http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=b95_1468030677

So was he under the influence when stooped by the cop, did he tell the cop he had a firearm and accidentally grab it instead of his wallet like he intended ?

Same characters, different day. This was on Fourth of July

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=b95_1468030677

smoking weed justifies being shot by a cop, got it.

smoking weed justifies being shot by a cop, got it.

Typical anti-cop comment.

Smoking weed with the child in the room sets a great example, and shows what upstanding, law-abiding people they both are/were.

But then, you knew that.  You're just making a straw argument -- no one posted what you said.

Has a pretty heated discussion over this on the drive home from golf yesterday.  Golfed with one of my best friends (former prosecutor and gun owner) and one of his buddies from law school.  I consider the "law school buddy (LSB)" a good friend as well.  He got his handgun certification and I've taken him shooting a couple of times.  Anyways, I HATE talking about politics, but the LSB starts a conversation about this incident and racial disparity.  The conversation went all over the place, but the main point that I wanted to share was how he felt that the officers were at fault and should have been better trained.  He basically parroted all the stuff stated by CNN.   This disappointed me because as an attorney, I would've thought that he would want to consider the facts of the case, which IMO he didn't really have.  I countered his points regarding training with how fast things can go south and when put into those situations, people from both sides of the argument have reacted the same way, which was to shoot first, even if the aggressor wasn't armed.  Why?  Because they felt threatened. . . I added other points, but he conceded that point.  The discussion also went to people of lower class and are they put there (oppressed) or do many either put themselves in that situation or languish there, however that would take pages to cover. 

What got me thinking after this discussion that because I hate discussions about politic (and religion), I very much avoid them.  Then I started thinking that maybe I am "part of the problem" in that I keep silent.  I've had many gun rights/control conversations with may of my good friends, but most of them are like-minded.  I had a gun conversation with another one of my best friends, who incidentally is an attorney and his brother is a cop.  We had a pretty heated discussion about gun control and I was able to get him to see the logic and truth regarding gun control and the abundance of misinformation.  That said, I generally avoid that discussion with others, but it's more like I don't put in the effort.  Part of that is I also am not as well "armed" with facts and counter arguments as I would like.  Many times, I find that after the conversation is over, I remember the things that I should have said. 

Typical anti-cop comment.

Smoking weed with the child in the room sets a great example, and shows what upstanding, law-abiding people they both are/were.

But then, you knew that.  You're just making a straw argument -- no one posted what you said.

I am pron cop but if an individual smokes weed on the 4 July and is pulled over days later for a broken tail light dose not mean he was reaching for his gun. And the cop might have been doing everything by the book. We won't know until more evidence comes out. Also this is a perfect example of why law enforcement should wear body cameras and why their is a need for civil review of those cameras.

I am pron cop but if an individual smokes weed on the 4 July and is pulled over days later for a broken tail light dose not mean he was reaching for his gun. And the cop might have been doing everything by the book. We won't know until more evidence comes out. Also this is a perfect example of why law enforcement should wear body cameras and why their is a need for civil review of those cameras.

Exactly.  We don't know and only the eye witness will have that information.  Even then, maybe only two people, the officers, may have had the necessary vantage point. 

People generally remember the first thing that they are presented in situations like this and sadly, many will only remember the passenger's video as the "truth".  It very well may be the truth.  However, while I very much doubt her version, I do have some questions regarding the officer's side as well.  I just don't have enough facts and we may never have all the facts.  I just wish people weren't so quick to rush to be judge and jury. 

Has a pretty heated discussion over this on the drive home from golf yesterday.  Golfed with one of my best friends (former prosecutor and gun owner) and one of his buddies from law school.  I consider the "law school buddy (LSB)" a good friend as well.  He got his handgun certification and I've taken him shooting a couple of times.  Anyways, I HATE talking about politics, but the LSB starts a conversation about this incident and racial disparity.  The conversation went all over the place, but the main point that I wanted to share was how he felt that the officers were at fault and should have been better trained.  He basically parroted all the stuff stated by CNN.   This disappointed me because as an attorney, I would've thought that he would want to consider the facts of the case, which IMO he didn't really have.  I countered his points regarding training with how fast things can go south and when put into those situations, people from both sides of the argument have reacted the same way, which was to shoot first, even if the aggressor wasn't armed.  Why?  Because they felt threatened. . . I added other points, but he conceded that point.  The discussion also went to people of lower class and are they put there (oppressed) or do many either put themselves in that situation or languish there, however that would take pages to cover. 

What got me thinking after this discussion that because I hate discussions about politic (and religion), I very much avoid them.  Then I started thinking that maybe I am "part of the problem" in that I keep silent.  I've had many gun rights/control conversations with may of my good friends, but most of them are like-minded.  I had a gun conversation with another one of my best friends, who incidentally is an attorney and his brother is a cop.  We had a pretty heated discussion about gun control and I was able to get him to see the logic and truth regarding gun control and the abundance of misinformation.  That said, I generally avoid that discussion with others, but it's more like I don't put in the effort.  Part of that is I also am not as well "armed" with facts and counter arguments as I would like.  Many times, I find that after the conversation is over, I remember the things that I should have said.

Dude you are just out of practice. I read somewhere that although many of the stupid liberal arguments over the years/decades have been illogical, irrational, etc. and very annoying to people who think objectively, one effect that is overlooked is that years and years of arguing (discussing, really, or should be) these issues has actually REFINED our skills in debating these topics. For example, gun control. Numerous MSM bullsh*t over the years, with numerous facts, statistics, logical thinking etc. supporting gun rights. Numerous analogies we can use to explain. For example whenever someone tells me people can just go hand to hand combat instead of shoot each other, that is a real easy one. I ask them how does a 100 lb woman go hand to hand against a 200 lb rapist? That's just one example.

Your debate-fu will increase in levels as you debate more. Maybe 9 times out of 10 the other person still refuses to see the light. But if you get through to one person, that person can start on his/her road to enlighten others and you recruited one more person to "join the team."

So, while annoying and frustrating at times, it is imperative that everyone speak up. The hard part is actually controlling yourself to no be annoyed even when the discussion goes into stupid-land.

It is very important not to present oneself as the angry, obsolete, half-wit clinging to guns, bible, and constitution, that the MSM loves to stereotype.

Sorry didn't mean to lecture. But really wanted to emphasize the importance of engaging in debates. Of course, if you feel the other person really is completely stupid and "brainwashed' by years of MSM content then cut your losses. No need to lose friends over this. I've actually seen friends eventually "wake up" after a few years, and then it's time for THEM to feel frustrated explaining things to another "libtard" LOL

I am pron cop but if an individual smokes weed on the 4 July and is pulled over days later for a broken tail light dose not mean he was reaching for his gun. And the cop might have been doing everything by the book. We won't know until more evidence comes out. Also this is a perfect example of why law enforcement should wear body cameras and why their is a need for civil review of those cameras.

The weed smoking is a straw argument, like I said.  Unless, of course, you believe the cop somehow knew they had smoked weed on July 4th!   

As for the real facts, let's wait and see what they are.  Traffic stop?  Subject looked like a robbery suspect?  Give the investigators some time!

The BCA said "several" videos, including squad car video, "have been collected as evidence." St. Anthony Police Department officers do not wear body cameras, the BCA release noted, and a gun was recovered on the scene.

Dude you are just out of practice. I read somewhere that although many of the stupid liberal arguments over the years/decades have been illogical, irrational, etc. and very annoying to people who think objectively, one effect that is overlooked is that years and years of arguing (discussing, really, or should be) these issues has actually REFINED our skills in debating these topics. For example, gun control. Numerous MSM bullsh*t over the years, with numerous facts, statistics, logical thinking etc. supporting gun rights. Numerous analogies we can use to explain. For example whenever someone tells me people can just go hand to hand combat instead of shoot each other, that is a real easy one. I ask them how does a 100 lb woman go hand to hand against a 200 lb rapist? That's just one example.

Your debate-fu will increase in levels as you debate more. Maybe 9 times out of 10 the other person still refuses to see the light. But if you get through to one person, that person can start on his/her road to enlighten others and you recruited one more person to "join the team."

So, while annoying and frustrating at times, it is imperative that everyone speak up. The hard part is actually controlling yourself to no be annoyed even when the discussion goes into stupid-land.

It is very important not to present oneself as the angry, obsolete, half-wit clinging to guns, bible, and constitution, that the MSM loves to stereotype.

Sorry didn't mean to lecture. But really wanted to emphasize the importance of engaging in debates. Of course, if you feel the other person really is completely stupid and "brainwashed' by years of MSM content then cut your losses. No need to lose friends over this. I've actually seen friends eventually "wake up" after a few years, and then it's time for THEM to feel frustrated explaining things to another "libtard" LOL

Thanks.  Nah, don't view that at a lecture and I pretty much ask/told myself the same thing last night.  That not putting in the time and effort just contributes to the perpetuation of misinformation by allowing it to spread. 

There are many times in the conversation yesterday that I just wanted to say "You're a democrat, aren't ya?"  But, I didn't.  Surprises me on may levels as he comes from a pretty affluent family that my understanding worked hard to get there through a couple of generations, to hear him comment about how many minorities are oppressed and such.  There are many points where he is very much the "I know what I know, don't confuse me with the facts" kind of person.  To that end, I will just back off, but my best friend, who knows him better will keep on it.  Well, they are both attorneys, so they like to argue.     At one point, the LSB got very quiet as we each presented counters to his comments/view points.  Mind you that my best friend and I were also approaching the argument from different perspectives as well, but both generally countering the LSB's arguments.  It was when LSB got very quiet that my best friend calmly said "are you getting mad?".  He was and I believe it was because he honestly felt he was right and we weren't hearing it. 

Yeah, I have to improve my debate-fu for sure.  There's definitely a lot of that going on here for sure, even though many debates tend to take tangents into who knows where. 

There's also the irrelevant, but highly relevant, factor of people's "face" and "self-esteem" in these debates.

So even if they secretly are getting convinced by you, not everyone will be man/woman enough to say upfront, you convinced me. I was wrong.

But if we do not let the debate go into argument phase, and get people's feelings involved, they might actually think over what you said and in the future, at least they won't argue the liberal side as heatedly, and accept perhaps it's not entirely correct what they tell you to think on TV.

One of the things I learned to overcome was to keep in mind the aim is not to prove that YOU are right. But to change the other person's mind. The two are not exactly the same, even though effectively they are.

In fact nobody LIKES to be proven wrong, because then it says, Hey, I was an idiot most of my life. Nobody likes that! LOL

Better to let them think, Oh, I was lied to, or hey, I wasn't told the right facts, thanks for letting me know. I guess I need to question my assumptions I had before.

Typical anti-cop comment.

Smoking weed with the child in the room sets a great example, and shows what upstanding, law-abiding people they both are/were.

But then, you knew that.  You're just making a straw argument -- no one posted what you said.

how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

smoking weed justifies being shot by a cop, got it.

NO, it dont But that being said, Smoking weed in a car with your kid shows shitty fuckin parenting skills, Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he got pulled over could explain a bunch of stuff, 

why was she dam calm when the guy next to her had just been shot.
why the kid in the back was so dam quite.
why he dident follow police instructions.
why he may have pulled a gun instead of his wallet.
why he was reaching for his wallet at the same time as telling the cop he had a gun.

how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

While it's not directly related to LE interactions, since you went off on the tangent of alcohol and morals ...

Alcohol linked to more homicides in US than any other substance

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140820/alcohol-linked-to-more-homicides-in-us-than-any-other-substance

CHICAGO — Which intoxicating substance is associated with the most lethal violence? Devotees of “The Wire” might presume that cocaine or maybe heroin would top the list, especially if you asked the worst causes of violence in poor, minority communities.

The correct answer, by far, is alcohol. It’s involved in more homicides than pretty much every other substance, combined. Alcohol’s relative importance has grown over the last fifteen years, as aging populations of cocaine users account for a declining proportion of violent crime. Here in Chicago, positive cocaine screens in the Cook County Jail are down by about half when compared with 10 or 20 years ago. The same is true in many other cities.

Surveys of people incarcerated for violent crimes indicate that about 40 percent had been drinking at the time they committed these offenses. Among those who had been drinking, average blood-alcohol levels were estimated to exceed three times the legal limit. Drinking is especially common among perpetrators of specific crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence.

Correlation does not equal causation, of course. If offenders all stopped drinking, we wouldn’t see a 100-percent reduction in their crimes. Yet alcohol does play a distinctive role. It lowers inhibitions and, among some people, fosters aggressive behavior that ratchets up the risk that violence will somehow occur. In my own career as a public health researcher, I’ve come into close contact with many intoxicated heroin and marijuana users. In these moments, I’ve never had reason to feel that my safety was at risk. I have been present for some scary incidents. Almost every time, alcohol was in the mix, often as things were getting a little late in a tough neighborhood near a liquor store.

Aside from its role among perpetrators of violence, alcohol use is widespread among victims, too. If alcohol makes you more likely to be a perpetrator of violence, almost by definition it makes you more likely to be a victim in the same incident. Downing some liquid courage may impair your judgment, which makes you a little less wary or a little more vulnerable in obvious ways. It may narrow your options and thus create other risks, too. You’re less likely to leave that cutting remark unanswered. If you’re unfit to drive, you’re more willing to accept that ride home from a helpful stranger.

how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

Wrong!  The difference is, weed is illegal (at least federally even if you have a medical marijuana card).  If the message you want to send your kids is "Break the law, just don't get caught", then I have to admit it's not how we raised our kids. 

You can live by your own "morals" in opposition to the law all you want if you are willing to accept the consequences.  By teaching your kids to do that, are you really doing them any favors?  Is recreational weed worth risking a police record and maybe getting fired/not hired from a company with a zero tolerance policy on drug use?

Sometimes when you're right, that's all you get to be.

how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

Isn't it still illegal to smoke weed in Hawaii unless you have specific medical or other needs? 

I don't have kids, but I don't really think any differently of friends who drink alcohol in front of their kids.  Tobacco is a little different due to second hand smoke, but if they are smoking away from the kids, then no worries.   Neither are illegal though. 

Maybe splitting hairs, but I believe laws are derived based on morals of a society, not where laws establish morals.  People have morals, or at least ideally should have morals independent of laws that attempt to govern behavior.  Where laws often get twisted is where people impose their morals on others. 

Isn't it still illegal to smoke weed in Hawaii unless you have specific medical or other needs? 

I don't have kids, but I don't really think any differently of friends who drink alcohol in front of their kids.  Tobacco is a little different due to second hand smoke, but if they are smoking away from the kids, then no worries.   Neither are illegal though. 

Maybe splitting hairs, but I believe laws are derived based on morals of a society, not where laws establish morals.  People have morals, or at least ideally should have morals independent of laws that attempt to govern behavior.  Where laws often get twisted is where people impose their morals on others.

laws aren't indicators of morals of a society. what is the morality of a law that makes people pay the city for driving faster than what is posted on a sign? what is the moral behind making one plant illegal while others are subsidized? what is the moral behind firearms registration? where are the morals in laws that fine the homeless for sleeping on the beach?

using these terrible immoral laws as a basis of saying the police are justified in shooting people that refuse to comply with these laws is the high of immorality. Saying someone is bad simply because they follow law #150872 is i no way a justification to give police the powers to shoot people.

laws aren't indicators of morals of a society. what is the morality of a law that makes people pay the city for driving faster than what is posted on a sign? what is the moral behind making one plant illegal while others are subsidized? what is the moral behind firearms registration? where are the morals in laws that fine the homeless for sleeping on the beach?

using these terrible immoral laws as a basis of saying the police are justified in shooting people that refuse to comply with these laws is the high of immorality. Saying someone is bad simply because they follow law #150872 is i no way a justification to give police the powers to shoot people.

Don't agree with the consequences?  Then work to change the law.  Until then ...