Borat voice: Very nice!
Oklahoma - Police kill 5 year-old child
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
That's funny, because some camgirls love to turn the brightness up REAL high to hide their skim blemishes.
Many people drive without a license, Sam. Think of all the millions and millions and billions of illegal immigrants in the USA alone.
So, no, it wouldn't cut down on the DUI fatalities.
Baron Max
Oh I think it will; it sure helps getting truant fathers to pay child support if you merely take it away.
S.A.M. said:
Not feasible. Around Seattle, at least, the "system" is in disarray:
The first is actually a surprise I found while looking for the second. "Undue Influence" examines how the police get breaks and "professional courtesy" when suspected of driving under the influence. The "Allegations" story tells of the manager of the state toxicology lab perjuring herself regarding the testing and accuracy of breathalyzers; the scandal has vast implications for many, many DUI convictions in the state.
Additionally, the current standards of driving under the influence need to be changed. As it stands right now, the blood alcohol content limit of 0.08% is not a proper "legal limit", but, rather, the point at which you no longer get to argue. While attending Alcohol and Drug Information School in the course of responding to a DUI charge, one of my classmates had been arrested on a 0.01% BAC.
Americans, at least, won't stand for a zero-tolerance law. Remember that under Prohibition, sauerkraut was illegal. Put some 'kraut on your bratwurst, lose your license for life? Doesn't sound quite right to me.
Last edited:
i'm sorry but doing something stupid like trying shoot a snake when it is in a tree( it was probably a small nonvenmous snake but since we are trained to hate snakes people go out of thier way to try and hurt them but thats a whole different topic) and ending up killing someone deserves to go to jail. hell, if there ever was anything that could qualify as criminal stupidity this is it.
Neither will D&Q, flaying, execution, or, in fact, anything. The boy is dead, that's not going to change. The only things to be done are to not make the situation worse, and to try and prevent future "situations".tiassa said:
He's got a choice? :bugeye:Orleander said:
Not relevant. Those directly and deeply emotionally affected are the least qualified to make an objective judgement about what's good.Kadark said:
Not that I want to get into the whole gun control sidetrack (and it is a pretty irrelevent sidetrack, since were talking about law enforcement officers here), but I don't think that the purpose of the thing is terribly relevant. Whether something is likely to (wrongfully) kill if misused seems more to the point. Would the situation (consequences, blame, and remedy) be significantly different if an officer chose to run over a snake with a vehicle and inadvertently crushed a child in the process?tiassa said:
Anyway... the bottom line is that nothing will bring back the child, the officer/s in question should be tried for manslaughter, and the family should win a payout from the police force + officers.
(Insert title here)
Since you ignored what I actually wrote, and in the interests of the dignity of this topic, I will limit my response in this issue to this disclaimer.
While I would hope to agree with you, I've known many people who talk as if they would have a choice. Whether or not they could deliver is an open question, but some people will grasp after anything to absolve themselves. I'll go so far as to say that he does have a choice. He can be human, or maybe he's a sociopath and will feel no guilt for the rest of his life, and think that any charges he faces are unjust. There is, after all, the legendary brotherhood of silence among police; while it doesn't specifically apply here, many cops justify their aiding and abetting of murders with the belief that it is their duty to do so. The connection? They can be cold bastards sometimes. Whether or not that's the case here, we might actually get to see as the situation develops.
In this context, I think the grandfather's accusation is significant: "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing."
Maybe it's an insurance consideration. Maybe they thought they could play it off otherwise. "It's an accident" never works as an excuse for children when they clearly should have known better. It really depends on how the final report constructs the situation. Does the grandfather mean he saw the cops come out of the brush and leave? Did they come over and investigate the incident as if it was a crime, and they just happened to be nearby? If it was a pure accident, what were they afraid of? Did they know they were taking a dangerous risk when shooting at the snake? People who aren't police, who do something accidentally that hurts someone, and then try to pretend there's nothing going on, even if they have the best of intentions, are held accountable in the sense that their pretense increases their culpability. It's hard for me to leave it at the simply obvious, that it was an accident. To me, it's disturbing that someone actually voted for "nothing should happen". Police can shoot an innocent man forty-one times for doing what they say and walk away. Police can attack a man on the street for refusing to sell drugs (because he has none), and the mayor will help them out by trashing the victim. At some point, something needs to happen. Sure, Noble, Oklahoma is a long way from New York City. Sure, it's a long way from Seattle, where the police chief routinely interferes in incident reviews to make sure his officers are cleared after beating a man in a wheelchair and being caught lying in the incident report. Sure, it's a long way from Rampart, Los Angeles. But something has to happen.
And while I agree that emotion clouds someone's judgment, I lived in Oregon at the time that they officially started giving weight to the testimony of victims' families at sentencing hearings. And I know how bizarre some people's recollections of their loved ones are. And yet these folks, whom you would say are the least qualified to say what's good, suddenly find themselves with tremendous influence over what's right and good. I just don't think you're being fair. The trucker on footballs who smashes a car and kills someone doesn't mean to. It was an accident. The gun manufacturer's representative who misfires a weapon and hits a teacher in a schoolyard doesn't mean to. The drunk who discharges his weapon accidentally while cleaning it doesn't set out to kill the infant sleeping in the next flat over. The drunk driver who runs over someone and kills them doesn't mean to. These are all accidents. And I guarantee you that the cop shooting at a snake in a tree didn't mean to kill a little boy. Does his badge change anything? Does it earn him some credit?
I have much respect for S.A.M., and I wasn't going to touch her response with a ten-foot pole, but Kadark raised the question that was first or second to my mind. (The first may have been, "And?") Her response to the question was more than adequate. But I don't think Kadark's question is irrelevant. Rather, I think it's obvious.
To the other, I disagree with victim impact statements at sentencing, so it's a coin toss. But would the fact that this was an accident change it for you if it was your child? Specifically, would the fact that it was a negligent accident be enough for you to let it go? Some accidents--a 747 randomly breaking and dropping an engine on my daughter--are pure accidents. But one so easily prevented save for the idiocy of the perpetrator, no. The idiocy would steal whatever solace the fact of accident might bring. And that theft must be accounted for. Says me, at least.
It is a tragic sidetrack that derives from a few posts that make relevant points. C78 noted Bowling for Columbine, and Nietzchefan pointed to the American hair-trigger. These are relevant issues, as explained in better detail by Alexb123.
Unfortunately, though, someone raised the car analogy. Frankly, I'm sick of that one because some folks seem rather quite afraid to acknowledge the difference between, say, a pencil and a gun. Both can kill you, but only one is designed specifically for that purpose. I find the idea that a vehicle is a "bigger deadlier weapon" a bit absurd at best. To the other:
Yes, actually I think it would. The sheer stupidity of using a car to kill a snake is ... I mean, really. There's a line in an old Garfield strip from the early 80s when Arlene retorts to Garfield's crack about the wisdom of trying to match intellects by saying, "It's kind of like trying to swat a fly with a Buick." There's a line in a song by the Flaming Lips, "Waitin' for a Superman", that goes, "Is it overwhelming to use a crane to crush a fly?"
But I do take your point. However, I simply cannot understand how people disregard the fact that a gun is designed specifically to kill.
In the end, we can certainly agree on that.
In the meantime, it's worth noting a few points:
Noble, Oklahoma is a small town of approximately 5,600, only several miles south-southeast of Norman (home of the Univ. of Oklahoma), maybe 35 miles SSE of Oklahoma City. Thanks to Mapquest, I can tell you that it's just a short drive down Classen Boulevard from Norman to Noble.
Click here for the Mapquest display of the 300 block of Crest Lane, the approximate location of the snake call. 30 minutes after the snake call, police received a call reporting shots fired; the second call came from the 1200 block of Etowah Road, which would be approximately between Robin and Crestdale to the northwest of Crest Lane. If you click the aerial view and zoom in a couple of notches, you will see what looks like a swimming pool just to the right of the red star. To the right of the pool is what looks like "a wooded field near a pond where the two boys were fishing with their grandfather and great-grandfather" (see Norman Transcript link above). The incident shots were fired within a couple houses of that pool.
I will note that it feels a little creepy to be looking at the image, but maybe that's just me.
Pete said:
Since you ignored what I actually wrote, and in the interests of the dignity of this topic, I will limit my response in this issue to this disclaimer.
While I would hope to agree with you, I've known many people who talk as if they would have a choice. Whether or not they could deliver is an open question, but some people will grasp after anything to absolve themselves. I'll go so far as to say that he does have a choice. He can be human, or maybe he's a sociopath and will feel no guilt for the rest of his life, and think that any charges he faces are unjust. There is, after all, the legendary brotherhood of silence among police; while it doesn't specifically apply here, many cops justify their aiding and abetting of murders with the belief that it is their duty to do so. The connection? They can be cold bastards sometimes. Whether or not that's the case here, we might actually get to see as the situation develops.
In this context, I think the grandfather's accusation is significant: "They didn't tell us they were the ones who had been shooting or that they had shot him. They didn't admit a doggone thing."
Maybe it's an insurance consideration. Maybe they thought they could play it off otherwise. "It's an accident" never works as an excuse for children when they clearly should have known better. It really depends on how the final report constructs the situation. Does the grandfather mean he saw the cops come out of the brush and leave? Did they come over and investigate the incident as if it was a crime, and they just happened to be nearby? If it was a pure accident, what were they afraid of? Did they know they were taking a dangerous risk when shooting at the snake? People who aren't police, who do something accidentally that hurts someone, and then try to pretend there's nothing going on, even if they have the best of intentions, are held accountable in the sense that their pretense increases their culpability. It's hard for me to leave it at the simply obvious, that it was an accident. To me, it's disturbing that someone actually voted for "nothing should happen". Police can shoot an innocent man forty-one times for doing what they say and walk away. Police can attack a man on the street for refusing to sell drugs (because he has none), and the mayor will help them out by trashing the victim. At some point, something needs to happen. Sure, Noble, Oklahoma is a long way from New York City. Sure, it's a long way from Seattle, where the police chief routinely interferes in incident reviews to make sure his officers are cleared after beating a man in a wheelchair and being caught lying in the incident report. Sure, it's a long way from Rampart, Los Angeles. But something has to happen.
And while I agree that emotion clouds someone's judgment, I lived in Oregon at the time that they officially started giving weight to the testimony of victims' families at sentencing hearings. And I know how bizarre some people's recollections of their loved ones are. And yet these folks, whom you would say are the least qualified to say what's good, suddenly find themselves with tremendous influence over what's right and good. I just don't think you're being fair. The trucker on footballs who smashes a car and kills someone doesn't mean to. It was an accident. The gun manufacturer's representative who misfires a weapon and hits a teacher in a schoolyard doesn't mean to. The drunk who discharges his weapon accidentally while cleaning it doesn't set out to kill the infant sleeping in the next flat over. The drunk driver who runs over someone and kills them doesn't mean to. These are all accidents. And I guarantee you that the cop shooting at a snake in a tree didn't mean to kill a little boy. Does his badge change anything? Does it earn him some credit?
I have much respect for S.A.M., and I wasn't going to touch her response with a ten-foot pole, but Kadark raised the question that was first or second to my mind. (The first may have been, "And?") Her response to the question was more than adequate. But I don't think Kadark's question is irrelevant. Rather, I think it's obvious.
To the other, I disagree with victim impact statements at sentencing, so it's a coin toss. But would the fact that this was an accident change it for you if it was your child? Specifically, would the fact that it was a negligent accident be enough for you to let it go? Some accidents--a 747 randomly breaking and dropping an engine on my daughter--are pure accidents. But one so easily prevented save for the idiocy of the perpetrator, no. The idiocy would steal whatever solace the fact of accident might bring. And that theft must be accounted for. Says me, at least.
It is a tragic sidetrack that derives from a few posts that make relevant points. C78 noted Bowling for Columbine, and Nietzchefan pointed to the American hair-trigger. These are relevant issues, as explained in better detail by Alexb123.
Unfortunately, though, someone raised the car analogy. Frankly, I'm sick of that one because some folks seem rather quite afraid to acknowledge the difference between, say, a pencil and a gun. Both can kill you, but only one is designed specifically for that purpose. I find the idea that a vehicle is a "bigger deadlier weapon" a bit absurd at best. To the other:
Yes, actually I think it would. The sheer stupidity of using a car to kill a snake is ... I mean, really. There's a line in an old Garfield strip from the early 80s when Arlene retorts to Garfield's crack about the wisdom of trying to match intellects by saying, "It's kind of like trying to swat a fly with a Buick." There's a line in a song by the Flaming Lips, "Waitin' for a Superman", that goes, "Is it overwhelming to use a crane to crush a fly?"
But I do take your point. However, I simply cannot understand how people disregard the fact that a gun is designed specifically to kill.
In the end, we can certainly agree on that.
In the meantime, it's worth noting a few points:
• Three officers have been placed on leave in the wake of this shooting.
• Two investigations are underway; the Noble Police Department is conducting an administrative investigation, and the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation is conducting a criminal investigation.
• The officer who fired the shots was a rookie, only a month out of training.
• The NPD's animal control position is part-time, and vacant; the department is advertising for the job.
• With the three officers on leave, NPD has lost 30% of its active staff; including two vacant full-time positions, the department is running at slightly over half capacity.
(see The Norman Transcript)
• Two investigations are underway; the Noble Police Department is conducting an administrative investigation, and the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation is conducting a criminal investigation.
• The officer who fired the shots was a rookie, only a month out of training.
• The NPD's animal control position is part-time, and vacant; the department is advertising for the job.
• With the three officers on leave, NPD has lost 30% of its active staff; including two vacant full-time positions, the department is running at slightly over half capacity.
(see The Norman Transcript)
Noble, Oklahoma is a small town of approximately 5,600, only several miles south-southeast of Norman (home of the Univ. of Oklahoma), maybe 35 miles SSE of Oklahoma City. Thanks to Mapquest, I can tell you that it's just a short drive down Classen Boulevard from Norman to Noble.
Click here for the Mapquest display of the 300 block of Crest Lane, the approximate location of the snake call. 30 minutes after the snake call, police received a call reporting shots fired; the second call came from the 1200 block of Etowah Road, which would be approximately between Robin and Crestdale to the northwest of Crest Lane. If you click the aerial view and zoom in a couple of notches, you will see what looks like a swimming pool just to the right of the red star. To the right of the pool is what looks like "a wooded field near a pond where the two boys were fishing with their grandfather and great-grandfather" (see Norman Transcript link above). The incident shots were fired within a couple houses of that pool.
I will note that it feels a little creepy to be looking at the image, but maybe that's just me.
Last edited:
But guns weren't designed to kill innocent little kids fishing at a pond. See? Big difference, which you don't seem able to grasp ....or don't want to because you're so anti-gun.
A hammer is designed for hitting things, but it can also be used to hit human heads! A hammer is a modified tool that was used in ancient times to kill human enemies, but that doesn't make the hammer a tool of death.
Again, the shooting of the little kid was an accident ...the bullet was not aimed at, nor intended to hit the little kid. Reckless discharge of a weapon? Perhaps, but he was aiming at and trying to kill the snake, not the little kid.
If a bunch of people shoot guns into the air to celebrate New Years Eve, and one of the bullets falls from the sky and kills someone on the other side of town, what's the crime? We see crazed Muslims shooting their AK-47s into the air all the time on tv ...everyone is happy, ain't they?
I guess guns were designed to celebrate major events, huh?
Baron Max
yes indeed. something like tarring the entire police community with the same brush.
what needs to happen is to tear these officers background apart and create a psychological profile to add top the hiring process to ensure nothing like this happens again. i would also dig into the background of who hired these guys and anyone that recommended them.
lawsuits isn't going to do a damned thing except make a few people some money.
If a bunch of people shoot guns into the air to celebrate New Years Eve, and one of the bullets falls from the sky and kills someone on the other side of town, what's the crime? We see crazed Muslims shooting their AK-47s into the air all the time on tv ...everyone is happy, ain't they?
I guess guns were designed to celebrate major events, huh?
Baron Max
That doesn't always work out too well either
http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/320400|oddlyenough|04-22-2003::12:04|reuters.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/44271433.cms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/246156.stm
Leopold99 said:
It might work, but I think it would be a better idea if, when incidents occur, officials didn't scurry to cover their asses and protect the guilty. So far, the Noble Police Department seems to be handling this as best they can. And the mayor doesn't seem to be following Hizzoner Giuliani's lead.
So, do you use a brush and pail, or just hogtie them and dip them into a vat?
I didn't train them to use a fork. I just gave it to them and they were self taught.
OK, maybe you do need to be trained on how to use a fork. :bugeye:
What was the officer's crime, Tiassa? Or don't you believe in the law?
I know for damned sure that you don't believe a cop is innocent until proven guilty ...I know that from your past post here and other threads.
Again, ......what was the crime? What was the actual crime that the officer committed? I think it might be nice to know that, don't you? ...before we hogtie him and dip him in a vat of boiling tar?
Baron Max
the poster never said they were designed to kill innocent kids just to kill. point number one the person your replying to is right and point number two attaching the innocent little kid to the gun thing commits at least one logical fallacy possibly more
Baron Max said:
Depends on the Oklahoma statute, which I haven't yet dug up. Likely the charge will be "manslaughter" or "negligent homicide", depending on how the state phrases it. And, yes, the officer certainly deserves a fair trial before the law. In fact, the best chance that he won't would come from departmental corruption, which seems unlikely, given the statements by both the police chief and mayor.
I don't recall that Leopold99 has specified his preferred method.
Last edited:
Whoa! It really does happen!
Sing it with me: O, holy shite! I bet that really hu-urts ....
Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch!
Hey, did you ever catch that one episode of Beavis and Butthead when Butthead flips the pencil off his desk and it sticks in Beavis' eye? I loved that line: "Whoa! It really does happen!"
Orleander said:
Sing it with me: O, holy shite! I bet that really hu-urts ....
Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch!
Hey, did you ever catch that one episode of Beavis and Butthead when Butthead flips the pencil off his desk and it sticks in Beavis' eye? I loved that line: "Whoa! It really does happen!"
it was a caustic sarcastic remark on my part.
i know how some people are when it comes to certain things.
i agree. but what is this officer guilty of? lack of judgment or criminal intent?
that is the question that needs answered then we can go on to prescribe what needs to be done.
hogtie with apples on the side