Another weird news story from Florida

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:04 pm

And the back-pedaling slowly begins...AUTOPSY results on Rudy Eugene, who was killed by Miami police last month while eating the face of a homeless man, showed that he had no human flesh in his stomach when he died.

Miami 'cannibal' had pills in stomach but no flesh | The Courier-Mail

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:12 pm

spot;1396007 wrote: And the back-pedaling slowly begins...AUTOPSY results on Rudy Eugene, who was killed by Miami police last month while eating the face of a homeless man, showed that he had no human flesh in his stomach when he died.

Miami 'cannibal' had pills in stomach but no flesh | The Courier-Mail

So, Where'd the guy's face go?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:15 pm

LarsMac;1396008 wrote: So, Where'd the guy's face go?
He spit it out? Chew/spit, chew/spit.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:18 pm

AnneBoleyn;1396009 wrote: He spit it out? Chew/spit, chew/spit.

No doubt, to the extent that flesh was removed (and I continue to doubt it was much if any), you're right. But we do appear to be discovering a new definition of "cannibal" specific to the Florida police and media, don't you think?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:36 pm

spot;1396010 wrote: No doubt, to the extent that flesh was removed (and I continue to doubt it was much if any), you're right. But we do appear to be discovering a new definition of "cannibal" specific to the Florida police and media, don't you think?

What description would you prefer ?

"Vegetarian bites off nose in attack but moral code causes expectoration before ingestion"

"Attacker offended by unpleasant taste of donors nose, spits it out with disgust"

"Reminded of promised special dinner, biter expels half chewed nose, so as to retain appetite"

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:48 pm

Bruv;1396012 wrote: What description would you prefer ?One that reflects what happened. We'll find out what happened eventually. It'll involve some pig-ignorant dildo of a cop using unjustifiable lethal force, I expect. Florida appears to attract them like flies.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:03 pm

I don't see what difference it makes if he swallowed or not, he still savaged the man's face. Or are you questioning that as well?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:04 pm

That's like quibbling over a blow job if the hooker doesn't swallow. It's still the same result.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:08 pm

SnoozeAgain;1396016 wrote: I don't see what difference it makes if he swallowed or not, he still savaged the man's face. Or are you questioning that as well?

No I'm not. I'm questioning whether lethal force was a reasonable response by the officers. All this rot about wrestling with the chap is irrelevant, the goons in uniform undoubtedly had equipment suitable for knocking him out without getting so close as to be attacked. He was, after all, lying on the ground at the time. Shooting him repeatedly until he was dead should result in at least a public trial to determine whether undue force was employed.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:26 pm

spot;1396010 wrote: No doubt, to the extent that flesh was removed (and I continue to doubt it was much if any), you're right. But we do appear to be discovering a new definition of "cannibal" specific to the Florida police and media, don't you think?
Florida has become our whackiest state, so yes I agree.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:16 pm

spot;1396010 wrote: No doubt, to the extent that flesh was removed (and I continue to doubt it was much if any), you're right. But we do appear to be discovering a new definition of "cannibal" specific to the Florida police and media, don't you think?

So you expect the cop to check and see if he was swallowing the guy's face before he shot him?

Sorry. He saw this guy eating another guy's face, and when he tried to tell him to stop, the guy growls?

Screw that, I'd shoot 'im, too.

MAYBE, if he was carrying a Tazer he could'a stopped him, but I have seen where a Tazer actually just pissed the target off, and he turned and beat the cop half to death before backup got there.

I say, shoot the guy and find out if he swallowed, later.

I don't see some grand media cover-up going on here.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:01 am

I fail to see how someone a continent away, living in a leafy suburb, with no experience of dealing with drug induced manic behaviour can have any idea what the best course of action could or should be in such circumstances.

Idealy the man ought to respond favourably to a harsh shout to stop, and then lay prone on the floor while the officer tends to the injured man.

But this wasn't a drunk in downtown Bristol, this was someone high on some unknown (at the time) drug, ripping the flesh off a man's face with blood everywhere while emitting fearsome growls and presumably a manic expression.

Tazers have been known have no calming affect, a baton brings the officer into close proximity of a man off his head.

Only the officer involved could call the situation, he might be wrong in his reaction, there ought to be another method availalable, but calling a law enforcement officer a dildo doing his best under pressure would appear to be just a tad biased before the full facts are known

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:11 pm

The hospital has released photos of the victim. Please note: they are pretty bad.

Pictures and article

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:04 pm

Bruv;1396039 wrote: I fail to see how someone a continent away, living in a leafy suburb, with no experience of dealing with drug induced manic behaviour can have any idea what the best course of action could or should be in such circumstances.

Idealy the man ought to respond favourably to a harsh shout to stop, and then lay prone on the floor while the officer tends to the injured man.

But this wasn't a drunk in downtown Bristol, this was someone high on some unknown (at the time) drug, ripping the flesh off a man's face with blood everywhere while emitting fearsome growls and presumably a manic expression.

Tazers have been known have no calming affect, a baton brings the officer into close proximity of a man off his head.

Only the officer involved could call the situation, he might be wrong in his reaction, there ought to be another method availalable, but calling a law enforcement officer a dildo doing his best under pressure would appear to be just a tad biased before the full facts are known

Oh come off it, Bruv...this story involves the police AND Americans. What response would you expect? :wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:18 pm

Bruv;1396039 wrote: I fail to see how someone a continent away, living in a leafy suburb, with no experience of dealing with drug induced manic behaviour can have any idea what the best course of action could or should be in such circumstances.

Idealy the man ought to respond favourably to a harsh shout to stop, and then lay prone on the floor while the officer tends to the injured man.

But this wasn't a drunk in downtown Bristol, this was someone high on some unknown (at the time) drug, ripping the flesh off a man's face with blood everywhere while emitting fearsome growls and presumably a manic expression.

Tazers have been known have no calming affect, a baton brings the officer into close proximity of a man off his head.

Only the officer involved could call the situation, he might be wrong in his reaction, there ought to be another method availalable, but calling a law enforcement officer a dildo doing his best under pressure would appear to be just a tad biased before the full facts are known

I've never known Spot to be a "TAD" bias. LOL

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:29 pm

YZGI;1396087 wrote: I've never known Spot to be a "TAD" bias. LOL

I'm not the least bit biased, I just call spades spades.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:39 pm

spot;1396088 wrote: I'm not the least bit biased, I just call spades spades.
That's some sort of pun, isn't it?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:46 pm

AnneBoleyn;1396089 wrote: That's some sort of pun, isn't it?I do hope not, it was meant to be a passing reference to Cecily Cardew.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:49 pm

spot;1396091 wrote: I do hope not, it was meant to be a passing reference to Cecily Cardew.
What does Oscar Wilde have to do with this? I bet you're just pulling my leg. Ouch!!!!!

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:51 pm

AnneBoleyn;1396092 wrote: What does Oscar Wilde have to do with this? I bet you're just pulling my leg. Ouch!!!!!

It's what Cecily says when verbally dueling with Gwendolen on first meeting her, the latter winning hands down with the next line of the play: "I am glad to say I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different" - one of the world's most perfect put-downs, I always thought.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:57 pm

spot;1396094 wrote: It's what Cecily says when verbally dueling with Gwendolen on first meeting her, the latter winning hands down with the next line of the play: "I am glad to say I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different" - one of the world's most perfect put-downs, I always thought.
Now isn't that interesting. Coincidentally, the words: "I'm not the least bit biased, I just call spades spades." is a perfect pun, but if you don't see it I shall speak of it no more.

Let someone feeling less politically correct guide you.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:58 pm

spot;1396088 wrote: I'm not the least bit biased, I just call spades spades.

But what do you call a black kettle?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:00 pm

This conversation has suddenly soared over my head, I'm quite baffled.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:01 pm

spot;1396097 wrote: This conversation has suddenly soared over my head, I'm quite baffled.

I have to admit, I just had a great laugh at this.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:06 pm

YZGI;1396099 wrote: I have to admit, I just had a great laugh at this.
Me too! :yh_rotfl

Spot's kidding, right?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:33 pm

spot;1396097 wrote: This conversation has suddenly soared over my head, I'm quite baffled.

Urban Dictionary: spade

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:37 pm

But no bias.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:43 pm

oscar;1396106 wrote: Urban Dictionary: spade

One learns something new every day, I'd never heard the term "Moon Cricket" until I opened that page.

It would appear I shouldn't be let loose in civilized company.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:11 am

So, are we sufficiently better informed now to revisit this matter?

The man who was shot dead by police didn't consume any of the person he was fighting with. Cannibalism isn't an appropriate word. They were fighting and he used his teeth, it's called biting, it happens a lot in dirty fights.

He had no detectable drugs in his system other than markers indicating he sometimes used marijuana.

The man he was fighting wasn't a stranger, they were previously acquainted.

The man he was fighting lost an eye in the fight and now has facial scarring in places between his hairline and his nose. That's what happens in a dirty fight.

All four of those aspects were true at the time Rudy Eugene was killed by police. The newspapers went berserk over a so-called cannibal drugged-up zombie killer. None of those words apply to Rudy Eugene. They were applied to back up the policeman who shot the pair of them as they lay fighting on the ground. Rudy Eugene died as a result, Mr Poppo didn't, both were hit by the firing.

Any arguments so far?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:40 am

What is your point ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:54 am

Bruv;1398834 wrote: What is your point ?

That the initial hysteria was deliberate and that those in this thread who supported it are pretty despicable.

Both men were shot by the police while fighting each other. Both men were unarmed, neither had any form of weapon, not a gun or knife or baseball bat between them. Conveniently enough, the survivor has been labelled the victim of the one who died. The reason they were shot is that one or both of them disobeyed the order of an armed police officer. Disobeying an order of an armed police officer in Florida would appear, from many incidents which have resulted in the death of the refusenik, to be more than just an arrestable offense, it appears under the current rules of engagement to be suicidal. It would seem "stop doing that or I'll fire" is a legal sentence of death in Florida from anyone wearing a uniform[1][2].

[1]: ]Or, to be frank, simply Caucasian so long as all you're killing is a Brother. If you're not entitled to a uniform, but you happen to be white, "stop giving me reasonable belief you're a threat or I'll fire" works equally well as a legal excuse to kill, and being from a racial minority is invariably adequate reason to believe someone's a threat.

[2]: Which is, at least, one step up from Leman Street Practice which foregoes the warning. As far as Leman Street's concerned, merely being within range of an armed officer attached to the Specialist Crime and Operations Specialist Firearms Command is warning enough.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:51 am

spot;1398835 wrote: That the initial hysteria was deliberate and that those in this thread who supported it are pretty despicable.

Despicable:Deserving of contempt or scorn; vile....worthy of being despised; contemptible; mean.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:07 am

Bruv;1398836 wrote: Despicable:Deserving of contempt or scorn; vile....worthy of being despised; contemptible; mean.

I do know the meaning of the words I use. Here's a scattering of what I mean from the first wave of support for the gunmen in uniform:I woulda shot him, too. Give the guy a break, He was probably watching a zombie movie the night before.

I know that if I came across some clown playing Zombie, I am NOT gonna go up and look at their pupils to see if perhaps they are tripping. I'n gonna off the sob.

I have no experience of dealing with drug crazed people, the police do. There have been incidents where some nutter has had to be shot several times just to stop them trying to rip anyone in their vicinities head off, tazers and single shots being ineffective.

When a cop encounters someone doing bodily harm to another, the primary task is to stop harmful activity. This person was obviously doing harm and was showing no inclination to stop.

Heavily censored but the blurred area is completely blood red. Man's face chewed off... check.

So spot's completely wrong. I don't give a rat's ass about the corrupt American police argument, I'm interested in this story and SPOT'S COMPLETELY WRONG.

I read a story today that said 80% of the man's face is gone. So I wonder how long before he holds a press conference.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:34 am

I would say you are as guilty of over egging it as the original news reports and people's reaction to it.

Are you despicable too ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:56 am

Bruv;1398851 wrote: I would say you are as guilty of over egging it as the original news reports and people's reaction to it.

Are you despicable too ?

I'm a saint in wolf's clothing, dear boy. Never forget it. I express my saintly anger through saintly wrath.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:51 pm

spot;1398858 wrote: I'm a saint in wolf's clothing, dear boy. Never forget it. I express my saintly anger through saintly wrath.

Please run the same measure over your own quoted post as you do over other's use of English.

I am not dear, in any context I am aware of, either 'dear' as in expensive, 'dear' as in 'affectionately' belonging to you, neither am I a 'boy'

You are not really a saint or are you clad in any attire discarded by a wolf.

Cut us lesser mortals some slack will you ?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:11 pm

It may be a failing but I'd rather be unreasonable.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:28 pm

This is what I was insisting you were wrong about, you ass.

I'm saying I'll post a photo of the chap who survived to give the lie to "the man had virtually no face". I doubt I'm wrong in guessing it's an utter lie of the typical post-killing police sort.

What the hell do you call this?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:50 pm

SnoozeAgain;1398881 wrote: What the hell do you call this?Surgical repair to bite wounds inflicted during a fight, Snooze. There's rather less damage to Mr Poppo's forehead than I'd assumed from the reports. The damage that's there isn't a justification for killing the man he was fighting with, and the fact that Mr Poppo was himself shot is unjustifiable too. I've never said Mr Poppo was uninjured, I've said the damage was never life-threatening and that shooting the two of them on the ground would be counted unlawful excessive force and unlawful homicide were it not for the absolute immunity your get-out-of-jail-free storm-trooper Florida cops enjoy.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:59 pm

You're attempting to rewrite history, spot. You tried to make it sound like Poppo was going to walk out of the hospital the next day to give a news conference. In any case, I never said anything about the police, so your argument is moot.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:04 pm

SnoozeAgain;1398885 wrote: You're attempting to rewrite history, spot. You tried to make it sound like Poppo was going to walk out of the hospital the next day to give a news conference.No I bloody didn't. I said wait and see. Of course the chap's damaged but even the picture you've posted is nothing like the final condition once the surgery's concluded.

Will you please go back to my four points of earlier today and tell me whether you have any arguments with that one specific post.

Arabella · Post by **Arabella** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:18 am

weird indeed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:00 am

spot;1398874 wrote: It may be a failing but I'd rather be unreasonable.
Then you have succeeded, congratulations....................I think.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:41 am

spot;1398833 wrote: So, are we sufficiently better informed now to revisit this matter?
A luxury not afforded the attending officer

The man who was shot dead by police didn't consume any of the person he was fighting with. Cannibalism isn't an appropriate word. They were fighting and he used his teeth, it's called biting, it happens a lot in dirty fights.
The attacker had taken lumps of flesh from his antagonist's face by the act of biting.............so a cannibalistic act, for the purposes of a headline, not unlike your own 'dear boy' or 'saintly anger' quote.

He had no detectable drugs in his system other than markers indicating he sometimes used marijuana.

The man he was fighting wasn't a stranger, they were previously acquainted.

A luxury not afforded the attending officer, or the casual observers

The man he was fighting lost an eye in the fight and now has facial scarring in places between his hairline and his nose. That's what happens in a dirty fight.

All four of those aspects were true at the time Rudy Eugene was killed by police. The newspapers went berserk over a so-called cannibal drugged-up zombie killer. None of those words apply to Rudy Eugene.

A luxury not afforded the attending officer, or casual observers, or indeed reporters paid to sell papers or newscastsThey were applied to back up the policeman who shot the pair of them as they lay fighting on the ground. Rudy Eugene died as a result, Mr Poppo didn't, both were hit by the firing. They were applied to sell the news story, and it worked, nothing to do with backing up the Police, although any reasonable person given the basic story as it occurred would have some sympathy with the lone officer faced with making a decision to protect a blood soaked body beneath a snarling attacker's unremitting onslaught despite having a firearm toting officer scream at him to stop

Any arguments so far?

Not with the facts.......the bare cold facts.....are as you rightly stated.

Why does somebody as obviously intelligent as you, not factor in the the human side of the cold bare facts ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:32 am

Because I quite simply don't believe the untouchable bastards with the guns - I apologize, I mean the attending officers.

They ordered him aside and he growled at them, did he? And how do we know that? Because that's what they claim to have happened. The fact that such a claim is entirely in their own interest seems to have escaped every reporter. The same applies to a dozen other details of the encounter.

The bottom line is, there was no earthly reason to open fire. They chose to kill.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:14 am

Florida police have shot another one. In fact, they shot the wrong guy. Remind me to stay away from Florida.

Daily Commercial - Deputies shoot wrong suspect

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:33 am

spot;1398910 wrote: Because I quite simply don't believe the untouchable bastards with the guns - I apologize, I mean the attending officers.

They ordered him aside and he growled at them, did he? And how do we know that? Because that's what they claim to have happened. The fact that such a claim is entirely in their own interest seems to have escaped every reporter. The same applies to a dozen other details of the encounter.

The bottom line is, there was no earthly reason to open fire. They chose to kill.
The problem I get with you is you start from the perspective that ALL police officers are drawn to the job so that they can fulfill their aim of shooting people for kicks.

The "claim is entirely in their own interest" meaning they went out looking to shoot somebody, anybody, and struck lucky happening across a man sinking his teeth into another mans face and growling when asked to desist.

The lone officer had to decide then and there whether to stand and watch another part of a mans face being chewed off, or to wade in either punching or kicking into a situation that could possibly be a man out of his head on drugs, and possibly HIV positive and to be on the receiving end of his obvious lunatic behaviour, or to open fire.

I am sure the events of that day will haunt that officer for the rest of his life.

(What's with the zee in apologise ?.....Are you an American wannabe ?)

It appears the Chinese are more civilised............

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

You know, I haven't said or implied any of what you ascribe to my thinking. It's just not there at all. It's not why they join, they don't go out looking for it, you're inventing your own explanation for my loathing of these uniformed goons who kill defenceless people on the street without adequate reason.

It is a structural power thing and it's trained. You bark, the civilian obeys. The sole escalation available if you're laughed at is physical violence. In Florida for some godforsaken reason they escalate directly to shooting and if they're in a pack it's a matter of honour for every one of them to empty their piece in the rough direction of the "perpetrator". They and the local press then absolutely and every single time trot out the same tired lies about the behaviour of guy they killed, and they are immune from prosecution unless there's a national scandal which can be silenced no other way.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:31 am

Another bit of jigsaw, to fill in the picture a little:The fact that police found torn-out pages from the Bible scattered along Eugene’s path and near the site of the attack has prompted many in the local community to think that religion played a part in his bizarre behavior. Others blame Vodou based on Eugene’s Haitian heritage.

Did Religion Have a Role in Cannibal Attack? | EURweb

Posters have presumably seen the comments from Rudy Eugene's girlfriend and family saying how utterly out of character these actions that have been claimed against him are, that they feel he was temporarily insane, in need of help and treatment as opposed to deliberately violent, and that his condition was unanticipated by anyone.

Why did the local press, and those who adopted their style and quoted their comments, pillory him as a rogue?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:00 am

spot;1398918 wrote: You know, I haven't said or implied any of what you ascribe to my thinking. It's just not there at all. It's not why they join, they don't go out looking for it, you're inventing your own explanation for my loathing of these uniformed goons who kill defenceless people on the street without adequate reason.

It is a structural power thing and it's trained. You bark, the civilian obeys. The sole escalation available if you're laughed at is physical violence. In Florida for some godforsaken reason they escalate directly to shooting and if they're in a pack it's a matter of honour for every one of them to empty their piece in the rough direction of the "perpetrator". They and the local press then absolutely and every single time trot out the same tired lies about the behaviour of guy they killed, and they are immune from prosecution unless there's a national scandal which can be silenced no other way.

First paragraph denies my assumption, the rest appears to confirm it.