Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Riots in Ferguson sparking as a result of an officer killing a black teenager. A twelve-year-old boy with a toy gun shot dead by a cop within seconds. A man's dog was killed after an officer illegally trespassed on the man's property. And "Let's Be Cops" receives hoards of one star ratings.

It seems that the police are getting more heat than they usually do. Whether it is in protest of their militarized weaponry or their abuse, they seem to be having a hard time. With everything that's going on with our civil protectors, our knights in blue, what do you think of them now?

At least they're not going to whistle and look the other way when a lynch mob happens; they straight out shoot your darker folks on-sight, so you don't have to do the dirty work!

All jest aside, I don't think of the officers today as any more prestigious than your average gangster.  If you're pulling a stupid test on them, you get shot for it.  Unless you personally know said officer / gangbanger, they'd probably give you a funny look for waving around (from what they can see) a gun, if you're walking like you own their hood, etc.  They just do what they have to.  If you feel entitled otherwise, at least you can argue your case in court against an officer, or just include gangster meat in your siu-mai wontons.

I was watching cops yesterday (one of my favorite "I'm bored and nothing else is on" shows) and the officer told some men to step out of a vehicle and put their hands up. The suspects slowly put their hands above their head, and the officer then grabs them, slams them against the car and onto the ground. Then he twists their arms while putting pn the cuffs. These men weren't resisting mind you.

Another time, this woman who was a drug user got the same treatment. Again she wasn't resisting, but that didn't stop the two cops from twisting her up like a pretzel before finally putting handcuffs on her. I honesty could not stop laughing when she was screaming about how sorry she is and that she already gave up. I'm a cruel person I know.

Still, in the back of my mind I always think that none of that would actually happen, at least to an extent, if those people knew how to deal with cops.

I don't think the idea of having a police is bad; just who are chosen for the job and how they are chosen. But, that's just my opinion.

The problem is that people who want to be cops are generally trigger happy, and it's not like you need to get the best grades to become a cop, so many are bloodthirsty men with a bellow average intelligence. England did it right by not giving their police force guns.

It's not that they're trigger happy.  It's that the schoolyard bully has a very limited job pool from which to choose.  And as we all know, bullies are cowards.  That is why they draw on someone much smaller that themselves, or harass someone of a different race, etc...

I don't think they realize what they are promoting, the kind of world they are leaving to their progeny.  The general public's efforts are undermined on a daily basis by these few misguided, short-sighted individuals.

Case with the twelve year old was idiotic to the max. A 12 year old with a gun would have fired shots, shots fired would have been reported and heard, the officer was a fucking dumbass who didn't think through the situation. So was the person who called it in, and so was the dispatcher (who was stupid enough to neglect to mention that the person who called it in said that it might not be a real gun).

Fergusson is justified for different reasons (in the police's favour) - the main one being that the black guy totally had it coming, he robbed a store and then the officer saw him, tried to arrest him and was then assaulted by the guy in his own car. The guy was fucking huge, already had a history of violence and was attacking him, thousands of police die every single year because they're too stupid or reluctant to grab their guns and shoot when they are in this exact situation. He shot and killed the guy - not in the back while he was running away, physical evidence shows that no bullets ever entered his back. Witnesses who lied and said that the man had his hands up or tried to run and was gunned down later recanted their stories and admitted that they were just repeating what they'd heard.

The only reason anything was made of that case was because the police in Ferguson are so racist on a day-to-day basis that it was all judged by outsiders before any of the evidence was actually examined.

The rioters are mostly people from outside of Ferguson, rather than actual Ferguson citizens. They come from out of town and then riot there, knowing that they aren't actually damaging anything that would affect them. Because, you know, destroying your own shit in a riot is stupid.

^Agree^

^All te more reason why the riot police should've put down those riots with (preferably) a little more than tear gas.

Still don't get why you think a 12 year old with a gun would be shooting it. I agree that the cop acted too quickly, but I still don't get your logic.

If the 12 year old has a gun, he doesn't have it to wave around and show the other kids, he's shooting the damn thing. What the fuck do you think a 12 year old does with a metal stick that creates explosions? Look at it real slow and hide it away without using it?

I think you're viewing twelve-year olds as younger and more immature than they actually are. :P. No 12 year old views a gun that way afaik, nor do I think one would start shooting randomly with it. The kid was waving it around and scaring other people with his BB-gun (without the safety-thing showing it was just a 'fake' gun) and he wasn't shooting that, so I still don't get why you think he'll be shooting a real gun on account of his age.

For my own opinion, I pretty much agree with Bo's post.

Not at all, if I had a real gun at 12 years old I would fire it like crazy. Not at other people mind you, but I would definitely shoot it at least once. You were clearly just a boring-as-hell child.

I just... wut.

I think I started going to the firing range at that age, and there were several people younger than me there who weren't going literally ballistic, so it can't just be me :P

Hate to say it Tan, but I would do the same thing at 12 XD. If I even found a stick I would run around hitting shit if it looked cool to hit with a stick. We lost so many lawn ornaments that way :P

Ridiculous, though absolutely fascinating how different upbringings can affect a tween. I simply can't imagine someone of that age to start shooting randomly with an actual gun. With a BB-gun maybe, because it's practically a toy, but... An actual pistol? And the logic is that a 12 year old would be shooting it if he had it?
A stick is totally different though, because your hitting someone with something that doesn't seem lethal. I'd think that anybody with a gun knows what it can do. Either way, that sounds like something one would do if he was seven or eight, not twelve :P

I just disagree with what you three are saying XD

Well remember that this kid was in Cleveland, a fairly large city with a growing gang problem. Gangs initiate members who are sometimes as young as twelve or thirteen (I saw on gangland that one guy joined a gang when he was ten -_-) and so police have to be on watch for that. Plus when you see the surveillance video (http://nypost.com/2014/11/27/cops-release-video-of-officer-fatally-shooting-12-year-old/) two things are immediately noticeable:

1.) That was one tall twelve year old. At twelve he was almost as tall as the police officer who opened fire, and so could be mistaken as someone of an older age

2.) Watch the kid's right hand as the police tell him to put down the gun (at least, that's what they say they said). He immediately brings his arm up and points the weapon at the police car window. If a gun (remember, there was no orange ring to indicate that it was a toy) being put in your face is not a threatening situation, I don't know what is.

I agree with THAT.
I disagree with you, Ford, and Drak saying that it was obvious that it was a fake gun because a 12 year old would actually shoot a real gun for the lulz.

Oh I'm not saying it was obviously fake (I actually believe the opposite), I'm saying that I would DEFINATELY shoot a gun at 12. Two completely different statements :)

Hallelujah.

Next time you're in the boonies, try running.  See if they leave you be, or if they have to make your business their own.  When they stop you and ask what you're doing, just say you wanted to pick up a cop.  Tell them that you want them in your business *wag eyebrows*.  xD

Once, in Texas on our way to Austin, we stopped in a roadside park to enjoy Spam sandwiches, and were soon surrounded by bicycle cops.  They told us about the types of people that stop there at night.  I looked around at them (in their short pants) and knew instantly what they were inferring.  I half-expected to see a construction worker and Indian Chief peddling up after them, but I guess that was just implied as well.

My point was that Me thinks they protest too loudly.

Okay...I think they were projecting themselves on to us.

Some are good some are bad. I don't think things have changed recently.

1.) Self defense, but there's a whole thread devoted to this so I'm not too worried about this point :P

2.) Yeah I read about that, it was tragic :(. However, the dispatcher didn't tell them that the gun was a toy (even though the dispatcher had the info) and when the cops told the kid to drop the gun he actually pointed it at them. In a world where gangs  intitate members at twelve and thirteen and these kids go on to kill people, police actually have to respond these way to armed kids in the inner city.

3.) What happened there? I haven't heard about this one yet.

4.) That was a movie where guys did stupid things while pretending to be cops. It wasn't a cop movie :P

But yeah, I pretty much look at them them the same still. They have a magnifying glass to their actions right now because of Ferguson and everyone's out to get them, but when there are people who intentionally try to kill police on principle they tend to not give the other side time to kill them first. Especially when there's an entire method of suicide dedicated specifically to killing as many police officers as you can before you turn the gun on yourself (google "suicide by cop").

That being said, there are definately bad cops out there. Nobody can deny that. There are bad cops who work side by side my with my own father and let me tell you that these guys cause the good cops HUGE headaches. But regardless of whether you're a good cop or a bad cop, you get disrespected or even shot at all the same.

That's why I'm asking for the link or what happened. Because most people make judgements very similar to the one's you're making without even bothering to look at the evidence. Just look at Ferguson. ALL of the physical evidence pointed away from the testimony that incriminated the officer, and the officer had clearly shown injuries all over his face and neck from when he was assaulted. Most of the witnesses even retracted their statements when shown the evidence claiming that they were just repeated what they heard in the neighborhood or on social networking sites. However, everyone just keeps repeating the same "he was shot in the back!" or "he had his hands up!" shit that was already clearly debunked regardless of what actually happened.

But yeah, I ranted for a bit but that's why I don't just trust random posters who typically have no clue what they're talking about :)

I was guilty of that.  Too bad people have to lie.  I don't understand them myself.  I mean, why lie when the truth will do.  I still think the cop could've handled the situation better, but hindsight is 20/20.  And foresight isn't a common trait to the vast majority of people.

I did that too during the Zimmerman trials. I was one of the people out there campaining against "injustice" until more and more evidence was released that showed he was pretty much innocent (not completely innocent, but definately not homicide). The problem with these things is that people get so concerned with the hype that they ignore all the facts.

I still believe that Zimmerman should've minded his own business.  I mean, not only was he not a cop, he had been turned away several times because of psychological issues.  That whole episode could've been avoided if he had only known his own place, and let the police do their jobs.  If people would work together, instead of going off half-cocked and try to take the law into their own hands, we'd all be better off.

That's what I thought too, until the evidence suggested that he DID in fact turn around and walk back to his car after the police told him to. He had injuries on him showing that he had been attacked from behind by Martin.

As for minding his business, he was a security guard for the housing section, that WAS his business :P.

The irony is real... :P 

I'm from St. Louis originally. I do not prefer police if I had to choose, as some of you may suspect. However, I know not to attack the police. At least not without Mr. Pointy.

Is Mr. Pointy a weapon of sorts? 

Preferably not a "biological weapon." 

A shank from behind.

Damn, never found that path :/. Time to replay the game!

XD
It's the path to get the second medalion piece

No, I'm saying that the internet is full of them (seriously, try to argue that there aren't :P) so as a result I can't just believe when somebody posts an opinion on an internet forum without supplying some kind of evidence first. 

Oh, in that case the letters in the second link describe pretty much everything you need to know. There were exigent circumstances allowing the officer to enter the man's yard without a warrant in search of the missing 3 year old. Once there, he was charged by a dog which he then shot and killed in self defense. Even if he wasn't an officer and was being tried in criminal court, he would have been acquitted as well if he killed a dog that was charging him. It sucks that a dog was killed, yeah, but there wasn't anything else he could do at the time. 

The reasoning for entering the yard can be pretty much summed up by the quote given in the second link:

“Imagine the outcry if that child was in that yard injured, abducted… and we did nothing?” he said.

Firstly, officers searching adjacent properties said they heard and saw the dog next door. The subject claimed he was oblivious to the dog's presence. How could he have been oblivious to this dog, who was obviously very upset and vocal? Also, why was the subject chosen to check the back yards while his partner made contact with the property's owner, if it was known that the subject did not have training in dealing with aggressive dogs? Many people with fenced-in yards keep dogs and it is not unusual in the least for these dogs to be protective of their homes. Also, if the child was in that yard, it is unlikely that they would've found it, since they managed to completely overlook the child when they searched the family's home.

On the other hand, that's what the owner gets for naming his dog after the German word for "ghost".

1.) The articles you gave stated that they couldn't make contact with the owner of the house. That's why he was searching the yard, as he was instructed to do. 

2.) There is police training specifically dealing with aggressive dogs? If they have that they certainly don't teach it in central Alabama, but idk about wherever they are

3.) Nobody's doubting that it's natural for a dog to defend his home, the question on whether they should charge the officer revolves around  a.) whether the officer was justified in entering the property and b.) whether the officer was justified in shooting the dog. Because a.) the officer was instructed by his superior to search the yard of any property where they couldn't make contact with the owner, and b.) the dog was charging at the officer aggressively, both questions have been answered as justified.

4.) Your child point is completely moot because they wouldn't have known they overlooked them. Saying that they were wrong  when they guessed where they child was in hindsight does not mean that he was unjustified in killing the dog

5.) That was a fantastic joke

1) Actually, he was going around to the backyard at the same time his partner was making contact. He wasn't waiting for his partner to make contact before he checked the yard.

2) There is, actually, and it was mentioned in one of the articles on that site that several of SLCPD's officers have had training with such scenarios. Which begs the question of why the guy who didn't have training in such scenarios was picked to search the back yards. I am not suggesting that his partner had the training and he didn't (it wasn't specified in the article). But, it is odd that the one guy with no experience in dealing with such situations was sent to check backyards.

3) I'm saying that a prudent person would have assumed that there was a dog inside of a backyard with a latched fence, especially given the vocal nature of the dog. The officer claimed to be unaware of the dog, which is part of the reason why he supposedly had to resort to lethal force.

4) That wasn't a point and it wasn't intended to be, just a statement of irony and the fact that obviously they didn't have their shit together.

5)Thanks.

1.) Was this at the same time as the man was talking to the owner of the property or did he leave before the owner actually came to the door? Was this in one of the two articles linked? I couldn't find it.

2.) Well it's not that odd if you think about it. They dispatched several officers to comb the neighborhoods, but clearly not all of them had that specific training. It was less of "let's send this one officer without training to search the yard" and more of the specific guy who happened to search the ard just didn't have the training

3.) well this can be chalked up to multiple reasons, most depending on the layout of the neighborhood and when the other officers heard the dog barking. For example, if the neighborhood is one where the backyard is fenced off and on the other side of that fence is another backyard to the house on the neighboring street, then they might not be able to discern if the barking was coming from that specific house. Likewise, did the officers hear the dog before the specific time that the officer in question entered the yard, or did they hear the barking after he entered the yard and the dog attacked? Does it state that in whatever source you pulled the evidence from?

1) It was in the second link. More specifically, in the statement by W₁, found in the PCRB investigation report. He stated that he was at the door trying to make contact with the owner when he heard the dog growling and barking followed by gunshots.

3) To both of your questions, yes. See the statements of W and W₂ in the PCRB investigation report. From their statements, it appears they knew which yard the dog was in.

1.) So he was trying to make contact, meaning he had not yet been succesful in it?

3.) I'll look them up in a sec. For the first time in my life I actually have to go to a florist

Wouldn't it have just been easier to pin the dog down to the ground or scare it off instead of shooting it?

Have you tried pinning a dog that is trying to bite you down? Or scare something that's charging you?

Still don't know where James got the idea that 'most' police officer's are just trying to hurt others without consequence. I'd wager that most police-officers aren't in it just in it for the sake of bullying others. I'm sure there's enough studies to do some sort of math-thing to see how many police officers were corrupt out of all the police officers ever, but I doubt it would support that argument.

Actually yes, I've been a large german shepard who was trying to bite me once. Not exactly fun but it's possible.

Wouldn't shooting his gun at something nearby instead of the dog result in the dog retreating? Most dogs I know tend to get terrified when they hear a gunshot(or something like it).

I'd have say that the cop was probably taken by surprise, and something-something muscle memory made him defend himself in that way.

Still think it's funny to say that he killed a dog just so he could abuse his privilege.

I think the popular argument now is "He's been shot three times and the officer had a nightstick and  a cannister of pepper spray" 

So the dispatcher fucked up which cost a kid's life. 

And who the fuck calls the cops on a kid with a toy gun in the first place? (Or was it a BB or something?) 

It wasn't a toy gun, it was a real gun that the kid had. It was a mistake by the reporters and they put it down as a toy gun. 

Totally.

Btw, where tf's your tea-sipping Hay-seus?

Yeah...

No. 

I'm just going to chime in here.

While what happened was tragic and all most of the evidence does point to the cop being in the right. On the manner of police brutality many police do use excessive force when apprehending a suspect simply because that's how their trained. I view the police as an injustice simply because they get away with so much because no one wants to arrest a friend. This is from witnessing it mind you. A police officer in my town who is married asked a girl out on a date when she refused he used police resources to stalk her to her house and keep on pestering her for a date. This officer was only fired for misuse of resources he could have been arrested for any manner of reasons. While the riots in Ferguson are unnecessary it is mainly over reaction on both ends and as such shouldn't be subject to favor.

So in summary while the police do misuse their power often and are sometimes brutal, it doesn't call for the looting of shops and burning them to the ground to support a dead child. A peaceful protest? Sure if you feel that way, but horrible damage to public property, vandalism and rioting? no that is not called for.

Eric Garner was killed by police a while ago. The cops that did it were recently cleared of it and won't be indicted (won't be charged/go to trial). Though the main cop who choked him has had his badge/gun revoked it seems.

The kicker here is there's a video of him being taken down by police, who crush/choke him, while he pleads saying he can't breath. Autopsy done by a coroner confirms the police were the cause of his death.

People riot over Brown, a guy whose case was shaddy at best, and barely care about this case, where it's incredibly obvious the cop was in the wrong.

God dammit America, what are you doing?

Holy shit. That's insane. I never heard of that one. 

People are protesting over that too. Pretty damn bizarre the media isn't publicizing it as much though, because that's pretty straight forward police brutality.

When has American Media ever broadcasted the correct response to problems like this? 

Not sure how accurate but isn't most A-Media only found when people actually bother looking for it? Just like the Internet(For the most part.)?

Yeah, but their protests so far are like, blocking a single road.

My guess is because he was older. They could spin brown into being called a kid/teen (even though he was 18 and huge). This guy was a big adult with 6 six. Less sympathy for him I guess.

I'd think that a man with kids being killed would be more sympathetic. :P

Only thing I can think of is that the M. Brown story could be manipulated to be more about racism... Somehow. I'd have to read more on the cases, but it's my current groundless theory.

KKK hangs black people + Black person gets strangled to death = Police are KKK.

You were right, Tans! We were so blind all this time!

What.
 

My guess is more along the lines of that the media wants the thing that will cause the biggest boom. Which one grabs your attention, Man killed by police brutality? Or black kid killed because of race?

That's true, the media only really cares about selling stories and what will get the most views.

Because one is pretty clean cut with video evidence that really disturbs people. So they don't show that one because a majority people look at that and say, "Fuck that was wrong."

With the fergasian case it wasn't as clear cut until all the evidence was released.

Well, now it has exploded.

wait, what happened? I really just look at international news online.

Slew of protests sweeping the nation yet again.  Ferguson now forms a formal protest composed of school students for this incident specifically, but a few deviants plowed through four cops in a car.  NYC also has some riots, though the count is definitely lower than Ferguson.

For the most part, though there's less coverage for an easy case like this (someone call a blackhat and find the names of the grand jury that concurred with innocent; makes no sense to let an officer go if he used improper techniques and killed a person because of it, regardless of health conditions and resistance; on top of that, if this is so easy to call a "guilty", why won't the media cover it?  Money?), it's definitely on TV.

From what I heard, there are some riots there.

However, the issue is being played out as a white and black issue instead of police brutality.

There was supposedly both a black cop present along with an black woman Sergeant present when this happened.

The man's crime was not letting the state collect a tax on cigarettes.

He did not resist.

Cops proceeded to act like he was resisting.

He repeatedly said that he could not breath.

Cops present found they needed to continue to use force.

Eric ended up going into cardiac arrest and dying.

I was watching the news while on break at work, was that the same as the story about the 'chokehold' death?

Yeah but pointing out that if you can speak you can breath.

Not that agree with what happened this was a terrible tragedy. The cop should have gone to jail on at least a man slaughter charge.

That's one of the cases I side against the police on. The officer needs to be charged with manslaughter at the very minimum since he killed him using an improper chokehold

Agreed 

http://http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-killed-tamir-rice-found-unfit-previous-police-job-n261111

Link's invalid, for some reason.

Edit : accessed it via google...oddly enough.  That, and this one's about the toy-gun incident.

Lol. Non-threaded, remember? :P 

Non threaded shouldn't affect hyperlinks.

I thought you were referring to me responding to a random post. =D 

Why don't people look at the god damn evidence! There are several different scenarios where there is a video of what happens, with a policeman killing a black boy or man, and yet they still press no charges against him.

Even with video evidence, you have no idea the amount of "he-said, she-said, I-thought" that still goes on. Unless you outright crush his larynx in that chokehold on tape, you might get out if you can argue your point well enough. However, you have to realize the guy wasn't actually choked to death. He was breathing until he got to the hospital, and the Dr./autopsy man said that a few problems contributed to his death, that included, but were by no means limited to, his being choked by an officer. Of course, the news hears the word "choke" and immediately jumps to that conclusion to get watched by you, the viewers, and this kind of thing doesn't exactly surface until a while after.

But still, that's a fucking manslaughter if I ever saw one.

Well, a choke hold is illegal and the policeman shouldn't have used it in the first place. There is clear footage of that, in a few cases. Such as the black man who sold cigarettes on the street corner. It was a minor crime, the police officer came, the guy didn't resist physically but asked the police officer to just leave him alone to do his business, and the police man gave him some crap and called in a few reinforcements, and then after three more policemen came, one of them got the dude in an illegal choke hold and the others restrained him. The guy repeated seven times 'I can't breath, I can't breath', and the police officer continued to choke him and eventually kill him.

Also, I didn't know you could have sexual intercourse with the act of manslaughter. XD

It's called "necrophila." You should try it sometime; it's quite fulfilling... 

I, personally, could not have sex with manslaughter, unless it's the name of an all-female metal band. (But, given their name, I don't think they'd much appreciate my attempts at seduction...) I'm sure somebody, somewhere has gotten the hang of having sex with mnslaughter, somehow.

Maybe they are just really into femdom and bondage fetishes.

That's the best possible scenario. Just to be safe, I'm going to assume the title "Manslaughter" means that they bite during oral and/or think that autoerotic asphyxiation works with every man, and stay the fuck away from their beds because of that.

... Have you seen Teeth? It may shed some light... 

No, but I have read the Shinto story about the young woman who had a demon inhabitting her vagina and killing all her partners through dick-bleedouts. She had to hire a blacksmith to make the first ever dildo (out of iron) to break all the demon's teeth and choke it to death.

"Ah yeah! Damn girl you got the best pussy ever! I could stay in this pussy for like a week! Shit! It's like I dunno, fuck. It's like it feels like you got another mouth down there."

The high priestess just looks into your eyes and smiles again saying:

"I do."

Now you've also encountered some weird shit before, but nothing like this. Especially nothing involving thrusting your dick into. Your eyes actually widen and you almost immediately pull out, but the high priestess urges you against that plan.

"Don't you dare pull out. You're mine now. Try to leave me and you'll lose your best friend. Besides isn't better here, where it's warm and safe?"

You can't argue with that logic. You continue fucking her as if your dick depended on it, and it probably does.

It's from one of his stories only published on the infinite-story website.

Da fuck?

Kinda surprised you're not writing over-the-top erotica on other sites for the lulz.

He is. You ever read his stuff on Infinte story? That was a direct quote from one of them.

No, Swift means EROTICA erotica. You know, the kind where the author actually intended for the readers to be masturbating to it.

Still thinking : if the police are gonna look bad anyways (like they've been for the past few years since the revival of an actual "my niqqa" population and sand people threats), and the riots at Ferguson were as predictable as a bird shitting mid-flight, why wasn't the city put in martial law to prevent damages to buildings and property of the people of Ferguson and take out the rabble (aka lower masses with little to no education who make Everests out of Wycheproofs) rioters?  It'd save a lot of trouble in the future...

I just have the urge to say it in half jest, half-honesty : if liberals are going to complain, give them something hard-hitting and good to actually complain about.  Like actual hollow-points and shells.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex-officer-not-charged-in-fatal-milwaukee-shooting/ar-BBh6MUU

Yay, more civil unrest.

Well the problem is as more and more people unite under Ferguson and begin targeting law enforcement (3 officers were murdered as a direct result this month alone) the law enforcement is going to start sticking together too. One thing I've noticed when being raised by an officer is that they're like a brotherhood. When one cop is killed, no matter if they're your next door neighbor or some guy in Texas you've never met before, all the cops feel it. Until protestors try to handle things peacefully, there's no way this will end well.

That's why you're starting to see more cases where the cop is blatantly wrong yet nothing happens. I'm not gonna say that's what happened in this case (because I haven't researched it on my own yet), but it's what I believe is behind what happened behind the "I can't breathe" case. The officer who applied the chokehold was not only wrong for doing it, but did it in such an improper way that it caused the man to suffocate. However, in response to the recent responses to Ferguson (which, less face it, the Brown's "innocence" was sketchy at best) and other cases, law enforcement is going to start looking after their own more than usual.

Actually, the chokehold the officer performed was supposedly legal, and the reason why Eric Garner died was because he was, on addition to being choked, obese and as such he had a heart attack. Legally, the officer was in the right, even though everyone agrees he should have stopped when Garner was pleading for him to stop.

 But yeah, I've read several articles this month about Cops being shot and run over by civilians.

If I was a white cop working right now and I got a call in a black neighborhood I would drive real slow or call for backup as quickly as I could.

It was a Hispanic (if I tell correctly by name) who killed the cop in Florida, so cops have to be careful everywhere they go at this point haha.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st-louis-county-police-officer-shoots-kills-man-who-drew-gun-at-gas-station/ar-BBhand9

Yay.