "Bang Bang Bang you're dead, should've been faster." or some such lesson, to educate the public on how quickly things can go bad, and why deadly force is often the first and only options an officer may have.

I think this guy was so caught up in the script and high on his own adrenaline, that when he shot, and kept shooting, he couldn't pull out of character. I think he was enjoying playing the bad guy too much to notice the real life scenario unfolding around him until it was too late.

How the gun got loaded is beyond my speculation. I don't think this is cold blooded murder. It was an accident. A stupid accident, but an accident.

a reply to: Bedlam

I am not so sure it will play out that way this time. The dynamic is different. Something is decidedly off about this, and it's got my antennae up.

But regardless of what strangeness is going on here, I don't think people are going to react very well if this guy isn't held accountable for his actions. This was a nice old grandma lady who died after volunteering to play a role, completely trusting this officer to point a firearm at her and pull the trigger, in front of more than thirty witnesses.

She was not in custody, not pulled over, not a suspect in any crime. She was attending a class, where there was no reason for any live rounds to be accessible in the first place, and no reason for anyone to have gotten injured, much less killed with a firearm.

No, I don't think a slap on the wrist is going to happen here. This is something different altogether.

a reply to: windword

Well, now it makes more sense, thank you for clarifying. I still think something is off, but your perspective does sound logical and legitimate, and until my brain decides to cough up what's bothering me about this, I'm going to have to agree with you.

Regardless of whether he was high on adrenaline or just monumentally negligent in general, he doesn't need to continue wearing a badge, that's for sure. He has proven that he cannot be trusted to do his job in accordance with standards, is a loose cannon, and people like that have no place in law enforcement.

a reply to: Bone75

I have that knack too, and I have not been wrong very many times either. And I'm a puzzle person also...I see patterns in the details of things. The setup occurred to me as well, and if that's too farfetched for people, I'd remind them of the current election drama unfolding in front of them...it's got more insane, surreal plot twists than any bestseller out there...and the Fat Lady isn't even warmed up yet. As far as I'm concerned at this point, absolutely nothing is too farfetched anymore.

a reply to: imsoconfused

I think he was set up. Who put the bullets in the gun?

The cop had lawyers trying to get him fired. Probably rightfully so.

He was in a fire or no fire re-inactment where he was set to be the one pulling the trigger.

Or say why would he want to kill her like this?

a reply to: Bone75

No, this one's even more egregious but he'll still go through the kabuki and come out clean instead of getting a felony negligent homicide charge, because cop.

a reply to: tigertatzen

One could say the same for Charles Kinsey but the same thing will happen there. It'll be allowed to die down then the cop will be offered a plea to a minor misdemeanor and go about his business.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I'm just waiting for someone to post pictures of her from Facebook holding an illegal firearm whilst smoking a blunt.

That seems to be the going rate these days for death by executioner.

Yah really.

She was a "bad" person in some other aspect of her life so being killed by a cop was fully justified.

So if he can't keep not kill someone during a known exercise how can he be trusted in real world situations?

a reply to: carewemust

Wow! No, double WOW!!
Cops should be more careful because of potential retribution??
Since we don't attack each other on this board, I shant.
That does not mean I am politely disenchanted with your statement.

Cops take oaths to be paragons of positive virtues. Thinking that they need to act like freaking humans because they should fear extrajudicial backlash, like being shot for being (put really awful cursing nouns here) is what they should have had to fear before.

Laws are not theirs. Considering how many incredible, illegitimate laws there are, I'd love to blame them.
Now the Courts have granted they don't have to be smart, they don't have to know the laws and that they don't need a law to take you to task. They use their Unions, their connections in the judiciary and their participants, political punks wishing to prove they are tough on crime (as long as it isn't their minions involved), corruption money, BS enforcement (revenue enhancement), Zionist police training, to lord over us. Our guns, our dogs, our munitions, our armored vehicles then get deployed against us so they needn't fear for their lives. the lives they pledged to be ours in pursuing justice for all.

Screw this goofy system of authority and the authoritarians behind it.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Bone75

I also think it makes him the perfect target for a set up, especially considering the purpose of the demonstrations that he had been conducting for 2 years without a hitch.

Yes we are on a conspiracy site, but that is really clutching at straws....c'mon you do not seriously think that right? you are being facetious surely...

I have a knack for clutching at the RIGHT straws. I attribute it to the process of elimination puzzles I was addicted to as a kid.

This was a setup, not an accident (at least not on the part of the officer in question).

If I'm wrong I'll go back and star every post you've ever made.

i wonder what your certainty of a set up is based, have you seen subsequent evidence or eye witness testimony from people that were there, or anything but least bit investigative; or is this hunch a eurika moment whilst sitting firmly behind the keyboard.
ill be hyperbolic and say your addiction to process of elimination is logic-shrouding a bit; which is what every addiction does, physical or mental... online forums etc

It apparently just happened again in Tennessee, only this time they had got the kids out and were only running the drill with the teachers in the rooms. And one of the weapons was loaded with live ammo. "But it only hurt one concrete block a little bit"

This stuff just writes itself

eta: Note again that the cops will always call this sort of thing an "accidental discharge". That is categorically wrong. An accidental discharge happens when you're holstering the weapon and hook the trigger on something, or you're walking in trees and a twig pulls the trigger or the like.

This is a negligent discharge. The cops didn't accidentally discharge the weapon. THAT was intentional. It was supposed to be with blanks. It NOT being blanks is not accidental, it's negligent. You don't have live rounds ACCIDENTALLY load themselves into the magazine. If you've got a live round in a training scenario, someone #ed up.

originally posted by: Bedlam
It apparently just happened again in Tennessee, only this time they had got the kids out and were only running the drill with the teachers in the rooms. And one of the weapons was loaded with live ammo. "But it only hurt one concrete block a little bit"

This stuff just writes itself

eta: Note again that the cops will always call this sort of thing an "accidental discharge". That is categorically wrong. An accidental discharge happens when you're holstering the weapon and hook the trigger on something, or you're walking in trees and a twig pulls the trigger or the like.

This is a negligent discharge. The cops didn't accidentally discharge the weapon. THAT was intentional. It was supposed to be with blanks. It NOT being blanks is not accidental, it's negligent. You don't have live rounds ACCIDENTALLY load themselves into the magazine. If you've got a live round in a training scenario, someone #ed up.

Yeah, no conspiracy here.... move along folks.