Police Killed An Unarmed White Man In Iowa And His Community Didn't Seem To Notice

a reply to: butcherguy

So the police officer shoots an unarmed man. The officer was inside the car with the windows rolled up. What is the excuse for shooting him?
Any outrage?

A female cop killing a white male perpetrator doesn't make it through the media filter, which in turn doesn't reach the public hashtag kangaroo court.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
Emulating ignorance with more ignorance is the answer? WTH?

Second...

a reply to: Abysha

Protesting the police shooting of an unarmed American is the opposite of ignorance.

After seeing how these cases go, time and time again, with the officer getting a paid vacation and using the old bulletproof standby of "I felt threatened", I don't see why an immediate community mobilization demanding action and answers is "ignorant".

The history of these scenarios tells us to not expect justice to be served if we are patient.

Agreed!

But why do we focus our hate on the police and not the judges and judicial system that protects them, while making us the criminals of society?

Why not focus the hate on the "LAW MAKERS" and "MONEY TAKERS?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Tindalos2013
The cop should have used a Taser Gun if no weapon was visible at the time.

This post was typed with purpose.

Did the officer have a taser?
What does departmental policy say about using a taser during a deadly force encounter?

I did not know so I looked it up and found these.

Taser polices for Desmoine

Emperical Data for Iowa on use of Tasers

Standard operating procedures

originally posted by: RomeByFire

That - and, "walked with a purpose."

I can not get over that. "He walked with a purpose."

So what did he do? Strut his hips and show off dat booty?

Cop logic is too fun to implore

Describing the suspects behavior is important. Walking with a purpose is valid description, along with "bladed body" "puffed out chest" "thousand yard stare" "hands were balled into fists" "swayed from side to side" "one foot in front of the other in a quick movement stance" "smelled of intoxicating odor" "blood shot eyes" "slurred speech" "inability to multitask" "inability to follow basic commands" "refused to comply with verbal commands" "refused to stop for an emergency vehicle with lights and siren activated" "profusely sweating in conditions where sweating doesn't normally occur" "stripping off clothing in inappropriate temperatures" etc etc etc.

The more descriptive a report is, especially when describing a persons actions / behaviors, the better.

a reply to: Tindalos2013

The incident involved Des Moines Iowa city police and the Taser policy you linked is for county departments, not municipal.

* - City of Des Moines Iowa
* - Police Department Des Moines Iowa
* - Des Moines Iowa Crime Mapping
* - Des Moines Police Office of Professional Standards

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh no doubt.

Reeking of alcohol, slurred words, prominent veins in the forearm and neck, inability to comprehend simple words, are all telling signs.

But again:

"Walking with a purpose."

What does that even mean?

I mean, honestly, let's not play coy here:

Was he walking with purpose of malcontent?
Was he walking with purpose of purchasing food?
Was he walking with purpose of purchasing a beverage?
Was he walking with purpose of purchasing an alcoholic beverage?
Was he walking with purpose of purchasing colored pencils and crayons to color in his coloring book?
Was he walking with purpose of purchasing WMD to use against the White House?
Or was he walking with purpose... because he is walking?

I'm being honest, and not sarcastic, which doesn't happen often. I truly want to know what it means "To walk with a purpose."

I've walked my whole life without a purpose... I want to know how to walk with a purpose, what it is, how this man enacted it, how the officer perceived it, etc etc

Killing a man should be no easy task and should be investigated deeply, rather than simply stating "He walked with a purpose," as if he had some sort of Teflon-armor that is bullet and shatter proof while carrying two fully-armed and loaded 9mm's.

Get real. Walked with a purpose, what a joke, man.

EDIT: Oh and as for your "sweating in conditions that don't normally call for sweat," that is one piece of logic right there.

I get sweaty palms quite frequently and it is something called:

"Palmer Hydrosis"

So now a verified and legitimate condition is now cue for suspicious behavior? How about bloodshot eyes?

You do realize there are about seventeen different causes (all natural, meaning not brought upon by foreign/external objects, produced in your own body with no control), that are linked to having bloodshot eyes?

I won't even bother commenting on fluent ness of speech because of these things called

SPEECH IMPEDEIMENTS

But again, anything to make one be viewed as guilty is more prominent than a rational approach to said conditions.

You do realize that you can be pulled over for suspicious behavior if you're back is straight, your seatbelt is latched, and you have both hands on the wheel at precisely 10 and 2?

That is seen as suspicious in the eyes of the law.

www.thenewspaper.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

I read the article and there's a very interesting aspect to this. Notice that the article ties the victim to "his" community and then identifies "his" community as white people.

That tells me that the MSM, (and I consider Huffpo to be in the mainstream), has come to the point where they separate community identity by race. So....there's a "white" community and a "black" community and a hispanic community, etc., ad nauseum.

Now that's truly revealing. It means that as a "white" person, black people aren't members of MY community and vica versa.

So.......that's the point we've come to. "Communities" defined and distinguished by race. Now that.....is truly interesting.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Walking with a purpose -
Focused
intentional
Planned
Ignoring whats going on around them


Example -
Vague - A guy with a gun was walking towards a crowd of people.

Purpose - A guy with a gun was walking towards a group of people, fixating on one specific individual and ignoring everyone else around them. His focus on this person was intense and the manner in which he was walking towards this person was aggressive and intentional, leaving no doubt who the target of focus was. The individual had a thousand yard stare and was not cognizant of the people immediately surrounding him. His focus on the individual was constant and at no point did his attention shift, even with bystanders screaming and running away from him. The subject was walking with a purpose.

walk

verb

to move forwards by putting one foot in front of the other
wander

verb

to travel from place to place, especially on foot, without a particular direction or purpose
stroll

verb

to walk without hurrying, often for pleasure
stride

verb

to walk with energy and confidence
pad

verb

to walk with quiet light regular steps
trek

verb

to walk somewhere slowly and with no enthusiasm, for example because you are tired
amble

verb

to walk in a slow relaxed way
saunter

verb

to walk in a slow and relaxed way
hike

verb

to go for a long walk in the countryside
follow

verb

to walk, drive etc behind someone, when you are going in the same direction as them

Another media outlet report with some more info -


Officer shot through car window, hitting man who later died - Video report

According to the report they stated the guy got out of his car and "charged" towards the officer in the car.

The incident, once investigated, will go to a grand jury.

a reply to: TonyS

Very good.
Although some of us view our society as homogeneous, many don't, and the media contributes to the further division.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Purpose: A guy with a handful of flowers walked up to a group of senior citizens.

No gun.

If I was shot every time I walked with purpose, there wouldn't be anything left to shoot at but holes. In fact, I do it every day.

If I shot someone every time I got scared, there would be an awful lot of people with extra holes in them.

That is the excuse that I am hearing... The cop was scared. Maybe she should look for a New line of work.

a reply to: butcherguy

Put it in perspective using the facts we know and dont try to substitute the situation.

In this case the guy did not have flowers and was not walking towards senior citizens.

In this case we had a guy who already had one run in with the officers earlier. After the pursuit the guy got out of his car and according to media charged towards the female officers car.

If we use your scenario and your guy charged the group of senior citizens, and one of those individuals felt his life and the lives of the other senior citizens were in immediate physical danger, pulls a gun an shoots the guy, would he be justified in his force?

According to state law there he would be.

a reply to: butcherguy

Exactly, man, thank you.

"To walk with a purpose," is literally the flimsiest arguement I have ever heard when it comes to justification of taking another life.

Almost every single time I walk anywhere I am:

Planning on it
Intentionally doing it
Focused
Probably ignoring what's going on around me in order to reach destination

"To walk with a purpose," is just silly non-sense that you would expect to hear in Super Troopers 2, not a real life example of a man being shot and killed.

My girlfriend and I got into a bit of a dispute earlier, and I'll be honest - she scared me (I've been hiding out on ATS since)


However, does that justify me killing her (I would never - never do such a thing, to clarify lol), because I was scared for my life?

"JUDGE! She walked with a PURPOSE!!!!"

Example of "walking with a purpose."

I had to be at work at 7:00 A.M.

After parking my car in the lot, I walked with purpose - the purpose being:

Getting inside the building
Clocking in for work

So now we are going to begin nit-picking at people walking and generalize them with criminal behavior because, "they walked with a purpose."

Might as well bring on the full-forced pledge of the thought police for this one.

"He had a look in his eyes, and it scared me! He walked towards me with purpose, and I had no choice but to take action. I was fearful for my life!"

Investigation turns out suspect has no criminal record, and was unarmed.

HE SHOULDNT HAVE WALKED WITH A PURPOSE!

Freaking animals, irrational fools, thinking they can walk with a purpose...

a reply to: Xcathdra
I was making a point of your example of a guy with a GUN walking with purpose.
Ryan Bolinger (see that? He had a name) did not have a GUN.
He lead the police on a low speed chased walked towards the police car.
The police officer basically wet her pants and shot him through the window of the police car... With the window UP!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: butcherguy

Put it in perspective using the facts we know and dont try to substitute the situation.

In this case the guy did not have flowers and was not walking towards senior citizens.

In this case we had a guy who already had one run in with the officers earlier. After the pursuit the guy got out of his car and according to media charged towards the female officers car.

If we use your scenario and your guy charged the group of senior citizens, and one of those individuals felt his life and the lives of the other senior citizens were in immediate physical danger, pulls a gun an shoots the guy, would he be justified in his force?

According to state law there he would be.

Fair enough.

Apply your same logic to your own hypothetical situation.

No one had a weapon.
(Other than the LEO)
No one had a "one-thousand yard stare," whatever the hell that means.
No one was walking toward a crowd.
No one was fixated on anyone.

And I could continue.

Using hypotheticals to demonstrate a point is a logical fallacy in itself, you are literally setting up a scenario in which whatever subject or topic it may be, of course will be not only the point but also the proof of the matter. But it's all hypothetical, and is a play on words.

It's circular reasoning, example:

The Sun is a star.
A star, is what we call our Sun.
Therefore, all stars are there Suns.

It's completely inaccurate and fails to depict a MASSIVE portion of whatever is being discussed.

A man has a gun.
He is fixated.
He has a "thousand yard stare."
Therefore, the man with the gun, is fixated with his thousand yard stare.

Well of course he is, using your example, it is the ONLY possible outcome, same said of the sun analogy.

And let me clarify; whether or not this shooting was justified when in context of the WHOLE story is an entirely different conversation that him being shot and killed because he "was walking with purpose."

It seems to me as if his actions basically ensured his fate as to be killed by cop.

However, I cannot for the life of me rationalize how "he walked with a purpose."

This will now be my prime example of police overreach.

A man was killed, because he walked with a purpose.

What a shame.

a reply to: butcherguy

I am trying to explain to you Iowa state law does not require a firearm be present to consider the use of deadly force (actually as far as Iknow no state requires it). secondly her use of force must take into account every action the suspect took leading up to the point of deadly force. You cant just judge the incident at the gun shot part. You must consider everything prior to it as well.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Incorrect -

Walk with a purpose is a descriptive adjective used to describe the persons behavior. Make fun of it all you want but ignoring it because you dont understand it does not make the info null and void.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra
I was making a point of your example of a guy with a GUN walking with purpose.
Ryan Bolinger (see that? He had a name) did not have a GUN.
He lead the police on a low speed chased walked towards the police car.
The police officer basically wet her pants and shot him through the window of the police car... With the window UP!

To be completely fair, the guys actions were... nutty, to say the least.

However, it takes me about .02 seconds to turn around and ask myself, "But did his actions deserve the death penalty?"

Same exact scenario whenever you read about someone being killed after being stopped and arrested for cannabis.

Honestly - down to the core of your (not you personally, but "you" generally), very being, is being:

1. Disruptive
2. Non-compliant
3. Annoying
4. Drunk/high
5. Possessing cannabis
6. "Walking with a purpose?"

Warrant for the death penalty? If so, I'm afraid to break it to you - but your empire fell in the 40's - well kind of, we (the U.S. Government) did grant Nazi scientists amnesty.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Sorry, it is outside the current parameters of a useful narrative for our media and controllers. It only matters if he is black. #whitelivesdonotmatter

BS. The local news channel covered the shooting and the police immediately held a press conference that there would be an investigation with the results of that investigation going to a Grand Jury.

There's nothing to protest they are actually showing accountability.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A female cop killing a white male perpetrator doesn't make it through the media filter, which in turn doesn't reach the public hashtag kangaroo court.

The story made it through the filter of one of the furthest leaning news websites in the country.

If the media is responsible for manufacturing outrage then the reporting would necessarily precede the protests. Let's put this popular hypothesis to the test. Michael Brown was shot shortly after noon on 8/9/2014. Search Google news; search terms "Michael Brown Ferguson" select a date range to/from 8/9/2014 to limit results to the day of the shooting.

USA Today - Anger follows police shooting in St. Louis suburb

Officer Brian Schellman, spokesman for the St. Louis County Police Department, said "a couple hundred" people came out of area apartment buildings after an officer with the Ferguson Police Department shot and killed the teen. Schellman did not say what prompted the shooting.

Schellman said some people yelled threats toward the police, and officers said they thought they heard gunshots from the crowd. According to The Associated Press, some in the crowd yelled "kill the police."

There were no reports of additional injuries, Schellman said.

After the crowd gathered, police at the scene called for about 60 other police units to respond to the area in Ferguson, which is a city of about 21,000 residents located a few miles north of downtown St. Louis. He said the crowd was under control by about 5 p.m. and several of the additional officers had left the area.

The Blaze - Hundreds Yell ‘Kill the Police!’ After Officer Fatally Shoots Allegedly Unarmed Teenager (UPDATE: NAACP Wants FBI to Investigate)

Officers from 15 other departments arrived at the scene after a second burst of gunfire rang out, KSDK noted; Schellman said about 60 officers came to the Ferguson neighborhood, which is a few miles north of downtown St. Louis.

Minutes after an uproar from bystanders around 2 p.m., KSDK reported that five gunshots were heard

Spontaneous civil unrest starting in the neighborhood in which the shooting occurred. Was this this the result of the media or a festering resentment for the police held by members in the community — a resentment that doesn't seem at all unwarranted given the statistics released months later?

Could the lack of response to the death of this Iowa man have something to do with the fact that most white people don't feel that they or their family members are at risk of dying in a run in with the cops?