Will Cleveland Burn?

[rogue06]

Nope. Wouldn't have even had time to do so even if he had it in his hands (let alone follow any orders from the officers) - the officer was out of the car and already shooting before it even came to a stop.

Note the post above yours. After the film was enhanced it showed that he was pulling the pellet gun (which is very hard to distinguish from a real hand gun) from his waist band when the officer fired.

[Gondwanaland]

Note the post above yours. After the film was enhanced it showed that he was pulling the pellet gun (which is very hard to distinguish from a real hand gun) from his waist band when the officer fired.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...report-n474906

[rogue06]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...report-n474906

Years out of date and before the video was enhanced.

[Gondwanaland]

Years out of date and before the video was enhanced.

Dude, it's from literally 25 days before your source that you referred me to. If mine is out of date, so the heck is yours.

EDIT: and here's a VICE article, about the enhanced video, written several days before my article you claim is 'years out of date and before the video was enhanced'. Boy they must be some time travelers: https://www.vice.com/en/article/59ey...shooting-video

[seanD]

Nope. Wouldn't have even had time to do so even if he had it in his hands (let alone follow any orders from the officers) - the officer was out of the car and already shooting before it even came to a stop.

Question is, why did he decide to take the gun out when the police arrived? Did the police ask him where the gun was and then he reached for it to show them it was just a pellet gun and not a real gun, or did he decide to take it out and display it to the police for no reason? The former makes more sense.

[Gondwanaland]

Question is, why did he decide to take the gun out when the police arrived? Did the police ask him where the gun was and then he reached for it to show them it was just a pellet gun and not a real gun, or did he decide to take it out and display it to the police for no reason? The former makes more sense.

It's debateable that he was even pulling the toy fun out.

There was no time for the police to say or do anything, they literally shot him before their car even stopped moving. Literally, within 2 seconds of driving in like they were nuts.

[seanD]

It's debateable that he was even pulling the toy fun out.

There was no time for the police to say or do anything, they literally shot him before their car even stopped moving. Literally, within 2 seconds of driving in like they were nuts.

It takes like 2 seconds. "Where's the (F-word) gun!" I can see that, because I've seen them do that to other suspects they roll up on like that.

Note that I'm not defending the cops here, I'm actually taking your side. I think it was the fault of the cops for rolling up on someone like that they thought was a suspect. I doubt that's typical police protocol to do that to a suspect they think has a gun. Though I could be wrong, and I'm sure the experts will correct me.

[Gondwanaland]

It takes like 2 seconds. "Where's the (F-word) gun!"

That's more than 2 seconds right there.

I can see that, because I've seen them do that to other suspects they roll up on like that.

Note that I'm not defending the cops here, I'm actually taking your side. I think it was the fault of the cops for rolling up on someone like that they thought was a suspect. I doubt that's typical police protocol to do that to a suspect they think has a gun. Though I could be wrong, and I'm sure the experts will correct me.

It's sadly a mixture of issues. Poor training, trigger-happy cops, and in this case, an incompetent 911 dispatcher who didn't tell them everything that the caller said (the caller noted the gun was likely a toy, and that Rice was likely an adolescent). Failures all around.

[rogue06]

Dude, it's from literally 25 days before your source that you referred me to. If mine is out of date, so the heck is yours.

EDIT: and here's a VICE article, about the enhanced video, written several days before my article you claim is 'years out of date and before the video was enhanced'. Boy they must be some time travelers: https://www.vice.com/en/article/59ey...shooting-video

My bad. I thought the article was since the decision was made not to charge, which was a couple days ago.

But the enhanced video showing him reaching into his waistband and grabbing the pellet gun is the reason the cop wasn't prosecuted.

[Gondwanaland]

My bad. I thought the article was since the decision was made not to charge, which was a couple days ago.

But the enhanced video showing him reaching into his waistband and grabbing the pellet gun is the reason the cop wasn't prosecuted.

Rather, the editorialized frames telling them what to see, are the reason he wasn't prosecuted. Much like those ghost EVPs on ghost hunting shows where you'd never hear something, but then you do hear it because they put subtitles on the screen of what you're supposed to 'hear'.

[rogue06]

Rather, the editorialized frames telling them what to see, are the reason he wasn't prosecuted. Much like those ghost EVPs on ghost hunting shows where you'd never hear something, but then you do hear it because they put subtitles on the screen of what you're supposed to 'hear'.

It seems that the feds saw the same thing.

[firstfloor]

Wishing you a better new year, sir.

So, it starts like this: Scott Watson had a difficult upbringing, his father was a drug addict and dealer. Scott eventually decided he did not want to end up where his friends ended up, he got an education and joined the police.

On his first day on patrol, responding to numerous calls, his fellow officers were amazed that he knew all the people they encountered.

Later, he became disenchanted when white cops took action against efforts to recruit more black cops.

It ends on a more positive note.


All the best to you too, CP.
And a happy new year to all at Tweb.

[CivilDiscourse]

Rather, the editorialized frames telling them what to see, are the reason he wasn't prosecuted. Much like those ghost EVPs on ghost hunting shows where you'd never hear something, but then you do hear it because they put subtitles on the screen of what you're supposed to 'hear'.

That's called priming. It's generally what caused people to hear satanic voices when records were played backwards.

Probably the most egregious version of that I've seen is when wikileaks leaked the video "Collateral Murder". The problem was they didn't leak the raw video, they leaked an annotated video that pointed out identities, identified a video camera, etc. It "helpfully" filled in all the gaps that the pilots and gunners of the helicopter didn't have. Suddenly everyone who saw the video were wondering how these pilots could have ever done such a thing...