Which would you guess was true?

San Francisco police shot and killed a man last night.

http://www.ktvu.com/video/28575181/index.html

The man was running away.  If you didn’t know the facts, would you think it is more likely that the police shot an unarmed man for no reason or that they shot an armed man who was shooting over his back at them as he ran?  People who know no more of the facts than you or I do believed the first and took to the streets to scream that the police were murderers.  Who are these people?  And what twisted view of reality would lead them to jump to that assumption?

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Blacks have been told whites are demons and thus everything they do is evil. The police of SF are ruled by unions, so they aren’t free to do as they wish. Instead, that makes them part of the establishment or white power’s institutional racism. The unions benefit from this and black leaders benefit from this, because they can get more power when pitting their cannonfodder followers against each other. Union leaders scare their white members with talk about black mobs and the criminal underground or lawsuits and civil prosecutions, which the union leader promises to protect them from if they pay up… Black leaders scare their black members with talk about white racism and the criminal corruption of white police and how black race traitors join the establishment because they are Uncle Tom race traitors… the only way blacks can be safe is to trust in and empower their black leaders.

     Now break it down into wealth classes and you got even more points of commonality. Now you can get whites and blacks, to FIGHT, against other whites and blacks, while at the same time, pitting blacks against whites. If I didn’t hate the Left as much as I do, I would admire them for their technical wizardry in manipulating so many different groups of Dumb arse idiots without ever getting caught. I really would.

     

  2. says

    It seems some people don’t realize this, but there’s a lot of Democrat propaganda that insinuates themselves into the public consciousness. While such was meant to target the poor and specifically black poor, it can also affect others once the mob forms and group psychology grabs hold of everybody who is neutral and turns them into slobbering man killer beasts. The propaganda in question told people to fear the police, and they do. The propaganda in question told people not to trust the legal system, because the police have corrupted it and are fully in control of, and so people don’t trust the cops or the courts. Que OJ Simpson trial as an example, primary 1.

     You may think it is twisted, but that’s only a subjective opinion. In reality, it makes perfect sense from a propaganda artist’s point of view and from a target’s point of view. The logic runs a little differently, but perfectly sensible and reasonable.

    Everything makes sense once you understand the importance of deception in Art of War and that the Left is at war with you, regardless of whether you think you are at war with the Leftist alliance. Many people finally understood Islam after 9/11 demonstrated that little issue.

  3. says

    As for which version of the story is true, that depends on how corrupt the San Fran police union is and how bad their officer training in question became.

    Standard police training has become more and more politicized, and less and less to deal with keeping the peace or anything relating to the truth.

    It’s also a Democrat state, which has historically had more than its fair share of government corruption going on behind the scenes. It’s also a big urban city, where corruption tends to get aggregated.

     There’s no particular reason to give the benefit of the doubt given this context. There is no good side here, as often is the case with Leftist inspired societal dysfunctions. It’s just two gangs of the same crooks working under different colors.

    For certain states like Georgia or Mississippi, that have police incidents unrelated to urban centers or SWAT, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the police. Then again, maybe we hear more about these kinds of police incidents in big cities because there really is more of these incidents there.

  4. jj says

    A lot of that initial reaction and “twisted view of reality” is of course dependent on experience. 
     
    Sadly, if the incident took place in Seattle or its suburbs, for example, you could be virtually certain that the cops severely over-reacted, and essentially performed an execution.  It seems that the Seattle cops’ first reaction is always to reach for the gun, and they have done this with such startling regularity in recent years – and generally gotten away with it – that the federal government no longer buys the conclusions reached by the local “review boards,” which are a joke.  (According to them there has apparently never been a Seattle cop in the wrong, ever – about anything.)  Thus the Seattle cops are now under full-time scrutiny by the feds, and have federal overseers practically riding along in the cars.  (And, as a veteran of New York in the 1960s, I can also tell you that there’s going to be about one more incident that involves either a native or a black, and the 2011 Seattle cops are going to find themselves facing a 1960s race riot, which will have been completely of their own making.  They won’t know how to handle it, or what the hell to do about it, either, when it comes.)  The Seattle cops are a touch tone-deaf, and it seems to be an ever-fresh surprise to them how disliked – and widely disliked, across the entire spectrum of society, at that – they are.
     
    San Francisco, I don’t know.  Maybe there you have a history of leaping to erroneous conclusions by the press and the public at large (a group rarely right about anything, true enough).  Here the experience is somewhat different, as the news, not as oblivious as the cops themselves, generally tends to under-report and play it down, hoping the coming riot won’t start right now, tonight.  Your press exaggerates and whips up emotions; our press tries to pretend nothing happened.
     
    Hard to say which approach is most dangerous.  San Fran doesn’t like the cops – because of the way San Fran is.  Seattle is getting to not like the cops – because of the way the cops evidently are.  Either way, it’s interesting.

  5. Charles Martel says

    San Francisco cops generally don’t have a reputation for cruelty so much as inefficiency. They are much like an eastern big-city police force, basically lazy asses who slide to get by. It doesn’t help that the DA is a soft-on-crime liberal who makes sure that most indictments for serious crime get watered down to slap-on-the-wrist severity.

    The kid who was shot lived in Hunter’s Point-Bayview, which is San Francisco’s problem child neighborhood. There’s a lot of crime and low-life behaviors on display, so you can’t fault the cops for being wary from the second they cross the line into the neighborhood. Nor can you feign surprise at how many kids take up the outlaw lifestyle and pack a gun–or how many start packing just to protect themselves.

    Who was at fault here? Don’t know. It will take calm and fair minds to pick through the events and unpack what really happened. I see tense cops chasing a tense, panicked, armed kid whose imagination is running overtime and tells him they’ll draw and quarter him if they gets their hands on him. And being a kid, he also imagines that he can fire a shot or two at cops and somehow magically get away.

    Or maybe there was some rookie cop who couldn’t stand the idea of a perp running away and escaping. I find that harder to believe than the first scenario, but I long ago gave up the idea of human (or police) perfection.

    As to the vocal reactions by the locals, nothing to see here, folks. There’s an automatic dislike for the cops on many levels, so most residents are inclined to not give them the benefit of the doubt. Adding to mystery is the missing gun: Did the kid really have one and toss it as he was running or was hit, and somebody from the hood retrieved it? Or did the cops make up its existence?

  6. says

    The LEOs should have been right on this guy’s tail, so when would anyone have had a chance to snatch the gun? Unless, of course, the officers were so distracted by adrenaline that they didn’t even notice the crowd was picking up items and running away with em…

    Trained operatives know that there is no way in hell some guy can shoot backwards, while running forwards, and hit his intended target. Thus the choice to shoot wouldn’t be “self-defense” but defense of community citizens.

     When you hear the police talk about self defense there, they’re basing it on distorted perceptions and inadequate training.

    All the police had to do to defend themselves was stop chasing the kid and take cover. Anything else can’t be justified as self defense anything. 

  7. says

    Btw, this is why the US military was able to overcome and adapt to the conditions on the ground in Iraq. It was a counter-insurgency operation which required finesse and the ability to go from maximum firepower to minimum firepower. It wasn’t police action. It was several orders of magnitude more difficult than what most LEOs have to deal with. Several orders of magnitude more difficult… yet, the military succeeded far better at it than the majority of Inner City American police forces have in their own cities.

  8. Danny Lemieux says

    I really hesitate to jump to conclusions when so many facts are missing in evidence.

    I do know that there are some cities (Philadelphia, Los Angeles) that don’t deserve police protection and other cities (as per JJ, Seattle) that don’t deserve their police. 

  9. says

    It’s the same issue as in Iraq. If you don’t want to provide security, AQ will be happy to do so, and then use that nation’s resources to kill Americans from far beyond America’s ability to retaliate. If the cops can’t provide security in LA, then MS13 and Democrat thugs will.

  10. SADIE says

    Totally unrelated, but since both Frenchmen are in this room ….
     
    Benjamin Franklin document signed as Minister Plenipotentiary to France, dated 10 April 1782. This promissory note between France and the United States, written in French, states the terms of a loan that would help finance the American Revolution.
    It reads in part: “I Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, in virtue of power invested in me by the Congress of the said States…promise in its name…to make payment and to reimburse the Royal Treasury of his Christian Majesty on the first of January, 1788…the sum of 1,500,000.00 silver Livres…with interest at 5 percent annually.”
    Signed boldly and clearly in black ink: “B Franklin”. Franklin printed this document on his press in Passy, outside Paris, and hand wrote approximately 30 words as well as signing the note on behalf of the United States. Franklin had negotiated an alliance with the French, and this promissory note, numbered 21, is one of several he printed, likely the largest amount borrowed from France. Document measures 7.5″ x 9.75″. Printed on fine paper with a multi-colored, marbled pattern along the scalloped right edge and ornamented at the top with topographical elements, including the fleur-de-lis, a symbol associated with the French monarchy. Expected folds, else near fine condition.
    The current bid is $13,110 [ visit Nate and Sanders Auctions ]

  11. says

     
    Looking at that video, I’m inclined to believe the cops in this case.
     
    My brother and I have been discussing police misconduct recently, and I’ve found quite a number of situations that look a lot like what jj is describing in Seattle.
     
    Until the police forces begin to discipline their own bad apples, they can hardly complain if they do not get the immediate benefit of the doubt in any questionable situation.
     
    That said, the reaction of those standing around on the street in S.F. is pretty predictable, and should carry little weight…..at least until we have more of the facts of the matter.

  12. Charles Martel says

    I jusr read a follow-up story that said the kid who was shot was a parolee from Seattle who was “a person of interest” in a slaying that has taken place in that city the week before.

    Since the SF cops were looking for transit fare scofflaws, and probably had no way of knowing the kid was on the bus or streetcar, it looks like he overreacted. He had a gun and a motive for wanting to avoid any kind of scrutiny, so apparently decided that running and shooting was the best way out.

    Again, we’ll have to wait and see.

Leave a Reply