To Serve and to Protect

[WarEagle1983 2,188]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, I'm willing to give some grace on that.  All they had to go on was that someone with rapid-fire assault weapons were shooting police.  Then they were provided with photos of a person at the site of the shooting wearing a weapon like that.  So they wanted to find him.  They corrected it from him being a "suspect" to a "person of interest" within a half hour, even in the midst of all that chaos.  

It was certainly his right to carry, but it's also completely understandable given what was happening that they would want to find the guy.

With shots coming from above and not on the ground. C'mon. Please. I get the fact that he was clearly carrying that they'd seek him out first but to plaster this man's face all over the news and internet before having anything solid information/evidence is reckless. Especially when you know shots are coming from up above and he was right there in the middle of the protesting. It doesn't take much police work or news reporting to rule the man out. They put his life in danger and could've been a situation where he and a deadly encounter with police. This is mess that is wrong right now. Oh now it's an exception..please. 

[Auburn4life 24]

13 hours ago, cole256 said:

This guy will never say racism exist, some people are agenda driven and that's it

WRONG. I know racism exist today and it should be addressed but its over sensationalized IMO. I have black friends and I love people of all races. I have no agenda. Thanks

[AURaptor 1,137]

Same black guy who carried his rifle @ a TEA party rally or pro 2nd Amendment event? 

[AURaptor 1,137]

Cole -  not every slight, disagreement or perceived difference with a black person is because of racism. Do try to keep that in mind. 

[WarEagle1983 2,188]

4 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Cole -  not every slight, disagreement or perceived difference with a black person is because of racism. Do try to keep that in mind. 

I can agree there. It just gets frustrating trying to explain and not getting much compassion but i can't deem every person that's not black a racist b/c of that. 

[TitanTiger 21,068]

6 minutes ago, WarEagle1983 said:

With shots coming from above and not on the ground. C'mon. Please. I get the fact that he was clearly carrying that they'd seek him out first but to plaster this man's face all over the news and internet before having anything solid information/evidence is reckless. Especially when you know shots are coming from up above and he was right there in the middle of the protesting. It doesn't take much police work or news reporting to rule the man out. They put his life in danger and could've been a situation where he and a deadly encounter with police. This is mess that is wrong right now. Oh now it's an exception..please. 

Evidently you haven't seen the video that one shooter was not at elevation.  You're looking for anyone you think might have any connections to what's going on.  It's completely understandable to put out pictures of someone who is a person of interest in such a situation.

I'm hardly one that backs anything police do.  No thinking person could read my posts around here and think such a thing.  But in the heat of the moment where you're trying to track down suspects and someone gets you a photo of a guy at the march carrying an assault weapon, you're going to act on finding him and putting it out in the public is not reckless.  Hell, they didn't even necessarily know at what point in the parade the photo was taken.  He could have been marching then slipped away to take his position to shoot for all they knew, especially since the shooting didn't start until the end as the gathering was beginning to break up.

I get being upset about all that's transpired recently, but let's not allow that to cause us to jump to irrational conclusions.

[WarEagle1983 2,188]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Evidently you haven't seen the video that one shooter was not at elevation.  You're looking for anyone you think might have any connections to what's going on.  It's completely understandable to put out pictures of someone who is a person of interest in such a situation.

I'm hardly one that backs anything police do.  No thinking person could read my posts around here and think such a thing.  But in the heat of the moment where you're trying to track down suspects and someone gets you a photo of a guy at the march carrying an assault weapon, you're going to act on finding him and putting it out in the public is not reckless.  Hell, they didn't even necessarily know at what point in the parade the photo was taken.  He could have been marching then slipped away to take his position to shoot for all they knew, especially since the shooting didn't start until the end as the gathering was beginning to break up.

I get being upset about all that's transpired recently, but let's not allow that to cause us to jump to irrational conclusions.

I'm not jumping to irrational conclusions. I simply don't agree with plastering someone's face all around if you don't have some sort of indication they're involved. It has less to do with him being black and them doing it too. They did it to a guy who they thought did the ATL Olympic bombing and ruined his life. We can agree to disagree but with all the tensions that has been happening i would think they'd be a little more careful. That's just how i feel. Video was shown of the man with the gun while the shooting was going on. It was reckless. We can agree to disagree and move on but i don't agree.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

8 minutes ago, WarEagle1983 said:

I'm not jumping to irrational conclusions. I simply don't agree with plastering someone's face all around if you don't have some sort of indication they're involved. It has less to do with him being black and them doing it too. They did it to a guy who they thought did the ATL Olympic bombing and ruined his life. We can agree to disagree but with all the tensions that has been happening i would think they'd be a little more careful. That's just how i feel. Video was shown of the man with the gun while the shooting was going on. It was reckless. We can agree to disagree and move on but i don't agree.

Well, I disagree.  And the ATL bombing situation is not analogous.  The Atlanta bombing situation was quite different and far more extensive than anything that happened here.  Police didn't "put his photo out there", Jewell was the guy who found the bomb.  Police and the FBI then named him as a suspect, searched his house twice, subjected him to a polygraph and an extensive background check, and dragged the investigation of him out for weeks.  Three months later the US Attorney sent a letter formally exonerating him.  But by then the damage was done as the media had been painting him as potentially involved in wall to wall coverage for weeks on end.

Here we had a photo of a man wearing an assault rifle at a protest where assault weapons were fired, killing police.  There was an active manhunt underway for the shooters.  As video shows, not all the shooters were firing from elevated positions. Police get this photo and put it out publicly around 11pm.  By 11:30 they clarify it and say he's merely a person of interest.  Before I went to sleep at almost midnight it was already being reported the man had contacted police and turned himself and his gun in and was talking to them.  They apparently interrogated him for a couple of hours and he was released.  That's it.  

Disagree, as that is your right.  But I think you're overreacting to an understandable course of action.

 

[WarEagle1983 2,188]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, I disagree.  And the ATL bombing situation is not analogous.  The Atlanta bombing situation was quite different and far more extensive than anything that happened here.  Police didn't "put his photo out there", Jewell was the guy who found the bomb.  Police and the FBI then named him as a suspect, searched his house twice, subjected him to a polygraph and an extensive background check, and dragged the investigation of him out for weeks.  Three months later the US Attorney sent a letter formally exonerating him.  But by then the damage was done as the media had been painting him as potentially involved in wall to wall coverage for weeks on end.

Here we had a photo of a man wearing an assault rifle at a protest where assault weapons were fired, killing police.  There was an active manhunt underway for the shooters.  As video shows, not all the shooters were firing from elevated positions. Police get this photo and put it out publicly around 11pm.  By 11:30 they clarify it and say he's merely a person of interest.  Before I went to sleep at almost midnight it was already being reported the man had contacted police and turned himself and his gun in and was talking to them.  They apparently interrogated him for a couple of hours and he was released.  That's it.  

Disagree, as that is your right.  But I think you're overreacting to an understandable course of action.

 

Agree to disagree. It's overreacting on their part not mine.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Ok.  Whatever.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Meanwhile, we have this dips**t.  Former Illinois Congressman and current conservative talk radio host, Joe Walsh

 

There needs to be more IQ testing of members of Congress.

[alexava 6,974]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, I disagree.  And the ATL bombing situation is not analogous.  The Atlanta bombing situation was quite different and far more extensive than anything that happened here.  Police didn't "put his photo out there", Jewell was the guy who found the bomb.  Police and the FBI then named him as a suspect, searched his house twice, subjected him to a polygraph and an extensive background check, and dragged the investigation of him out for weeks.  Three months later the US Attorney sent a letter formally exonerating him.  But by then the damage was done as the media had been painting him as potentially involved in wall to wall coverage for weeks on end.

Here we had a photo of a man wearing an assault rifle at a protest where assault weapons were fired, killing police.  There was an active manhunt underway for the shooters.  As video shows, not all the shooters were firing from elevated positions. Police get this photo and put it out publicly around 11pm.  By 11:30 they clarify it and say he's merely a person of interest.  Before I went to sleep at almost midnight it was already being reported the man had contacted police and turned himself and his gun in and was talking to them.  They apparently interrogated him for a couple of hours and he was released.  That's it.  

Disagree, as that is your right.  But I think you're overreacting to an understandable course of action.

 

Completely understandable. If you exercise this "right" to carry an assault rifle openly ( any race any situation) you also tag yourself as a suspect when a mass shooting takes place. You are asking for attention by carrying a weapon like that. Don't bitch when you get your attention. 

[telling tiger 156]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Meanwhile, we have this dips**t.  Former Illinois Congressman and current conservative talk radio host, Joe Walsh

 

There needs to be more IQ testing of members of Congress.

Classy.

[jared52 4,358]

13 minutes ago, WarEagle1983 said:

Agree to disagree. It's overreacting on their part not mine.

I watched CNN coverage all night last night and they were pretty clear from the start this was a "person of interest", which he was. They were going on 2 photos they had of the guy. Both look like they were taken when it was still light out and the shooting happened when it was practically dark out, so it would have been conceivable that he went to higher ground after the photo.

Police were getting shot and they were actively trying to figure out who was doing it. Putting out a photo of someone isn't reckless. It would be reckless if they spent a lot of resources to frame him for this like the Atlanta bombing situation, but not this. He will be a speck on this story as it continues to unfold over the next few weeks. Heck, he may even be heralded as a guy who wasn't afraid to turn himself in (after having already surrendered his weapon during the shooting). There were hundreds of LEA on the scene and I imagine it was a coordination nightmare. One team probably already clear him when he turned over his weapon and that info didn't make it to HQ who put out the photo wanting more info. They got that info and cleared him. Any media coverage of him as a suspect would be reckless of the media, not DPD.

[cole256 17,085]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

They simply had video and a photo of a guy walking around the protest with what looked to be an assault weapon strapped on him and said police were looking for him and wanted to talk to him.  He turned himself in and it turns out he was not involved.  I'm not sure how they did anything wrong.  They were following any lead they had, put out a photo of someone that police were looking for and he saw it and contacted them.  

Didn't name him as a person of interest or say police just wanted to talk to him called him the suspect. Now people have been shot for much worse, naming him the suspect to that all was irresponsible imo. Had he been shot majority on here would have justified that. 

[TitanTiger 21,068]

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

Didn't name him as a person of interest or say police just wanted to talk to him called him the suspect. Now people have been shot for much worse, naming him the suspect to that all was irresponsible imo. Had he been shot majority on here would have justified that. 

Initially (though it's not entirely clear whether the police called him that or that was the news media).  Within 30 minutes the police department did clarify that he was a person of interest.  Hardly an egregious action under the circumstances.

[WarEagle1983 2,188]

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

Didn't name him as a person of interest or say police just wanted to talk to him called him the suspect. Now people have been shot for much worse, naming him the suspect to that all was irresponsible imo. Had he been shot majority on here would have justified that. 

Agree. This is the coverage i saw as well. He was named a suspect...not a person of interest. I just look at it like with everything going on it's not like it would've been an isolated situation. If the events that have happened before this march had not happened then i could agree with what they did but tensions are high and now you have people going after cops. Make sure you don't make the situation worse by providing false information where more people can be killed. Sorry but i felt like they had plenty of knowledge at the time not to plaster this everywhere. The coverage i saw it was quickly put out that he was likely in the mist and dodging bullets as well. I'll move on from this subject but just how i feel. 

[channonc 466]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Meanwhile, we have this dips**t.  Former Illinois Congressman and current conservative talk radio host, Joe Walsh

 

There needs to be more IQ testing of members of Congress.

There's a reason he's not in Congress anymore. 

[cole256 17,085]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Initially (though it's not entirely clear whether the police called him that or that was the news media).  Within 30 minutes the police department did clarify that he was a person of interest.  Hardly an egregious action under the circumstances.

He didn't even know that had been done to him, and yes it was clarified because HE took the initiative to do so. And he still had to be taken in and all of that. It could have easily went that he didn't have a brother so he didn't know and he could've been shot, if not by police but by somebody playing hero. Easy to be on sidelines and say no big deal but point is his life was placed in danger....how about doing some research and calling his phone before giving the perception that he did this. As soon as this came out people couldn't wait to say BLM had became violent and killed policemen. And I'm 99% sure your thirty minutes thing isn't true

[cole256 17,085]

53 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Cole -  not every slight, disagreement or perceived difference with a black person is because of racism. Do try to keep that in mind. 

You don't really have to say anything to me, I don't just blindly call people racist but yes I do pay attention to post history and if all you do is go out of your way to prove nothing is racism and after all of these men and women being killed and you don't have one time saying anything other than it's not on the policemen I'll call a spade a spade. You just focus on how everything on earth isn't Obama's fault and that will keep you busy enough not to try and tell me what to keep in mind. 

[TitanTiger 21,068]

5 minutes ago, cole256 said:

He didn't even know that had been done to him, and yes it was clarified because HE took the initiative to do so. And he still had to be taken in and all of that. It could have easily went that he didn't have a brother so he didn't know and he could've been shot, if not by police but by somebody playing hero. Easy to be on sidelines and say no big deal but point is his life was placed in danger....how about doing some research and calling his phone before giving the perception that he did this. As soon as this came out people couldn't wait to say BLM had became violent and killed policemen. And I'm 99% sure your thirty minutes thing isn't true

It was clarified before he came in to speak with them and police are under no obligation to consult with the person to make sure they know what's being said about them.  Yes he could have been shot, but also, yes it is completely understandable that in the chaos of the moment where shooters with rapid fire assault rifles attacked police that a picture of someone at the rally carrying an weapon of that type would be a suspect.  Suspect doesn't mean "automatically guilty", it means "suspicious" person.  Any reasonable person would say that an unknown individual carrying that kind of weapon where a mass shooting using the same kind of weapon happens is likely to be a suspect.  They clarified it later and ended up talking to him for about 30 minutes.  

Sure, in a perfect situation it might have been good to have said person of interest from the beginning.  But would that have significantly changed the chances that someone shoots him anyway in that tense situation?  I think you're straining at gnats here.

[AURaptor 1,137]

4 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You don't really have to say anything to me, I don't just blindly call people racist but yes I do pay attention to post history and if all you do is go out of your way to prove nothing is racism and after all of these men and women being killed and you don't have one time saying anything other than it's not on the policemen I'll call a spade a spade. You just focus on how everything on earth isn't Obama's fault and that will keep you busy enough not to try and tell me what to keep in mind. 

 Well, if that's how you see things, then  you are wrong. It's not that you and I disagree, but you are factually in error of what you just said. 

[wdefromtx 3,494]

24 minutes ago, alexava said:

Completely understandable. If you exercise this "right" to carry an assault rifle openly ( any race any situation) you also tag yourself as a suspect when a mass shooting takes place. You are asking for attention by carrying a weapon like that. Don't bitch when you get your attention. 

Exactly!!! In addition, the police department was putting the information out there based on reports that they were getting that he was shooting. Turns out that was not the case, people say all kinds of crap when mass pandemonium breaks out. All the DPD knew at the time was officers were getting shot and you had this guy with a rifle walking around. 

[cole256 17,085]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It was clarified before he came in to speak with them.  Yes he could have been shot, but also, yes it is completely understandable that in the chaos of the moment where shooters with rapid fire assault rifles attacked police that a picture of someone at the rally carrying an weapon of that type would be a suspect.  Suspect doesn't mean "automatically guilty", it means "suspicious" person.  Any reasonable person would say that an unknown individual carrying that kind of weapon where a mass shooting using the same kind of weapon happens is likely to be a suspect.  They clarified it later and ended up talking to him for about 30 minutes.  

Sure, in a perfect situation it might have been good to have said person of interest from the beginning.  But would that have significantly changed the chances that someone shoots him anyway in that tense situation?  I think you're straining at gnats here.

Straining at gnats how? Once again the 30 minute stuff you're saying is not true and since it's a man's life yes I definitely think you at least do a basic search before making him a marked man on television. And where two men were just killed for doing anything yeah I don't trust the policemen saying it's not automatically guilty it just mean suspicious. That's all fine and dandy in the how it SHOULD work theory. But we can agree to disagree but nothing I said is far fetched, I actually think your view is more so but once again it's your opinion

[cole256 17,085]

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 Well, if that's how you see things, then  you are wrong. It's not that you and I disagree, but you are factually in error of what you just said. 

Nothing I said was factually in error but whatever, I'm not in the mood I'd prefer we didn't talk