DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jury awards $4 to family of black man killed by sheriff’s deputies in Fla.

you made the claim. please, enlighten us all what you mean by that.

I gave you the rules. Pay or go home.

rules? you have clearly just demonstrated you actually have no idea what you meant by that comment.

or you do, but you know you'll get completely wrecked once you state your reasoning.

lol @ rules. someone who actually understands what they're saying doesn't have to come up with rules in order to defend their opinions.



put up or shut up.

You know... the only thing I was commenting on was how much of a veiled threat of gun violence was lurking in your previous post.

Here, this:


That's some honestly disturbing stuff there.
It's not something I hear from the people I know- and they come from all walks of life.

You do realize that's not... normal for most message boards, don't you? That stuff like this quote kicks up red flags?


As for all this new stuff you just wrote:
It certainly was your time to waste.

I'll be choosing something else to do with my time, besides engaging in a pointless, endless slam-dance with you. I'm watching you blast flame-throwers all over this place, and I'm determined to not entertain you or your obsessions.

Dude... re-read that remark I quoted, and tell us that we shouldn't be concerned about you.


I am done with this soul-sucking duet.

Told you, Swish, you want answers from me, I want an answer from you. Tell me why black women don't trust black men. Come on, you took a college-level course, were all bragging about it back then.

It's all on you. I know why you don't want to, that actually dovetails in to my answer. So pony up.

Clem, you are paranoid. Just relating to you a skill level that folks who think they can "force it down their throats" (442) need to keep in mind. Also, you were awful quiet when certain folks were talking about starting arguments with cops while armed, not a peep from you. OK. If you seriously think that hitting bullseyes is something threatening, you are the one needing some serious therapy.

the fact that you're still bringing it up once again proves that you have no actual basis for why you said what you said.

all that intellect you was bragging about, yet you're still one of, if not, the most clueless person on this board when it comes to anything not dealing with tech.

i mean think about it. your only defense is to go "well, im not gonna answer your question that you ask first until you answer mine".

that tells everyone here that the only way you can have any chance at a coherent argument is to break down someone else's first.

because you are the ONLY one here so far who hasn't given up their own individual thoughts without having to respond to someone first.

bro, if you cant actually explain the ORIGINAL point you made about "the culture", then shut up.

seriously, just shut up. what is your basis for making that comment?

if you can't answer that question, then all the IQ in the world wont stop you from looking absolutely stupid right now.

This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.
Evasion (ethics) Question dodging - Wikipedia


Nelson to a T.

First, son, you are not in charge of giving me directions.

Second, you first ducked the question months ago. You were afraid to answer it then, for the same reason you are afraid to answer it now.

When you answer it, and explain why, and examine the facts, you will be well on your way to answering your own question. The important difference is, it will come from within and there will be no one to point a finger at and disagree with.

Lastly, I already explained the answer you are looking for several posts up.

This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.
Evasion (ethics) Question dodging - Wikipedia


all the IQ in the world hasn't stopped nelson from looking absolutely stupid right now.

so now that im done with taking out the trash, this is why we cant get anywhere.

people like to make comments, then when they are asked to go into further detail with said comments...well they tuck their tail inbetween their legs and run, or simply dodge the question by question dodging.

its the same reason why Vambo can't seem to answer what exactly the man did in this article that warranted a death sentence.

i now have seen at least two people who lack the inability to state why loud music = shot by the cops.

i now have seen at least two people who lack the inability to state why being drunk in a home = shot by the cops.

i now have seen at least two people who lack the inability to state why closing the garage door on a cop with no warrant in his own home = shot by the cops.

all i have witnessed is a whole lot of nothing. a whole lot of bragging about one's perceived status without actually explaining themselves and the comments they have made.

i mean just think about it. Nelson37 tried to make the pathetic attempt of an argument that the guy was drunk over 5x the legal limit.

the legal limit to WHAT? because i wasn't aware there was a legal limit to how much you can drink in your own home.

is there a law that nelson can point to to support that claim?

no.

which means once again, nelson pulled a comment straight out of his butthole with no evidence to support his claim.

just like his culture crap.

This may occur when the person questioned either does not know the answer and wants to avoid embarrassment, or when the person is being interrogated or questioned in debate, and wants to avoid giving a direct response.
Evasion (ethics) Question dodging - Wikipedia

You were told I don't not have the information the jury had to make that determination and neither do you or you would have presented it.

He should have just answered the door asked what the issues were comply with turning down the sick music and been done with it.

Why didn't he just do that?

I'm with you on this argument. I can't understand why a guy gets shot through his garage door because he's drunk, minding his own business, listening to loud music in his own home.



And yes. That was certainly crap, and all that followed as well.

Reading that kind of crap that Nelson was just spewing is upsetting and frustrating. It was trash

I think you're missing the point man

Asking why someone didn't do the right thing is missing the point?

All was previously explained.

The intoxication standard is used in multiple situations. It applies to drunkenness in general, not just driving a car. It is an objective standard, helpful for those who do not know what the numbers mean. As previously stated, .4 is close to lethal alcohol poisoning levels.

Have also explained that he may, or may not, have been inside his house while in the garage, did you miss that? If you failed to read it, or failed to understand, say so and I will repeat the legal definition.

Now, since you clearly have no clue, I will explain a few items for you. Inside your home, is not in public, however, once you open the door, to an extent, you are now in public. Particularly if there is no screen door or other barrier. Also, in a garage, which does not share a load-bearing wall with the house, you are NOT in your home. Not in public either, but there are several legal differences specifically relating to search and seizure law, which has some bearing here. Have not seen pictures of garage structure.

Now, the very loud music, that IS in public. The obscenity is an aggravating circumstance, as is the proximity to the elementary school. Proximity to a school is an aggravating factor in many legal ordinances. One such would be an obscenity complaint. A refusal to turn down the music would be an unabated noise complaint, with obscenity in proximity to an elementary school, will get your butt arrested every time, correctly and in observance of the law.

There are very few INABILITIES which you seem to lack. Such as knowing that an ABILITY is something you CAN do, and an INABILITY is something you can NOT do.

ALL of this has been previously explained at length, in detail, by me, more than once.Also by numerous others. YOU possess the INABILITY to read and understand, you just whine, moan and cry like a baby without a bottle.

Not to mention, you left out the GUN. You know, those things that go bang and make holes and while a cop might not come to your house just because you are very drunk, as in 5 times the legal limit for a more precise description, IF a cop does encounter a person drunk to that extent (hold on a second cowboy, would this be where we would need an objective standard for drunkenness, instead of just pulling stuff out of Swish's butt, why yes, yes we would) who is in possession of a gun, that is a threat to public safety just the same as if that person was trying to start their car and drive away. They are required to prevent that, and could be held liable for damages if they fail to do so.

The only person looking stupid is you. You believe stupid crap, you keep whining about not having an explanation when it has been posted multiple times in several different ways, you just refuse to see it just like you refuse to see that what you were told about why black women do not trust black men was complete and total garbage, not just racist crap, but foolish garbage with no conceivable mechanism by which it could possibly be true.
There are no memories that stretch over 150 years.

You are afraid to let go of your "it's all whitey's fault" mentality.

The point is, he shouldn't have had to. It shouldn't have come to "Well, he should have just done this"

He shouldn't have been shot. He was in his own house. Where he lived. Shot through HIS garage door for listening to loud "obscene" music

That's someone's life. He had family. Friends. He's a person

So you feel escalating the situation was the better way to go rather than defusing the situation by simply turning down the sick music?

You're also OK for the sick music to be played around grade school children...

Bro trust me, there is ZERO chance he has a genius level IQ. Although I do believe he is smart, well read and in the higher IQ range. Genius is generally thought to be 140-145 or above.

My IQ has been tested multiple times at 136. I would say Nelson is compatible but don't think him bragging about it does much to prove he rates over 140, if anything it makes his claim highly suspicious. It's like bragging about having big junk, those who do it most often usually lack in that department. It's especially sad to see someone suffer in both cases.

I do however believe Nelson is an IT expert because he has a geek streak that is obvious to me. Speaking as someone in programing and often surrounded by geeks, you sort of develop a geek radar. And IT Networking guys are basically the grunts of Computer Science, so it fits. 30 years is pretty long in the tooth for an IT guy though. That means he was a geek in 1988, before it was cool. He's old school pocket protector geek, not new school apple guy geek. lol

Nelson, I know you are smart enough to use the reply link under the person you are replying to, so please do as this get confusing when I don't really want to read your drivel but am not going to let you run on at the mouth at me.

you said you have genius level IQ?

dude, there's no way with this post.


hardly explained, and certainly not explained well from you and your cheerleaders.



this is a complete misdirect. stating "5 times over the legal limit" implies that he was operating a vehicle and/or heavy machinery, or planning to.

that wasn't the case. he can be drunk at his own home whenever he wants, however drunk he pleases.

there is no legal limit for him drinking in his own home. there was no domestic violence issue. the call was over what?

loud music. you and others are using him being drunk as a way to discredit him.



where was he when he closed the garage door?

inside his house.

Getting drunk on your own front porch is not illegal, rules US court

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...s-10318074.html

also, his garage is part of his house. again, the call was about loud music. so when he closed the garage door, the police had no legal right to search in the garage, nevermind that they had no legal right to search the house, either.

they needed a warrant.



noticed something? you have YET to actually state anything that is worthy of being shot.

loud music isn't something the cops should be shooting people over.

the ONLY way your argument makes ANY sort of sense, is if you believe the cops should had the right to shoot someone over loud music.

is that your stance?



and yet you hilariously forgot that ya need a thing called a WARRANT to try and enter someones home.

in all of your genius level IQ, ya forgot this little tiny thing called the 4th amendment.


this comment is odd. i came at you with facts and logic and you're coming at me like a ticked off teenager at prom.

but thats what people who dont really have a point tend to do. and you do that quite often.



how was he a threat to public safety over loud music?

again, NOTHING you have stated has been a valid justification for why the cops shot him.

NOTHING.

are you and vambo that oblivious to the obvious question that you two have failed to answer?

what was the ACTION that took place that the cops felt the need to draw their weapons and shoot?

you havent stated that! you have only stated the situation, but not the ACTION.

ok, we have loud music.

ok, he's drunk.

ok, he has a gun that was in his back pocket

ok, he closed the garage door.

where, Nelson? where in any of those situations was there a scenario where a shot had to be fired?

Nelson, was the mans gun drawn on the officer?

yes or no?

where was the gun found on his dead body?

did the cops shoot the man before the garage door, or THROUGH the garage door?

lets read this again, nelson:



so, is nelson37 saying the ACTION of closing the garage door caused the cops to fire upon hill?

because if thats a yes, that means these cops should be sitting in prison for MURDER.

not only was there NO weapon drawn on the cops, but the gun was in his backpocket UNLOADED.

which means there was NO gun in his hand. he was shot dead on the spot, which means the cops were by the body the ENTIRE time. which means the only way for the gun to get to his backpocket was for the cops themselves to take it out of his hands and place it there.

so im going to ask you again, what did Hill do? what ACTION did he do that warranted a deadly response by the cops?



^^ this was an emotional rant not based in any sort or facts or logic whatsoever. you're genius level IQ....is getting straight up blasted by a average intelligent army grunt.

kinda starting to think you're a fraud.

i get better debates out of Diam, and he doesn't even know the difference between 'witch' and 'which'.

Nelson should shut up and program.

Shout out Lara Ingraham

I doubt he does much programing. Probably some database sql queries, maybe a little programming, but nothing in-depth because that doesn't fit his job. Like I said in the other thread, IT Networking guys are like the grunts of Computer Science. Not trying to disrespect him at all, somebody has to do that bit. And he probably does have to work with the biggest idiots to ever use computers doing that. Not a job I would want.

I lmao about the genius thing. Responded in the thread he said it. He's smart but 'genius'? No way. <-emphasis on the PERIOD.

here is where I am on this. Yes, he should have just asked why they were there. Yes, he should have not shut the door. Would he be alive if he didn't do what he did, maybe. Maybe not. That is the question people are making. Does shutting the door constitute getting shot, is the question people want answered. According to this jury, it did. We don't have all the evidence that was presented, only what a few articles have addressed (and may or may not have left out).

Much closer to what I'm getting at.

As I've said before, he's in his own house.

Could this guy have made a better decision? A case for that could be made. But does that matter? I don't think so. That's not this guy's responsibility. As I've said, he has rights. He's in his own damn house

Much more importantly: Should he have had to get shot through a garage door? That seems absolutely ridiculous.


And I don't care what a jury says. A jury freed OJ. A jury freed Casey Anthony. A jury freed George Zimmerman. Jurys screw up all the time. And it's been shown that naturally Jurys seem to side with police officers. I mean, Jesus the jury originally awarded the family 4$. That is a complete slap in the face. Either A) Don't award anything or B) Award something significant.


This guy was in his own home and shot through his own garage door. He's a person. That's a life. Someone with a family, friends. People knew him. This is a clear case of a man's life not being valued by. Did he really deserve to be shot through a garage door in his own house?

You have started an interesting discussion that the Left won't have.

I see you making your points while they line up to insult you on a personal level.

Then, as they shut you out, they complain there are never any conversations on these boards.

Pathetic waste o time.

Looking at both sides and evidence only, right now we just don't know enough to determine this point. We know the man was intoxicated, had a complaint against him (for noise) and DID have a weapon. Does being visibly intoxicated and possessing a firearm constitute as probable cause to enter a home? Honestly, I am not sure. I would think so. I know in WV your not legally allowed to posses a firearm ON YOUR PERSON intoxicated. At home, or in public. I think this fact is being missed. But we would need to know the laws of the state, etc. and see testimony if that was even considered. We don't have that.

At glance, with the information from this article, it certainly does look questionable. Was he being intoxicated, in the vicinity of school children, with a firearm (which again is what I am questioning as being legal since the intoxication).

Well now you are getting a little ridiculous, sorry. 1, we are not privy to the information at hand, that a jury is presented with. OJ case, yes - he was guilty, yet ALOT of evidence was not allowed to be presented - thus a jury was not allowed to take it into consideration. OJ was tried on TV to the public, but as a different trial and evidence is presented to that jury.

Im gonna go say that there are what 100's of thousands of cases a year that are tried, I would go out on a limb and say that less than 1 percent are false convictions. Just a hunch. Lets not base every case on two in the media.

As far as the 4.00 thing, I have said it once, it does seem like a slap in face, which is EXACTLY why I believe there is ALOT more information we do not know, or have presented with ourselves.

It doesn't seem so, no. But again, I need a lot more information before I am going to say that it was or was not a justified shooting. Right now, ALL the information says it WAS justified - as a JURY in COURT stated it was. That JURY would have more information than a few reporters whom with words can make readers believe a number of different things, simply by the tone an article is written.

I have questions, lots of them. As do others, but to cast someone as a murderer without the actual information is grossly unjust in itself.

I don't see where he was ever given the opportunity to turn down the sick music..

This is honestly what I think happened.. he heard the doorbell ring, he opened the garage door.. he saw the cops, having a bad history with the police (which is all his fault), being intoxicated and knowing he was in violation of his status, he panicked and started to shut the door.. he had a gun in his back pocket.... the cops saw the gun in his pocket and the door closing and they panicked and shot him...

The guy obviously didn't put himself in a good position by his actions and contributed to escalating the situation.. I don't understand why so many seem to be entrenched in placing 100% blame on one side or the other.. well, I guess I kind of do, it's because one person is dead and the other is not.. that's a pretty permanent outcome to the issue.. which is where the issue really seems to lie.. How could this have been resolved in a way that nobody had to end up dead..

I don't think ANYBODY is saying the dude was right in blaring that music with elementary school kids around... that it's a good idea to be .4 intoxicated in the middle of the afternoon when your daughter is about to get home from school.. or that a convicted criminal should walk around his home with a gun (loaded or not) in his back pocket... what people are trying to reconcile is that even given this guys mistakes, none of it seems to rise to the level of him needing to be shot through his own garage door..

I believe there is shared blame here, I do not think it's 99% to 1% though.. but the issue isn't what is the appropriate proportion of blame.. the issue is that 1 person and his family paid 100% of the price and the other paid nothing..

i understand. You have no logical basis for argument, so you resort to insults and personal attacks, and wish to remain clueless. Expected.

Swish, try this. Talk to a cop, lawyer, medical professional, anybody at all who is familiar with blood alcohol levels. Ask them what the odds are that you can immediately tell someone is very drunk, at .10, .20, .30, .40. The odds go up as the level goes up. The significance of the level is that, at .40, it is IMMEDIATELY obvious to anyone at all, even with a raging alcoholic, at that level, it is impossible to miss. I do not state he was drunk to discredit him, I state it because it is a fact. Very simple. Many wish to ignore this fact to try and tell a different story. This story involves a very drunk person. A very drunk person with a firearm is a threat to public safety. You are free to disagree, but you will be wrong.

Police most certainly do NOT need a warrant to enter a home. Absolutely incorrect and a dangerous assumption. Medical necessity, danger to self or others, obvious criminal activity, threat to public safety. REPEAT - if this man were attempting to drive a car, the public servant is under a POSITIVE REQUIREMENT to prevent that, and can be legally held liable for letting such an obviously drunk person drive away. Even if he is black and they will be called racist for doing so. True, the car is outside the home. That is different. However, inside or outside is not a deciding factor, you can be charged with DUI in your own driveway, or in your garage, or on a riding lawnmower, or on a horse. But, in Texas, NOT on a mule. The factor is the threat to public safety, not where you are located. Yes, inside your home, or garage, you can be a threat to public safety.

Being inside your home carries a certain legal expectation of privacy. Separate garage is very much less so. Opening the door lessens your expectation of privacy. These are legal concepts you may want to investigate, but likely you will not bother and just insist you don't like it so it can't be true.

Years ago I explained Florida Castle Doctrine, clearly, precisely, and accurately, told you all how to look it up, would have taken less than 60 seconds. What I got was a bunch of ignorant flapping yaps who insisted I did not know what I was talking about, could not read, could not understand the law, was stupid, was brain-damaged, all kinds of crap from a bunch of folks too lazy and stupid to confirm 3 freaking sentences. Well, I was right, and they were wrong. Just like now. You have been incorrect in virtually every legal avenue you venture into, and simply have name-calling and emotional response to fall back on. You can choose to remain clueless, or verify what I have told you.

I was approximately 10 feet away when a friend answered his door, to see police with a noise complaint. He was not obviously drunk, he had no gun, and there was no elementary school across the street. He told the cops to screw off and came back inside. He hit the floor with the door on top of him, and two burly cops on top of the door. He was handcuffed and taken to jail. No racism involved. Just cops doing their job.

There are several facts around this incident, you need to take into account everything that happened, and not leave out what you do not like. Also, it helps to have a basic understanding of how the law works, instead of an emotional response.

Not believing what you state is neither a personal attack nor insulting. Do you and 40 believe everything I state? Of course you don't because the truth would crush your delusions.

The big difference is that I don't need to embellish and bloviate to feel good about myself or my beliefs. I'm on the right side of history on Trump, of this I have zero doubt. On you not being a genius, I absolutely do not believe your statement. You just don't like the fact that I have the balls to say that to you.

I do not care what you say and am not interested in your opinion.

What you state is simply inaccurate, which is something I tend to avoid, because is has neither value nor use.

Trump has nothing to do with any discussion I am currently involved in, nor does the price of potatoes in Idaho. If you want to discuss either one of those things, start a new thread.

There has been zero logical or factual counterpoint to anything I have said. Just emotional responses and derogatory remarks. Which was expected, that is what leftists always do. Kill the messenger.

What you fail to understand is that the message lives on. You are on the wrong side of history, and your ideology is going the way of the dodo bird. Leftism is the philosophy of the incompetent, the non-productive, those afraid to run their own lives and take responsibility for their own actions and failures.

I spoke the truth about myself, and you don't like it, that is OK. You do not have to like it, you get to. You are also free to disbelieve. Makes absolutely no difference, facts are still facts, whether you choose to believe them, or simply dismiss because they make you personally unhappy, that is your choice.

Except each case is different, and once again, you didn’t even go point for point addressing my post.

Look what Nelson JUST did again.

Imma ask you AGAIN. What ACTION did hill take that warranted a deadly response?

You post all this other nonsense but have evaded answering that very question.

You keep talking about clueless, and talk to somebody, and blah blah blah blah.

And yet all you have done is continued to post the situation of what happened, and not the ACTION that took place.

Kick rocks, you’re not worth the time anymore. You spin, dodge, evade, all this nonsense and still can’t answer two very simple questions:

What ACTION did hill take that warranted a dead response, and what do you mean by culture?

Two questions you refuse to answer, because at the end of the day, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

More bloviating, zero substance.

Answer Swish's questions.

Every time somebody hits him with real points, he reverts to the classics.

Clueless, illogical, something something something else that means nothing.

I’m still waiting for those two questions to be answered. We’re on day two now, and still nothing.

Just scrape the gum off your shoe and move on, not worth the bother like you said. None of this back and forth will ever change their hearts anyway, so why bother. I'm not in here trying to save lost souls, you know what I'm saying?

When it comes to intolerance and racism, I'm on board with that old "nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out" saying. Call it what it is and move on.

As has been stated many, many times.

He was extremely drunk, he had a gun, he was in close proximity to a large number of small children, he tried to flee. This has been explained MANY, MANY times as a threat to public safety, a clear and present danger. Focus on this paragraph, do you understand what all the words mean?

According to the cops, he did brandish and/or have the gun in his hand at some point. No evidence to the contrary. Being in his pocket makes it unlikely, but not impossible.

Swish, did you figure out that since the house was facing the school, when the cops fired into the garage, for that bullet to endanger the children it would have to travel around the entire planet and come in from the back side? Do you understand words like "front" and "back"? You had stated previously that the cops might have endangered the children, by firing in what would be the completely opposite direction. You say things like this, and apparently believe you are making some sort of point. You are, but not the one you think you are making.

If you actually made any point needing addressed, I would do so. You have not. Seriously, not a one.

I am certainly enjoying watching Nelson eat you guys for lunch.

Try having a conversation for a change and show him just how educated you really are.

On second thought...

And he was black



According to the shooter.



And the shooter (the cop) didn't expect return fire from the black man in his direction? I wonder why?



Points made above.

I understand your argument regardless of how implausible I find it and however unlikely it is that it unfolded that way.

But here is another scenario for you to consider; Cops got called out on a domestic noise complaint, turns out to be a guy drunk in his garage listening to loud music. Somehow in a couple of minutes that went from what should have taken place "Sir we need you to turn down the music" to shooting a man dead in his garage and blaming it on alcohol, the proximity of the school, and a gun that NO evidence can prove ever left his back pocket.

We know that one cop yelled "GUN!" and the other cop opened fire, firing through the closing door. You can plainly see what appears to be the shots elevating as the door was closing.

My opinion supported by these facts is that another poorly trained, react first question second type cop who was probably scared of the black boogie man (in his own home) took this man's life over loud music. My scenario sounds much more likely.

Wake up Dorothy, you're not in Oz.

No, there has.. the fact that your extreme arrogance does not permit you to consider it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

I can tell you where this conversation turned for me.. back on page 1.. when you said..


Aside from the fact that this belligerence toward the cops has never been substantiated...

And aside from the fact that you are yet to recant your statement that he was heading for a large crowd of small children, when he wasn't.. he was actually closing himself into his own garage..

And aside from the fact that you have given the cops credit for protecting children with their accurate headshot when they were actually shooting blind through a garage door and just got lucky..

Aside from all of the speculation you cite as fact and your simple factual inaccuracies.. while that's all bad enough.. it's the..


It's the almost giddiness.. almost like you find some joy and pride in what happened... it's that total lack of human decency that is what makes this so appalling... it's not that you want to trust the police, it's that a man was killed in his garage with his elementary school daughter across the street watching... leaving his GF and daughter without a boyfriend and a father.... it's that you won't even acknowledge that whether or not this man was actually a threat to ANYBODY is still very much in question... so for me, and I can't speak for anybody else.. but it's your tone that makes this so reprehensible.. how can you have such a total lack of caring for your fellow man? Nevermind, I think I can answer that for myself, you don't consider this guy to be "your fellow man" because he's beneath you.. you have made that perfectly clear.. because he's made some mistakes with the law... because he was in a bad place that day so the bullet to the head is perfectly justified...