Another senseless shooting that led to a young black woman being killed, along with her unborn child. Two surviving children left without a mother. Going by the bodycam footage, she looks terrified. Nobody deserves to lose their life over such a trivial incident.
That's a lot of waffle to say "It's a police terror state so just comply"
Imagine you are an American citizen, you are female and you are pregnant, you know that the police can be a bit trigger happy to say the least.
Are you a mother?
Sometimes protecting your kids and your unborn means fleeing:
Shooting a van full of kids because their authority was questioned.
Let's not pretend like you would have handled any given police interaction perfectly. It's useless conjecture.
She acted irresponsibly, it not stupidly. If I were pregnant, or had one of my children in the car with me and I was pulled over with a gun pointed at me, my first instinct would be to protect my child or unborn child, by following the requests of these police officers.
Watch the video. You haven't watched the video.
She didn't assault the officer either, she veered hard right, and drove away at a slow rate of speed, away from the officer, who has to continually try jumping in front of the car to justify killing her:
ah yes cos it had to be about race, there couldn't possibly be any other reason.
You'd think that with the video evidence people would not put so much effort into tying themselves in knots trying to make this a racism issue or any other kind of issue to be honest. If this lady had complied then she would be alive right now and if she hadn't stole anything from the store she might even be able to get a handy payout via a lawsuit or online begging bowl site such as gofundme or similar.
Imagine you are an American citizen, you are female and you are pregnant, you know that the police can be a bit trigger happy to say the least. The police approach your car and intend obviously to ask you a few questions.
Instead of protecting yourself and your unborn child and just talking to the officers, you decide to start shouting at them and then drive your vehicle directly at one of the armed law enforcement officers. I'm sorry but that's Darwin Award level behaviour.
I know it's hard for some people to accept but personal responsibility has to be a factor in the discussion here. If this was some famous right wing loon driving their car at a police officer and getting shot dead then we'd all agree that this person was a moron and got found out. Oh, you decided to drive directly at an armed police officer? How does anyone think that situation is going to end. I didn't think leopards would eat MY face!
I don't really get why so many of you are absolutely tying yourself in knots in order to ignore the obvious facts here.
The police are called on a potential shoplifter. If shoplifting is indeed illegal then the police are now obligated to question the accuser and the accused. I think we are still in the world of sanity in concluding that this is nothing to crazy so far? The police officers approach the accused. The accused starts freaking out and shouting at the officers. The accused then drives their car at the officers. This tragically ends with the accused being shot.
There are really only a couple of logical ways out of this scenario.
Meeting any of these criteria would mean that the situation never happens. Unfortunately people do shoplift, it is illegal and a shop owner is entitled to accuse someone of potential theft.
Next.
Meeting any of these criteria would allow this woman to survive, provided she does not have a fatal car crash while speeding away from police. Unfortunately the police in the US do have guns and every US citizen knows this and they will not just allow you to speed off in a vehicle.
Trying to make any kind of political point scoring out of this situation is a waste of effort. Everyone can see the video. Everyone with even an ounce of common sense knows that the stupid actions of this woman are the reason why she is dead.
I look forward to watching the riots and protests on the news.
The officer had no choice but to take out his firearm as a means of ensuring she did not attempt to flee the scene.
Sure he did. He had lots of choices. In most parts of the world the police don't actually take out firearms when dealing with potential shoplifters because it is rather obviously a completely stupid over the top escalation.
She was an idiot, thankfully in most of the world that is not a capital crime.
What it looks like when a cop is trained the same way these cops are but doesn't have the motivation to kill a black person:
They wanted to pull that trigger on Ta'Kiya Young.
The cop in front of the car had his gun in hand near waist and raised it to face her directly 1 second after she started the car in motion.
Try again.
Again trying your best to spin the situation as you refuse to accept the fact she was shot for using her car as a weapon to assault the cop. She was armed with a deadly weapon, the car to assault a cop. Anything can be classified as a deadly weapon if it can be used to injure or kill someone.
Hell i could compact sand into the toe end of a sock, tie a knot in the sock with the compacted sand, now i have a kosch that hits like a piece of concrete that can kill someone.
If personal insults about my spelling is the best you can do then it proves how weak your arguments are.
Waffle. They pointed guns at her before she went anywhere. They put themselves in front of the car. They did everything they could to give themselves permission to snuff out a black woman.
No im not advocating for "shoot to kill" policy, because if i was then all suspects could be shot. She got shot cos she drove her car into a cop, using it as a weapon which is assault with a deadly weapon. She was armed, with the car and the cops responded in kind which ended with her dead there by neutralizing the threat she posed.
There's nothing reasonable about point your guns at someone for being suspected of stealing liquor.
Oh about the rights not being infringed
No, about your atrocious spelling. Actually absorb it, learn it, know it. "Bare arms" what will you be an armchair expert in next week!
They chose to stop her with reasonable force as she was acting unreasonable. So yeah no problem admitting that.
Oh about the rights not being infringed, well some bad news for you, this has been debated in the supreme court many times and there are exceptions to the right to bare arms. Such as convicted felon, drug user, requiring a licence, concealed carry permit etc. which are determined on state and federal level.
That document is 247 years old i believe and written at a time where muskets and ball shot were used, things have changed over the years and yes there are some that think the same way you do to follow the exact wording however some adaption has been necessary over the years.
You're advocating here for a "shoot to kill" policy : that cops have the right to open fire on a person who attempts to flee them, even someone unarmed and being questioned over a relatively minor misdemeanour such as shoplifting or a parking violation.
In most countries in the world, such a shoot to kill policy would be 100% illegal.
So they chose to kill her.
Thanks for admitting that.
Couldn't taze the cop who drove off from a reckless driving stop either, but they didn't choose to kill him over it. And he was armed!
Yes is says they have the right to bare arms
No.
Read it again. Don't just copy it, drink it in.
Yeah they exercised their choice to use lethal force to prevent her becoming a bigger issue to them or the general public. They couldn't use taser due to her locking herself in car, not to mention how ineffective tasers actually are. Case point was in the last week a guy in 60s sitting with handgun sitting in deck chair front garden, cops approached him with tasers, 3 strikes and did nothing to the guy, he points gun at cops, the the cops put him down. So taser as option is out.
They were a 1 car/van unit so couldn't effectively block with vehicle, was a car behind her car, cops car was to side of her car, cop stood in front of her car to complete a pinning maneuver most likely while waiting for another unit for support.
So again i ask you what else were the cops supposed to do, because she has no rights to leave the scene at that point as she had been lawfully detained for questioning in relation to the alleged crime of theft for purposes of investigation and the reasonable articullable suspicion was that she committed theft.
As for the 2nd amendment this is the literal piece on it "The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes is says they have the right to bare arms however there are stipulations to bare arms as determined by state and federal laws which is allowed and voted for on state and federal level.
C0n$p!R@çÿ! That happens with regularity and we have the Nixon aide confession
https://www.google.com/search?q=cops+arrested+selling+drugs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
It shows that cops have choices for how they respond to detainments. They don’t have to use lethal force.
The 2nd amendment states the right to bare arms
i think you should read it again.
“ the police flooded their communities with drugs “
conspiracy theory room is that way
The 2nd amendment states the right to bare arms, however this is regulated by state and federal law in the US and some states have specific laws for gun ownership.
Also as a cop in the US when faced with a hostile situation they will use caution and experience if they feel there may be a larger threat. They did have reasonable articullable suspicion of a crime having being committed based on a report that she stole from a shop so yeah. Also if the person was found to made an erroneous or false report there could be legal consequences for that person.
I do not know which incident you are referring to about a guy with a gun, but it has nothing to do with this specific situation.
Yeah gun in face cos she started moving. Conseuqnces.
Oh my goodness now we’re imagining into existence a gun she would have lawfully been allowed under the 2nd amendment one which cops in this interaction make no articulable suspicion of.
That we have to imagine things that didn’t happen to defend the cops says a lot about their culpability.
By the way the guy in the video I just shared peeling off from a reckless driving stop was armed to the gills and had a bullet proof vest on and everything. “HE HAS A GUN” blam blam blam no that didn’t happen. Let’s keep our hats on.
Stepping in front of the car is the way of basically a way of saying you are not going anywhere and if you move to hit me its a crime. It is a non threatening blocking action
its what? Non threatening??
Gun in your face really de-escalates a situation doesn’t it. I feel so non-threatened right now.
I can't say what their operation procedure or training is, however i would assume it is based on the fact she locked herself in the car, was belligerent, refused to cooperate with the investigation. At this point the cops MAY have felt concern she could have had a weapon of the fact she was willing to use her car as a weapon. Either way i believe the cops actions were justified.
Stepping in front of the car is the way of basically a way of saying you are not going anywhere and if you move to hit me its a crime. It is a non threatening blocking action.
Can you justify the cops pulling a gun on the suspect before she drove anywhere?? Can you justify stepping in front of an active vehicle? Your meat sack isn’t a tank trap. So what is the function of stepping in front of the vehicle with a cocked gun pointed at the driver if not escalation?
They had no evidence as they only arrived and were determining the facts and gathering evidence as an accusation was made that she had committed a crime. That is how an investigation is performed and if it was found there was no evidence she would have been left on her way. Instead she was belligerent, uncooperative and assaulted a cop with a car. How many more times does this need to be said before you understand how the real world works?
I am not justifying murder, i am justifying the cops using reasonable force to neutralize a threat of a person using a 1 plus ton vehicle as a weapon. Those are the consequences of her crime that was committed at that point.
Just the trope about broken black family units.
hey who broke up those family units anyway… 👻
I don’t know who needs to hear this but black family cohesion has been decimated for 400+ years. Families were sold off piece by piece. And when they were emancipated they were terrorized for decades and when they got their civil rights the police still flooded their neighborhoods with drugs and raided their homes and broke up their family units, even though whites use drugs at the same rates.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Clearly there are reasons these 2 white cops had no inhibitions about drawing their guns on a black woman.
I was replying to another poster , I wasn’t the one who introduced the liberal trope about “ systematic injustice “
ICYMI: cops CAN CHOOSE not to shoot at someone from driving away from the scene of a crime. Notice how they don’t point guns at them or shove their meat sacks in front of the vehicle?
but thank god no liquor was allegedly stolen it was just a little reckless driving that can’t harm anyone.
but wait till you hear this: they got the perp later, using the gathered evidence. Amazing. They have a choice TM.
This has literally nothing to do with the killing. Try harder.
Yep , the crisis of family breakdown amongst African Americans in the past sixty years is a huge issue but one which is impolite to mention in respectable discourse , the issues are cultural , Asians have a culture which fosters a high focus on discipline and self improvement
