Apparently a man was shot dead in his car for not obeying police orders of only one cop. I don't really know what are the protocols but if by not obeying cop orders without giving sign that you have a weapon or want to hurt anybody gives the police man the authority to shoot you....damn...
This, also happens as before this week a teen girl was shot in her grandmothers house, and that other lady that got shot 6 times without representing any threat...pff
Dunno about you guys, but it seems, the only way you FOR SURE won't get killed by a cop is by completely following all orders that you are given ( I know the chance of you getting killed or beaten for that are rather close to 0 but it should be actually 0 chances of that happening, not a slight off-chance that that may occur ). This doesn't fall into police brutality category, but rather incompetence of people who are hired to protect the people.
Also the rather bad thing, is that there is no high public preasure when these events occur, whenever something like this happens, get all the community together and make sure the cop is seriously investigated and if found guilty, throw him in jail with a decent time to serve for commiting retarded acts.
Edit: As a side note, it's rather odd to see that violent acts have decreased a lot since the internet all over the world, and ironically now more bad acts are performed by authorities all over the world. It would actually be interesting if some1 came up with a legit statistics compared police brutality/incompetence acts, compared to like 50 years ago ( authorities from middle east, NK , etc are also involved, that's why I'm saying an increase in these kind of things ...)
A dude suggested I should put this up here :
[/quote] Its not like he was just sitting in his car. The opening post not very informative, almost deceptive in nature. He was apparently acting very strange, and who drives to a football field with their daughters at 4AM, crashes through the chain gate, leaves them in the car and disappears for 5 minutes. If I am the officer I am extremely concerned for the kids as he is coming back to the car and not responding to police orders and trying to get in. I mean that seems to scream suicide, suicide murder or something. Hopefully his daughters age 14 and 9 will be able to explain. Either way feel terrible for them, seeing your father shot has to be one of the worst things that could possible happen to a child.[/QUOTE]
This needs to be explicitly added in to the OP, or else we're going to have another shitfest about how police officers *always* abuse their power. This was clearly not an abuse of police power.
EDIT: Case in point:
On February 14 2012 21:38 shizna wrote: as rediculous as it sounds, i don't think police should be allowed to wield a gun until they've been trained to the level of harry callahan.
moronic cop + gun = bad stuff
[/QUOTE]
With that being added, I still think it was the police officer's fault with a probability of 1% of being wrong imo.
Sad to hear :/ and the paragraph about not resisting orders is pretty spot on. I've never heard of a situation where resisting the cops worked out to the civilian's benefit. The amount of authority they wield outside of the courtroom feels pretty absolute. To serve and protect seems more like serve me and I may not fuck with you.
On February 14 2012 20:13 bOneSeven wrote: It would actually be interesting if some1 came up with a legit statistics compared police brutality/incompetence acts, compared to like 50 years ago ( authorities from middle east, NK , etc are also involved, that's why I'm saying an increase in these kind of things ...)
You're not actually from Romania, are you? Because people got beat up by police for saying the wrong stuff all the time 30 or 40 years ago.
About 4:30 a.m. on the day of the shooting, the deputy was doing paperwork inside his car near San Clemente High School when he said he saw Loggins driving a white GMC Yukon at an "unsafe, high rate of speed" into the school parking lot, Amormino said. The SUV, according to Amormino, crashed through a locked gate and the deputy pulled in behind him.
Loggins walked onto the football field, and about three to four deputies arrived to set up a perimeter, Amormino said. The deputies said they lost sight of Loggins for about five minutes, and when he reappeared, he walked toward the car and climbed inside, ignoring deputies' commands, Amormino said.
Its not like he was just sitting in his car. The opening post not very informative, almost deceptive in nature. He was apparently acting very strange, and who drives to a football field with their daughters at 4AM, crashes through the chain gate, leaves them in the car and disappears for 5 minutes. If I am the officer I am extremely concerned for the kids as he is coming back to the car and not responding to police orders and trying to get in. I mean that seems to scream suicide, suicide murder or something. Hopefully his daughters age 14 and 9 will be able to explain. Either way feel terrible for them, seeing your father shot has to be one of the worst things that could possible happen to a child.
The details haven't been released so why bother discussing the justification of it based purely on speculation?
btw I don't think you should have omitted the part that the guy was fleeing from police and crashed through a gate. You make it sound like he was pulled over for speeding and was shot because he went to get his registration when a cop told him not too. Obviously when you flee from police the cops are going to get a whole lot more trigger happy as you've already demonstrated you won't be taken down without a fight.
Awesome, let's criticize an officer involved shooting without knowing ANY of the details! And let's make it seem worse by sprinkling how the marine received good conduct medals while in-service as if it has any bearing on what his conduct was at the time. YAY! The public has no idea what happened, but let's make it sound like a bad shoot so more people read my article and go to the office and talk to there cubicle buddies about how crazy police officers are.
Also, let's put everyone's completely different experiences with different police officers all over the world who have different ways /policies of policing, and make it seem like we have an idea of how police are trained in use of force.
Until the details are unveiled on a shooting, there is no way you can scrutinize it.
According to the story he was "traveling at a high rate of speed" and "crashed through a locked gate". The deputy followed him and got a few more to come "set up a perimeter". Apparently he was climbing back into the car "ignoring orders", and "made a statement to the deputy" which they won't elaborate on.
Now I am in no way saying it was ok for him the shoot the man. But I also have no idea what really happened. The deputy said ""The real threat that was perceived was the safety of the children," but is shooting the father really the best solution to this? Absolutely freaking not.
Edit: I agree with the posters above me, the topic is a little bit deceiving in it's nature of writing. Read the articles to get more info before forming an opinion please.
Edit2: I mean the info on this is so jumbled. The articles themselves seem to contradict themselves on key points. For example. Later in the article where it says he's climbing back into his vehicle, it says something completely different that he was simply headed back towards his vehicle, and this, for some unknown reason made the officer feel threatened.
Here in the UK we have armed officers, they go out on patrol sometimes, they are armed with tazers, submachine guns & 9mm handguns, in my home town of Nottingham, which is famous for knife / gun crime there hasnt been a single shot fired on duty by armed officers.
Tazers have been used, and if a situation is looking to turn violent a tazer will be called in.
It strikes me that arming all officers with handguns will inevitably lead to people getting needlessly killed, just because the officer will feel overconfident and get himself in situations where he has to use it or he will misread a situation and open fire believing he was acting appropriately, and those thankfully very very rare but unfortunate cases where an officer is abusing his power.
Obviously we don't know the full situation, and I do often feel like theres an antipolice sentiment to this kind of news whenever its done, especially in the UK and 99% of the time the officer wasn't acting out of malice or anything, he just responded to a situation in a way that he felt was appropriate with the tools he was given.
On February 14 2012 20:41 Terrix wrote: Now I am in no way saying it was ok for him the shoot the man. But I also have no idea what really happened. The deputy said ""The real threat that was perceived was the safety of the children," but is shooting the father really the best solution to this? Absolutely freaking not.
... hard to know that the deputy knew he was the father, or that it was safe.
I am not making a judgment either way but the OP is quite biased.
@hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
On February 14 2012 20:13 bOneSeven wrote: t it seems, the only way you FOR SURE won't get killed by a cop is by completely following all orders that you are given
Crazy I know, just imagine following orders, so weird (lol). This post is a complete joke. More crimes committed by authority figures? Can you pull out some more unproven statements or opinions with anecdotal evidence ? Not to mention we know virtually nothing about the situation that each require a careful, in-depth look.
On February 14 2012 20:48 Rae wrote: "Amormino said that Loggins made statements to the deputy before he was shot. He would not elaborate."
Those statements could have been anything from completely harmless to "I'm going to get my gun and shoot you"
There's simply not enough information to make a call on this yet.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is nowhere near enough information for people to make a judgement on this. Yes it's absolutely terrible that a devout respectful upstanding marine and father of 2 3 (with another on the way) was shot and killed by an officer. But nobody knows if he had some problem and was seriously threatening the officer. We simply don't have enough information.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
Man I love how this video gets posted in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cop brutality style threads. This happened, one in a million, so now cops automatically shoot people if they feel at all threatened. Strong logic.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
You = the cop in this video
I dunno how that incident is relevant to this case. It's a different scenario and we don't even know what happened here yet.
we probably won't know anyways..that is a good clue that who's at fault..I feel like most people who defend the cops are americans...If "shiting" on cops who commit haneous acts is wrong...then I ff this...
On February 14 2012 21:11 bOneSeven wrote: we probably won't know anyways..that is a good clue that who's at fault..I feel like most people who defend the cops are americans...If "shiting" on cops who commit haneous acts is wrong...then I ff this...
Maybe if the article had something.... Hmmmm what to people call it outside of America? In America it's called information. You obviously have come to your own conclusion without considering all of the facts, so why make a post on a forum to spark discussion?
It doesn't matter what anyone says because obviously whether it is justified or not, you are going to hate law enforcement.
There is nothing wrong with 'shitting' on cops who do horrible things. In fact, if a cop does something and he deserves to be put in jail, yay! He's a scumbag. But until we have information, we don't know if he is a scumbag or not.
On February 14 2012 21:11 bOneSeven wrote: we probably won't know anyways..that is a good clue that who's at fault..I feel like most people who defend the cops are americans...If "shiting" on cops who commit haneous acts is wrong...then I ff this...
If not shitting on cops over an incident we don't know enough about is wrong... then I ff this... whatever that means.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
Man I love how this video gets posted in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the cop brutality style threads. This happened, one in a million, so now cops automatically shoot people if they feel at all threatened. Strong logic.
One in a million? Man you are so naive! This one just happened to be "perfectly" captured on camera. Cops are murdered every single day in America so maybe you should do a little backtracking before you open your clue less mouth. Police generally don't shoot people who aren't posing some type of serious threat. Try minding your mouth about incidents in which you clearly know nothing.
To the OP: That you feel like you have the knowledge to even attempt to comment on the circumstances of this incident seems like another attempt to create drama and the whole "US police are pigs" argument. Maybe if there were anything in this article AT ALL regarding the circumstances of the shooting could you try to say something.....but there absolutely nothing. Kind of pathetic that you have nothing better to do then to stir up trouble and arguments.
Edit: It's really entertaining as well how everyone shitting on the cops is falling into the persuasive words of the media: "Marine with 1 million acts of goodness in Korea! Oh boy he must be the victim of some dirty scumbag out-to-murder pig of a cop!" I mean if they worded it in any more of a biased tone then maybe people wouldn't quite so blind.
On February 14 2012 20:43 adwodon wrote: wow thats really absurd.
Here in the UK we have armed officers, they go out on patrol sometimes, they are armed with tazers, submachine guns & 9mm handguns, in my home town of Nottingham, which is famous for knife / gun crime there hasnt been a single shot fired on duty by armed officers.
Tazers have been used, and if a situation is looking to turn violent a tazer will be called in.
It strikes me that arming all officers with handguns will inevitably lead to people getting needlessly killed, just because the officer will feel overconfident and get himself in situations where he has to use it or he will misread a situation and open fire believing he was acting appropriately, and those thankfully very very rare but unfortunate cases where an officer is abusing his power.
Obviously we don't know the full situation, and I do often feel like theres an antipolice sentiment to this kind of news whenever its done, especially in the UK and 99% of the time the officer wasn't acting out of malice or anything, he just responded to a situation in a way that he felt was appropriate with the tools he was given.
How are you supposed to know anything of real substance when the police department doesn't do a full serious investigation of the case ? It's not the media's job to that, it is the PD's job.
Did I say US Cops are pigs ? No, I said police men who commit horrible acts are pigs, feel like a rather knee-jerk reaction to say that people hate cops when they criticize the bad ones + I for one criticize police training and hiring modality. I know a few cool cops here, maybe a lot are in the US as well, probably way more cool cops, but that doesn't mean you can't say the shity cops are shity.
I'm always against generalizing, but if 95% of a specific group or bad people, let's say 95% of them are bad people and 5% are good, let's not say "well not all of them are bad so don't go generalize", let's just say how it is.
Do I feel like I have the knowledge about it? No, but seeing that there is not a huge deal of information on this case, it only directs me to the reasoning the it was the cops fault. Whenever, information on a specific thing is poor, usually the authorities are at fault, because they are known for covering things up for not messing up their image. ( I hate these hollywood clishees, but when do you hear in a police station? : Bob did horrible thing, let's give the media good coverage on how our police deprtament failed in this case )
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
About 4:30 a.m. on the day of the shooting, the deputy was doing paperwork inside his car near San Clemente High School when he said he saw Loggins driving a white GMC Yukon at an "unsafe, high rate of speed" into the school parking lot, Amormino said. The SUV, according to Amormino, crashed through a locked gate and the deputy pulled in behind him.
Loggins walked onto the football field, and about three to four deputies arrived to set up a perimeter, Amormino said. The deputies said they lost sight of Loggins for about five minutes, and when he reappeared, he walked toward the car and climbed inside, ignoring deputies' commands, Amormino said.
Its not like he was just sitting in his car. The opening post not very informative, almost deceptive in nature. He was apparently acting very strange, and who drives to a football field with their daughters at 4AM, crashes through the chain gate, leaves them in the car and disappears for 5 minutes. If I am the officer I am extremely concerned for the kids as he is coming back to the car and not responding to police orders and trying to get in. I mean that seems to scream suicide, suicide murder or something. Hopefully his daughters age 14 and 9 will be able to explain. Either way feel terrible for them, seeing your father shot has to be one of the worst things that could possible happen to a child.
This needs to be explicitly added in to the OP, or else we're going to have another shitfest about how police officers *always* abuse their power. This was clearly not an abuse of police power.
EDIT: Case in point:
On February 14 2012 21:38 shizna wrote: as rediculous as it sounds, i don't think police should be allowed to wield a gun until they've been trained to the level of harry callahan.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
That is possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever watched. Did they catch the guy? Did the Cop someone manage to live?
If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about. Just comply with the officer's commands/orders/requests, and everything will work itself out. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter in the moment. The only thing that matters is that you and the officer remain safe. Everything else will work itself out.
Oh dear god, that dude just compared this marine who didn't even take notice of the police officer's existence with a guy who directly insulted a police officer and then went and took a gun from his car ...... ? Of course that guy should have been shot dead, you don't go in police officer's face saying shit, and then even TOUCH a gun and not expect to get a bullet to the head.
It's like comparing smoking weed to dealing heroin.
It's hard to comment when all the details have not been released. The whole situation seems odd; the marine was held with a high regard of respect but apparently didn't obey police orders, the cop felt threatened after the marine said something to him but they won't release what was said as well as being shot while unarmed, very strange indeed. If he was, in fact, unarmed, then I see no reason why a tazer would not of been the right course of action. I mean I would be expecting quite the explanation as to why an unarmed man was shot to death in a car with his 2 young daughters. As another poster already noted, it's pretty odd to claim fear for the children's lives when you open fire on someone who is in the same car as they are.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
That is possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever watched. Did they catch the guy? Did the Cop someone manage to live?
If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about. Just comply with the officer's commands/orders/requests, and everything will work itself out. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter in the moment. The only thing that matters is that you and the officer remain safe. Everything else will work itself out.
I actually thought the cop was an idiot in this video. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what happened. So, first he yells at an old man. Why yell? Cuz he can? Nothing ever is achieved by yelling. Then old man does something weird, and a cop ( a huge muscular guy as far as I can see ) keeps yelling instead of grabbing the old man, and just restraining him by force. The cop had a dozen opportunities to prevent escalation of the situation. I still feel bad for the cop.
Also, I think in different countries the attitude of police to using force on duty is different. As much as Russian police is known for its brutality, I don't think any people actually get shot by mistake.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
That is possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever watched. Did they catch the guy? Did the Cop someone manage to live?
If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about. Just comply with the officer's commands/orders/requests, and everything will work itself out. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter in the moment. The only thing that matters is that you and the officer remain safe. Everything else will work itself out.
The officer got shot in the eye and the culprit was caught and sentenced to death in 2000.
On February 14 2012 22:35 bOneSeven wrote: Oh dear god, that dude just compared this marine who didn't even take notice of the police officer's existence with a guy who directly insulted a police officer and then went and took a gun from his car ...... ? Of course that guy should have been shot dead, you don't go in police officer's face saying shit, and then even TOUCH a gun and not expect to get a bullet to the head.
It's like comparing smoking weed to dealing heroin.
The guy in the video didnt do anything too until he climbed back into his truck...to pull out a rifle. How would you know that the marine has no rifle too?
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
That is possibly the most disturbing thing I have ever watched. Did they catch the guy? Did the Cop someone manage to live?
If you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about. Just comply with the officer's commands/orders/requests, and everything will work itself out. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter in the moment. The only thing that matters is that you and the officer remain safe. Everything else will work itself out.
They caught the guy, he is on death row in Georgia, he has not been executed yet. The cop was wounded in all his extremities, and then Brennan walk up and shot him in the eye, killing him. Worth noting this was not a traffic cop, so really had no experience in any situation like this.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
Exploiting the video of the officer's death to serve as an argument. You, sir, are a king amongst crooks.
Not shooting a suspect that grabs a gun is different from shooting an unarmed man with his two daughters in the backseat of the car.
You've completely missing the point. "Not shooting a suspect that grabs a gun" is not the mistake the officer made. So according to you, the mistake the officer made is that he missed his shots? No. The mistake is letting him get the gun in the first place. It's incredibly ridiculous to say that a cop can't shoot the guy reaching for the gun, he has to wait until the guy has the gun and is about to blow his head off.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
You = the cop in this video
I dunno how that incident is relevant to this case. It's a different scenario and we don't even know what happened here yet.
It's a different scenario only if you're looking at the results. In both cases they are acting irrationally, disobeying an officer's commands, saying "something" to the officer, and then reaching or climbing into their vehicles. The OP is insisting that the officer should do the exact same thing that the officer did in the video he was murdered. Do nothing until he gets his gun out.
On February 14 2012 23:02 Chocobo wrote: Pretty messed up story. Can't believe there's still no responsibility for the cops who do this stuff in the year 2012.
That said - did anyone else read the headline "Marine killed by OC" and click this thread to find out how an orbital command killed a marine?
If the context wasn't so bad I'd say this would definately qualify as a good post for the "You know you play too much Starcraft when..." thread.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
You = the cop in this video
I dunno how that incident is relevant to this case. It's a different scenario and we don't even know what happened here yet.
It's relevant because the OP is insisting that it's never justified to shoot someone unless they have a gun in their hands. I'm showing what happens when you wait for them to have a gun in their hands.
It's a different scenario only if you're looking at the results. In both cases they are acting irrationally, disobeying an officer's commands, saying "something" to the officer, and then reaching or climbing into their vehicles. The OP is insisting that the officer should do the exact same thing that the officer did in the video he was murdered. Do nothing until he gets his gun out.
They're both very black and white points of view though. An officer has every right to defend himself and prevent a dangerous situation from happening. You make it sound like it's shoot or get shot in every case. You can't just go around shooting people in case they might grab a gun.
On February 14 2012 20:13 bOneSeven wrote: It would actually be interesting if some1 came up with a legit statistics compared police brutality/incompetence acts, compared to like 50 years ago ( authorities from middle east, NK , etc are also involved, that's why I'm saying an increase in these kind of things ...)
You're not actually from Romania, are you? Because people got beat up by police for saying the wrong stuff all the time 30 or 40 years ago.
Romania's police was and still is brutal and abuse its powers. Ironic or not, back in the totalitarism policeman were not allowed to carry guns (people knew its authority and that very bad things happen if you disrespect them). Now policemen do have guns and use them (and everyone views them as stupid parrots, little authority).
Whether or not the guy verbally threatened the cop, if they start shooting dead everyone that bad mouthes them, we're on a slippery slope. Obviously I don't know the details of this particular case, so I can't really say whether this shooting was justified or not. It just seems that some cops these days are paranoid enough to take lethal action at the slightest sign of a 'threat'. Of course when it's either you or them, you have to act with speed and conviction, but maybe a little more patience is required to sort out whether the threat is real or not.
Well the whole account does point to the man being unbalanced, possibly even having a mental breakdown—running down a gate with kids in the car, police chasing, the kids would have been emotionally scarred by the event even without the horrible aftermath.
It is possible that he threatened to kill the children, in which case the sheriff had to kill or incapacitate him before he could get the car moving or those kids would be dead. That to me seems the most likely explanation—though not by a large margin, there is a long list of possibilities—and then the police is protecting the family of the man by not making the specifics of his threat public.
But all of that is just guesswork. It’s possible the sheriff acted completely wrongly, even looked for an excuse to fire, but we don’t know.
In any event, I do believe that if the sheriff failed to keep the man from getting back to the road those kids were in danger for their lives, indirectly from the police chase or directly by their father’s hand. I have no clue if the sheriff acted correctly, but that night could definitely have turned out even worse.
Idk, if there are two young girls in a car, and a guy crashed the car through a gate and then ignores a police officer, I bet the officer would think he is on drugs or something. If the officer let him drive off with the girls, he could crash again and kill them too.
IMO, *if* the real events were as the sheriff's office says, I don't know that the officer was wrong. Maybe he could have shot out the tires, but that doesn't stop a car from moving - it just makes people pull over because it's too dangerous to drive. Plus police officers are only trained to shoot to kill, and only to ever shoot when their life or someone else's is in danger.
That said, that only applies if the real events went as the sheriff's office says they did. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical of that until more evidence comes out.
No matter what happens, it's terrible for the daughters - I hope they'll be okay, mentally etc.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
You = the cop in this video
I dunno how that incident is relevant to this case. It's a different scenario and we don't even know what happened here yet.
It's relevant because the OP is insisting that it's never justified to shoot someone unless they have a gun in their hands. I'm showing what happens when you wait for them to have a gun in their hands.
It's a different scenario only if you're looking at the results. In both cases they are acting irrationally, disobeying an officer's commands, saying "something" to the officer, and then reaching or climbing into their vehicles. The OP is insisting that the officer should do the exact same thing that the officer did in the video he was murdered. Do nothing until he gets his gun out.
They're both very black and white points of view though. An officer has every right to defend himself and prevent a dangerous situation from happening. You make it sound like it's shoot or get shot in every case. You can't just go around shooting people in case they might grab a gun.
You are right. Of course I never meant to imply that the officer was justified in this case (since we don't have all the details), I only meant to imply that it's sometimes justified to shoot someone even before they arm themselves.
Here's a pretty good article about it from a couple weeks ago..
A study was done that found humans are physically incapable of being able to correctly identify a gun and to fire at the suspect holding the gun before the suspect can fire at the officers. This is why most police policies allow cops to shoot someone if they start reaching at their waistline instead of after they've pulled out a gun.
Oh nice article. I always thought they would kind of end up even but not that the cop would always be later even if he already has his weapon drawn. That split second to decide whether you are going to shoot or not matters a lot.
Dunno about you guys, but it seems, the only way you FOR SURE won't get killed by a cop is by completely following all orders that you are given ( I know the chance of you getting killed or beaten for that are rather close to 0 but it should be actually 0 chances of that happening, not a slight off-chance that that may occur ). This doesn't fall into police brutality category, but rather incompetence of people who are hired to protect the people.
Bold seems to be accurate. They're fucking police officers. We ask them to potentially risk their lives every day, and with that if you choose not to follow orders there is a risk that because they deal with malicious people that they could wind up shooting you. Follow the fucking orders if you didn't do anything wrong then nothing bad will happen to you.
On February 14 2012 22:49 bOneSeven wrote: It's also possible that the cop was doing a hard drug or something, I see no reason why should he shot the guy..
Um, you somehow think the cop is the one on drugs? It wasn't the dude who for some reason was driving through gates at 4 AM with his kids in the car then acting generally nuts towards a police officer?
you can't be expected to obey every command given by a guy in a uniform to avoid getting shot... that's rediculous. the gun is there for a police officer's safety, not for them to wave around like they're law enforcement characters on a crime drama tv show.
i love how since the beginning of the internet, it's been flooded with the anti-government and conspiracy theory bandwagon - all of the internet hipsters jumped on the bandwagon because it was the 'cool thing' void of common sense and logical reasoning.
nowadays, it's the cool thing to jump on this new pro-government nanny state bandwagon, void of common sense and logical reasoning. the new generation of hipsters are the same as braindead chauvinistic morons.
On February 14 2012 22:49 bOneSeven wrote: It's also possible that the cop was doing a hard drug or something, I see no reason why should he shot the guy..
Um, you somehow think the cop is the one on drugs? It wasn't the dude who for some reason was driving through gates at 4 AM with his kids in the car then acting generally nuts towards a police officer?
oh right yeah.... the driver was driving near a school at 4am.... be broke the midnight curfew therefore he deserved to die? your argument is pathetic.
the only explicable defense would be if the police officer believed the man to have a gun or weapon and posed an imminent threat to his safety or the safety of the passengers. nothing has been said to indicate anything of the sort, therefore that police guy has no defense.
On February 14 2012 23:02 Chocobo wrote: Pretty messed up story. Can't believe there's still no responsibility for the cops who do this stuff in the year 2012.
That said - did anyone else read the headline "Marine killed by OC" and click this thread to find out how an orbital command killed a marine?
On February 15 2012 00:04 shizna wrote: you can't be expected to obey every command given by a guy in a uniform to avoid getting shot... that's rediculous. the gun is there for a police officer's safety, not for them to wave around like they're law enforcement characters on a crime drama tv show.
i love how since the beginning of the internet, it's been flooded with the anti-government and conspiracy theory bandwagon - all of the internet hipsters jumped on the bandwagon because it was the 'cool thing' void of common sense and logical reasoning.
nowadays, it's the cool thing to jump on this new pro-government nanny state bandwagon, void of common sense and logical reasoning. the new generation of hipsters are the same as braindead chauvinistic morons.
We've got lots of sayings where I'm from. One of them is, "You can be right, or you can be happy." Normally we say that when we're talking about picking and choosing our "fights" with spouses, kids, etc, but I think if we turn it into "You can be right or you can get shot" it applies to this situation as well.
Look man, if a cop says do something you do it. Even if you think its a violation of your rights you still comply with the cop's commands and THEN AFTER ITS OVER you can contact your attorney if you feel the cop violated your rights or acted inappropriately. You're not going to prove anything by instigating an argument or escalating the situation in the moment.
Its not like cops are telling your wife to get out of the car and service him while you watch. Go out of your way to make the Cop feel safe and in return they will treat you with respect.
Edit: Going out of your way to make the cop feel safe doesn't mean you are giving in to "the man" or abandoning your God given rights. They have a dangerous job and deal with jerk offs and assholes every day while they risk their lives to keep the 99% safe. Get pulled over, turn you dome light on if its at night and keep your hands on the wheel in plain sight and then do what he asks. Ez pea-zea
On February 14 2012 20:13 bOneSeven wrote: It would actually be interesting if some1 came up with a legit statistics compared police brutality/incompetence acts, compared to like 50 years ago ( authorities from middle east, NK , etc are also involved, that's why I'm saying an increase in these kind of things ...)
You're not actually from Romania, are you? Because people got beat up by police for saying the wrong stuff all the time 30 or 40 years ago.
Romania's police was and still is brutal and abuse its powers. Ironic or not, back in the totalitarism policeman were not allowed to carry guns (people knew its authority and that very bad things happen if you disrespect them). Now policemen do have guns and use them (and everyone views them as stupid parrots, little authority).
Maybe. Just saying that few people in Central Europe think that police brutality increased since the end of Communism. Same goes for other state sponsored violence. The kind of stuff that goes on in Syria or other Arab countries is terrible, but you can't say it's worse than the insanity of the Cultural Revolution or the genocide of Khmer Rouge.
The truth is that state backed violence decreased massively in the last 50 years. Not that we should ignore the stuff that does happen, but we should acknowledge the improvements that did happen.
On February 14 2012 21:11 bOneSeven wrote: we probably won't know anyways..that is a good clue that who's at fault..I feel like most people who defend the cops are americans...If "shiting" on cops who commit haneous acts is wrong...then I ff this...
Maybe if the article had something.... Hmmmm what to people call it outside of America? In America it's called information. You obviously have come to your own conclusion without considering all of the facts, so why make a post on a forum to spark discussion?
It doesn't matter what anyone says because obviously whether it is justified or not, you are going to hate law enforcement.
There is nothing wrong with 'shitting' on cops who do horrible things. In fact, if a cop does something and he deserves to be put in jail, yay! He's a scumbag. But until we have information, we don't know if he is a scumbag or not.
THIS.
and to reiterate the point.
Saying "the cop is a scumbag, he must die" without information makes you Worse than the cop (probably).
Cops are Forced to make decisions with incomplete information.. and it can end up with innocent people getting killed. We have the ability to wait for as much information as possible (the investigation) before making a decision. If you Don't wait for the information to come in, when you have the option to do so, You are a vicious brute.
Seems like we don't really have enough information to form an actual informed opinion on the appropriateness of the officer's actions, and as such this thread doesn't really have a purpose.
On February 14 2012 22:49 bOneSeven wrote: It's also possible that the cop was doing a hard drug or something, I see no reason why should he shot the guy..
Um, you somehow think the cop is the one on drugs? It wasn't the dude who for some reason was driving through gates at 4 AM with his kids in the car then acting generally nuts towards a police officer?
oh right yeah.... the driver was driving near a school at 4am.... be broke the midnight curfew therefore he deserved to die? your argument is pathetic.
the only explicable defense would be if the police officer believed the man to have a gun or weapon and posed an imminent threat to his safety or the safety of the passengers. nothing has been said to indicate anything of the sort, therefore that police guy has no defense.
Where did i say he deserved to die? Your reading ability is pathetic.
On February 15 2012 00:20 Dranak wrote: Seems like we don't really have enough information to form an actual informed opinion on the appropriateness of the officer's actions, and as such this thread doesn't really have a purpose.
Thank you, the videos and articles tell nothing of the events that transpired. The article said he was acting strangely, and ignoring police commands. Especially after his driving alerted the police attention. I'm not agreeing lethal force was necessary, but the police did feel they were looking out for the public's safety in preventing him from driving away.
This is a tough situation... The man could have easily had a gun in the car. Ideally he could have tazed him I suppose. But yeah, I agree with everyone else, we need to information before we can really form opinions.
On February 15 2012 00:39 GhandiEAGLE wrote: Where did this happen? America?
Also, seeing as you are from Romania, shouldn't you be a little accustomed to this? Particularly 40 or 50 years ago.
Yeah, it happened in America, secondly, what the hell does that even mean? It's likely the person you're talking to wasn't even alive at that time.
Does anyone actually think about this shit before they say it? It's mind-boggling how stupid some people sound after their knee-jerk reactions. Sweeping generalizations about a country someone is from, stay classy.
On February 15 2012 00:43 hongo wrote: This is a tough situation... The man could have easily had a gun in the car. Ideally he could have tazed him I suppose. But yeah, I agree with everyone else, we need to information before we can really form opinions.
The articles explicitly state the man was unarmed and the incident was not drug or alcohol related.
Cops are being allowed to get away with murder, there are several cases of police murdering someone and then no charges being presented or names of officers are forgotten.
well this is getting nowhere. I said the cop probably did in fact do a horrible thing and should be seriously investigated, then again the only guy who knows all the details is the cop. I said he deserved to "rot in jail", not to die, in case he actually killed an innocent man and left 2 daughters without a father and massive trauma based on rash decisions. I never generalized cops, I said most of them are actually doing their job, some of them are scum. And if you take communism out of the picture, I still think police incompetence is doing better these days than 50 years ago.
If you suggest that in every case some1 who doesn't obey police orders and then goes in his car, after which not even FACING the cop should be shot dead....well...that's enough for me to talk with you.
There was this thread a wile ago with that black dude with a weapon moving towards a cop, being killed instantly, I supported the cop's action on that event, but this one is just not right.
I would bet a lot that we actually had a filming on the event you wouldn't see the cop killing the man justifiably.
Nacl, heard that story, that is a serious case of...well horrible people, that are put in charge to serve and protect..
Seems very unlikely to be a just killing. Very sad all round.
I will say that the idea that there is more authoritarian brutality in the world now than 50 years ago seems laughable. The developed world has very little police brutality in the historic and worldwide context; people should really recognise how good we have things in the developed world. If we take America, it's not so long ago that a huge amount of the police were part of the KKK. In the UK there are things like Bloody Sunday and the like. In other countries there are other things - particularly in the former Soviet Bloc in Europe.
In terms of the non-developed world ("developing" is typically a misnomer) I don't really see much of an argument for a change to the worse. Compare the likes of Mao or Pot to pretty much any current leader and the idea that it's gotten worse seems ridiculous to me.
On February 15 2012 01:10 FuzzyJAM wrote: Seems very unlikely to be a just killing. Very sad all round.
I will say that the idea that there is more authoritarian brutality in the world now than 50 years ago seems laughable. The developed world has very little police brutality in the historic and worldwide context; people should really recognise how good we have things in the developed world. If we take America, it's not so long ago that a huge amount of the police were part of the KKK. In the UK there are things like Bloody Sunday and the like. In other countries there are other things - particularly in the former Soviet Bloc in Europe.
In terms of the non-developed world ("developing" is typically a misnomer) I don't really see much of an argument for a change to the worse. Compare the likes of Mao or Pot to pretty much any current leader and the idea that it's gotten worse seems ridiculous to me.
I moved to the US from the Philippines a decade ago and the police are better here. I'd dispute the idea that there is more authoritarian brutality here compared to 50 years ago. People seem to have forgotten the MLK movement and the Vietname War protests. And 30-40 years ago, the Philippines was under martial law, so it wasn't better there either.
What's happening really is that with the Internet, local news become worldwide. And developed countries, with developed media, get their news broadcast to the world on a much larger scale. These threads are always started by somebody in a different country than where the news happened, usually somebody with a chip on their shoulder regarding the country in question.
Instantly made me think of this. (I probably watch too much southpark).
On a more serious note that is pretty messed up. Though there is a fine line police have to walk, as they are certainly in danger when people try to resist arrest.
Well that's a crappy, misleading op til the edit was put in.
The only facts available to officer at the time: • Car enters a school at a high rate of speed at 4:30 am, crashes through a locked gate • Calls back up, and the man exits car, ignores orders, disappears on football field or something as cops set up perimeter • Unidentified man returns, ignores orders and proceeds to head back to car where two young, unidentified girls are sitting • Officer issues unknown warning (probably stop or you're gonna get shot), shoots.
Going off of that information, it sure as hell seems likely that the cop is witnessing an abudction, the start of a murder, or a murder-suicide. Basically, something that is definitely not looking positive at all.
Once that guy ignores orders and gets back in that car with two children, I think the decision is pretty obvious and the cops did the right thing.
Up for debate would be why did they not have a tazer or mace ready when they found him again and he continued to ignore orders? I could see that being quite dificult to hit at night, possibly in a dark area, or maybe that department doesn't carry tazers. But that aside, once the guy is in the car, they gotta take him out. It's obviously really unfortunate, but to not do would have directly put those two girls at risk since they did not know his intentions at all.
As a Marine Corps veteran, I can say this is sad, however, as a marine he knows what kind of threats people can be, He shouldnt have acted erratically, especially in front of his children. Its always sad to lose a brother, but he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, for some reason he felt like he was untouchable, he was wrong.
Something that you guys should remember, Cops are in no shit danger every time they pull someone over, if you comply with their reasonable requests then everything should be ok. I'm not saying all cops are perfect, but 99% of them are good people and dont want to hurt people unless they feel like their lives, or someone elses lives are in danger, and thats just the truth of it. real life isnt based on bad cop movies you watch on tv or in the theater.
PEOPLE DESERVE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO BE STRANGE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS!
although what happened was strange and he looks very suspicious. theres a such thing as "calling for backup" shoot the tires out of the car. follow him if he drives off if u cant keep him there,. but 1v1 cop vs random dude acting strange is not there job. add another cop to the scene if anything to verify hes acting strange. and the cop isnt being delusional. cops have protocal and this is what happens when its not followed. cop deserves punishment. ppl deserve rights and the right to be strange within those rights. the cop was out of place for not calling for backup. period.
On February 15 2012 01:43 Syracks wrote: As a Marine Corps veteran, I can say this is sad, however, as a marine he knows what kind of threats people can be, He shouldnt have acted erratically, especially in front of his children. Its always sad to lose a brother, but he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, for some reason he felt like he was untouchable, he was wrong.
Something that you guys should remember, Cops are in no shit danger every time they pull someone over, if you comply with their reasonable requests then everything should be ok. I'm not saying all cops are perfect, but 99% of them are good people and dont want to hurt people unless they feel like their lives, or someone elses lives are in danger, and thats just the truth of it. real life isnt based on bad cop movies you watch on tv or in the theater.
Semper Fi, RIP Brother
this line " I'm not saying all cops are perfect, but 99% of them are good people and dont want to hurt people unless they feel like their lives" is rediculas.
thats like saying all cable guys want nothing more than to fix your cable the right way. the first time. or every sales man wants your satisfaction with every purchase... its a man with a job and nothing more. ppl dont have jobs, they apply for watever they can and roll with watever they can get. im a cable guy now, spent 4 years in the airforce. applied for security job positions and debated law inforcement. but im just a regular guy with a smart ass foul mouth and sometimes pops off at my wife for little reason cause im human. open your eyes the cop was was unstable and unprepared for the situation/job and handled it completely wrong. this sucks yes. nothing more to say about the situation
On February 15 2012 01:48 Warillions wrote: PEOPLE DESERVE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO BE STRANGE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS!
although what happened was strange and he looks very suspicious. theres a such thing as "calling for backup" shoot the tires out of the car. follow him if he drives off if u cant keep him there,. but 1v1 cop vs random dude acting strange is not there job. add another cop to the scene if anything to verify hes acting strange. and the cop isnt being delusional. cops have protocal and this is what happens when its not followed. cop deserves punishment. ppl deserve rights and the right to be strange within those rights. the cop was out of place for not calling for backup. period.
Did you miss the part of the story where he called for back up?
Plain and simple: the dude got shot because he drove through a gated fence, acted erratically after ignoring several orders, and then entered a car with two young children. Cops will always take decisive action when the suspect does something that could potentially harm other people.
They may have not thought he was armed outside of the car, but they have no way of knowing if he had a gun in the glove compartment and was going to shoot the kids and them himself, drive into a telephone pole, etc etc. It went from being a situation with a dude acting weird but not outwardly agressive, to a situation where he is now drawing two other people into the situation.
On February 15 2012 01:48 Warillions wrote: PEOPLE DESERVE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO BE STRANGE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS!
although what happened was strange and he looks very suspicious. theres a such thing as "calling for backup" shoot the tires out of the car. follow him if he drives off if u cant keep him there,. but 1v1 cop vs random dude acting strange is not there job. add another cop to the scene if anything to verify hes acting strange. and the cop isnt being delusional. cops have protocal and this is what happens when its not followed. cop deserves punishment. ppl deserve rights and the right to be strange within those rights. the cop was out of place for not calling for backup. period.
Did you miss the part of the story where he called for back up?
Plain and simple: the dude got shot because he drove through a gated fence, acted erratically after ignoring several orders, and then entered a car with two young children. Cops will always take decisive action when the suspect does something that could potentially harm other people.
They may have not thought he was armed outside of the car, but they have no way of knowing if he had a gun in the glove compartment and was going to shoot the kids and them himself, drive into a telephone pole, etc etc. It went from being a situation with a dude acting weird but not outwardly agressive, to a situation where he is now drawing two other people into the situation.
i did. just as much as you missed the part about shootin the tires before shooting his face.
On February 15 2012 01:48 Warillions wrote: PEOPLE DESERVE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO BE STRANGE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS!
although what happened was strange and he looks very suspicious. theres a such thing as "calling for backup" shoot the tires out of the car. follow him if he drives off if u cant keep him there,. but 1v1 cop vs random dude acting strange is not there job. add another cop to the scene if anything to verify hes acting strange. and the cop isnt being delusional. cops have protocal and this is what happens when its not followed. cop deserves punishment. ppl deserve rights and the right to be strange within those rights. the cop was out of place for not calling for backup. period.
Did you miss the part of the story where he called for back up?
Plain and simple: the dude got shot because he drove through a gated fence, acted erratically after ignoring several orders, and then entered a car with two young children. Cops will always take decisive action when the suspect does something that could potentially harm other people.
They may have not thought he was armed outside of the car, but they have no way of knowing if he had a gun in the glove compartment and was going to shoot the kids and them himself, drive into a telephone pole, etc etc. It went from being a situation with a dude acting weird but not outwardly agressive, to a situation where he is now drawing two other people into the situation.
i did. just as much as you missed the part about shootin the tires before shooting his face.
On February 15 2012 01:48 Warillions wrote: PEOPLE DESERVE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO BE STRANGE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS!
although what happened was strange and he looks very suspicious. theres a such thing as "calling for backup" shoot the tires out of the car. follow him if he drives off if u cant keep him there,. but 1v1 cop vs random dude acting strange is not there job. add another cop to the scene if anything to verify hes acting strange. and the cop isnt being delusional. cops have protocal and this is what happens when its not followed. cop deserves punishment. ppl deserve rights and the right to be strange within those rights. the cop was out of place for not calling for backup. period.
Did you miss the part of the story where he called for back up?
Plain and simple: the dude got shot because he drove through a gated fence, acted erratically after ignoring several orders, and then entered a car with two young children. Cops will always take decisive action when the suspect does something that could potentially harm other people.
They may have not thought he was armed outside of the car, but they have no way of knowing if he had a gun in the glove compartment and was going to shoot the kids and them himself, drive into a telephone pole, etc etc. It went from being a situation with a dude acting weird but not outwardly agressive, to a situation where he is now drawing two other people into the situation.
i did. just as much as you missed the part about shootin the tires before shooting his face.
What good are shot out tires if he's got two hostages in the car with a potential weapon in there? Passive wait and see stuff like that is how you end up with three dead people instead of one.
Oh wow I didn't hear about this, San Clemente is in my school district, I have some friends there too. I took an ROP law enforcement class down here and heard from a lot of different cops down here. They are really well trained, if they think somebody is a threat, especially a marine, they will have to be even more careful. Many officers down here are ex-military service members as well, there's a navy base and a marine base down here. But I remember these officers telling me "whatever needs to be done to see your family at the end of the day, has to be done."
On February 15 2012 01:43 Syracks wrote: As a Marine Corps veteran, I can say this is sad, however, as a marine he knows what kind of threats people can be, He shouldnt have acted erratically, especially in front of his children. Its always sad to lose a brother, but he knew what he was doing, he knew the risks, for some reason he felt like he was untouchable, he was wrong.
Something that you guys should remember, Cops are in no shit danger every time they pull someone over, if you comply with their reasonable requests then everything should be ok. I'm not saying all cops are perfect, but 99% of them are good people and dont want to hurt people unless they feel like their lives, or someone elses lives are in danger, and thats just the truth of it. real life isnt based on bad cop movies you watch on tv or in the theater.
Semper Fi, RIP Brother
this line " I'm not saying all cops are perfect, but 99% of them are good people and dont want to hurt people unless they feel like their lives" is rediculas.
thats like saying all cable guys want nothing more than to fix your cable the right way. the first time. or every sales man wants your satisfaction with every purchase... its a man with a job and nothing more. ppl dont have jobs, they apply for watever they can and roll with watever they can get. im a cable guy now, spent 4 years in the airforce. applied for security job positions and debated law inforcement. but im just a regular guy with a smart ass foul mouth and sometimes pops off at my wife for little reason cause im human. open your eyes the cop was was unstable and unprepared for the situation/job and handled it completely wrong. this sucks yes. nothing more to say about the situation
im sorry if u think thats rediculas.... but thats the truth, yea a lot of cops get "drunk with power" or "power hungry" but it doesn't make them murderers. it just makes them dicks. but if you comply and don't give them a hard time then they wont shoot you, i promise you that. when you have 2 young girls in your possession and u start cursing, swearing, run away, or speed threw locked gates at 4AM, yea guess what, its gonna make the cop more on edge. and if you no shit feel that this crazy guy is a threat to those little girls, then yea, I'd take that shot, i hope that you would too.
bottom line is, dont break the law, and if you do, man up and take the punishment, dont be a coward or a hard head and try to run, and make things dangerous for you and the policemen. that will only cause accidents like this to happen
On February 15 2012 00:55 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Cops are being allowed to get away with murder, there are several cases of police murdering someone and then no charges being presented or names of officers are forgotten.
this what happens when you let the big military companies buy your politicians (in USA) and give weapons to every single person in the country, just restrict your god damn weapons.
OOHHH O.C= orange county, i misread thread and thought it was "marines gets killed by orbital command" i thought it was in wrong section, then i got interested in how that can happen, many wayyyy to early for TL ;D
a man can potentially have a nuclear bomb inside his car, that doesn't mean he has one. A man may potentially go home and stab his wife, but he probably won't do it. If you have a system where you react to situations that may be real, then your system has to go.
At the end of the day, no1 is safe, people will kill people, crime will happen, the only thing that can stop that is an ultra-police state that surveys everything down to your bedroom and your bathroom. Giving authorities such power is wrong imo...Also killing people, even by following protocol should be punishable as well just like normal people get punished from killing innocent people.
We probably won't have more serious information on this matter ( not that we have right now ), but I tell you, my opinion is that if in the next few weeks, no info will be added, I think it's obvious who is at fault.
On February 15 2012 00:55 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Cops are being allowed to get away with murder, there are several cases of police murdering someone and then no charges being presented or names of officers are forgotten.
It is starting to get appalling what cops are able to get away with now a days.
Seems like any idiot can just become one and do whatever they want with no repercussion even when they kill someone
makes me sick
whats more horrible? That its happening or that the common p3eople aren't taking justice necessarily into their hands by demanding imprisonment for the murderers.
The "cop" in question is a shame, to his parents, to his community, and to himself.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
Thank you for posting this, to everyone that thinks the cop with the marine was out of line, I want you to watch this video and say where you think the cop here had the right to start shooting. The fact is it needs to be somewhere before the man can pull his arms out of the car because if you're waiting until you see the rifle it is in all likelihood too late, and most people don't dance around and make it obvious that they're ignoring police commands beforehand. If an officer is armed and ordering you to stop you fucking do not put your hands somewhere that they can't see that's asking to get shot and if they don't shoot you then they're asking to get shot. This event sucks, this situation sucks, and every situation like this sucks, but I will side with the guy that has to do this and face the possible psycho with a rifle in his car every single day.
i hop[e you guys realize that the problem isnt that cops have guns, but that almost anyone can own it. for example, people usually never get shot by cops in korea because the threat isnt there for the cops.
On February 15 2012 03:59 LeibSaiLeib wrote: this what happens when you let the big military companies buy your politicians (in USA) and give weapons to every single person in the country, just restrict your god damn weapons.
Exactly. It wasn't that policeman's problem or the strange man's problem. The problem is that everybody in the USA is capable of posessing lethal force, and therefore can be reasonably suspected of carrying said lethal force at any given time.
Here in NZ that situation would have gone completely differently because the chances of anybody having a gun are virtually zero. He probably would have just been tazered.
On February 15 2012 03:59 LeibSaiLeib wrote: this what happens when you let the big military companies buy your politicians (in USA) and give weapons to every single person in the country, just restrict your god damn weapons.
Exactly. It wasn't that policeman's problem or the strange man's problem. The problem is that everybody in the USA is capable of posessing lethal force, and therefore can be reasonably suspected of carrying said lethal force at any given time.
Here in NZ that situation would have gone completely differently because the chances of anybody having a gun are virtually zero. He probably would have just been tazered.
and that's why in the U.S., when you are approached by police, you make sure your hands are visible to them and don't make shady movements to get them concerned about their safety. It's really pretty fucking simple.
On February 14 2012 20:45 bOneSeven wrote: @hyper it's called totalitarianism so yeah lol. @blackjack since when if you run from police, they have authority to shot to kill if you don't represent a legit threat ? The report didn't even mention that the officers suspected the man had a weapon ( he didn't, just saying that the police there said that the cop didnt suspect a gun ).
When you represent "serve and protect" and kill a suspect that doesn't show signs of having a weapon/directly being a threat to anyone before his 14/9 years old children .... If that is not horrible , then what is ? If you really stay and think about it...it's an extremely horrible thing, imagine how the children will evolve from that state on...
Edit: Notice I didn't mention in my OP that the guy had medals or anything ( I don' care if you saved the world, if you go after that and kill 10 people you can rot in jail ). And about a serious investigation and new news .... have fun finding any without real public pressure ( hope I'm wrong and some new info pops out, but since it happened 4-5 days ago and nothing came up recently....)
Who are you to say what represents a legit threat?
Exploiting the video of the officer's death to serve as an argument. You, sir, are a king amongst crooks.
Not shooting a suspect that grabs a gun is different from shooting an unarmed man with his two daughters in the backseat of the car.
You've completely missing the point. "Not shooting a suspect that grabs a gun" is not the mistake the officer made. So according to you, the mistake the officer made is that he missed his shots? No. The mistake is letting him get the gun in the first place. It's incredibly ridiculous to say that a cop can't shoot the guy reaching for the gun, he has to wait until the guy has the gun and is about to blow his head off.
Exactly. Welcome to the horror of "Self-defence", "Geneva conventions" and "rules of war". As a fucking SOLDIER, I don't have the right to shoot, be it at war (against a civilian), on guard or patrol duty (against civilians) in a military base or in a train station, EVEN IF MY GUN IS STOLEN. I can only shoot if a live is directly in danger, and even if the guy has a gun pointed at me, I can get into trouble if I shoot FIRST.
But, as lame and extreme as it sounds, this is the right way to go. Killing a civilian in his car, 50cm away from his two daughters is 1 dead and 2 scarred for life, when a life was not even in immediate danger. He could have blown his tires or blocked the car.
The problem all those stories of cop abuse etc imply, is the lack of middle solution in the US cop reaction. Guy doesn't answer and has a shady behaviour ? What if he was just drunk ? stoned ? does that deserve a death ? You have to be SURE of what's up before killing a guy, else it's a fucking murder, cop or not. Ever heard of presumption of innocence ? It should apply here, too. Until you're not sure, for all you know the guy is innocent, suspicious, stoned, drunk, but who are you to decide on assumptions he deserve a death sentence without a trial...
On February 15 2012 03:59 LeibSaiLeib wrote: this what happens when you let the big military companies buy your politicians (in USA) and give weapons to every single person in the country, just restrict your god damn weapons.
Exactly. It wasn't that policeman's problem or the strange man's problem. The problem is that everybody in the USA is capable of posessing lethal force, and therefore can be reasonably suspected of carrying said lethal force at any given time.
Here in NZ that situation would have gone completely differently because the chances of anybody having a gun are virtually zero. He probably would have just been tazered.
and that's why in the U.S., when you are approached by police, you make sure your hands are visible to them and don't make shady movements to get them concerned about their safety. It's really pretty fucking simple.
Many thugs have handguns and rifles in France, too, yet cops don't shoot on sight. Even when aimed at. When they do there's a shitstorm and riots. Hell, even when they killed a guy who stole a casino, fleed, and opened fire on the cops with an ak-47, there was a shitstorm.
Why do you even NEED a gun ? Because others have them ? Infinite loop. Can't end well.
On February 14 2012 23:22 strongandbig wrote: Plus police officers are only trained to shoot to kill, and only to ever shoot when their life or someone else's is in danger.
No matter what happens, it's terrible for the daughters - I hope they'll be okay, mentally etc.
What the FUCK ? As a soldier, I'm trained to shoot to kill. Policemen (here at least) are trained in ways to disable, too (and primarily), cause there's a justice to do the job. And that's the way it really should be. Street and police is not war. shouldn't be.
And no, the daughters won't be fine, that's a given.
On February 15 2012 03:59 LeibSaiLeib wrote: this what happens when you let the big military companies buy your politicians (in USA) and give weapons to every single person in the country, just restrict your god damn weapons.
Exactly. It wasn't that policeman's problem or the strange man's problem. The problem is that everybody in the USA is capable of posessing lethal force, and therefore can be reasonably suspected of carrying said lethal force at any given time.
Here in NZ that situation would have gone completely differently because the chances of anybody having a gun are virtually zero. He probably would have just been tazered.
and that's why in the U.S., when you are approached by police, you make sure your hands are visible to them and don't make shady movements to get them concerned about their safety. It's really pretty fucking simple.
How is that a more elegant solution than just not having an unending supply of easily accessible weaponry? Here in NZ most people keep their hands visible and don't act shady... But the one guy who hides his hands and acts shady isn't going to get shot - and neither are the police.
.Sic. United States. February 15 2012 07:10. Posts 267 Swede New Zealand. February 15 2012 07:22. Posts 684 Kaitlin United States. February 15 2012 07:24. Posts 1187
Ya this. Cant realy blame the cop. Allowing cops to use lethal force at the slightest suspicion is a consequence of allowing firearms to the public. Guess its one of the manny drawbacks of allowing firearms. Dont get why americans are so found of their right to bear arms, it seems to give nothing but trouble.
Tread title is kinda epic btw lol, should have left it at "marine killed by OC..."
On February 15 2012 01:34 Hawk wrote: Well that's a crappy, misleading op til the edit was put in.
The only facts available to officer at the time: • Car enters a school at a high rate of speed at 4:30 am, crashes through a locked gate • Calls back up, and the man exits car, ignores orders, disappears on football field or something as cops set up perimeter • Unidentified man returns, ignores orders and proceeds to head back to car where two young, unidentified girls are sitting • Officer issues unknown warning (probably stop or you're gonna get shot), shoots.
Going off of that information, it sure as hell seems likely that the cop is witnessing an abudction, the start of a murder, or a murder-suicide. Basically, something that is definitely not looking positive at all.
Once that guy ignores orders and gets back in that car with two children, I think the decision is pretty obvious and the cops did the right thing.
Up for debate would be why did they not have a tazer or mace ready when they found him again and he continued to ignore orders? I could see that being quite dificult to hit at night, possibly in a dark area, or maybe that department doesn't carry tazers. But that aside, once the guy is in the car, they gotta take him out. It's obviously really unfortunate, but to not do would have directly put those two girls at risk since they did not know his intentions at all.
No, they don't *have to take him out*
You DO know there is a third option ? Like... arresting him ? A cop with his backup is surely enough to arrest an unarmed guy, don't you think ? They could even knock him out cold, etc... why the need to SHOOT everything ? Seriously... There's like a 50% chance the girls were his daughters, what have they done for the time the guy was out of the car ? They could have gone there and rescued/got the girls out, there was a million things to do other than killing him.
US cops have that bad habit to always be aiming on the guy they're talking to, so their hands are not free. They can't do anything else while holding a gun. This is a problem. A gun isn't going to magically appear out of thin air in the hands of a suspect. If you have one hand on your holster, it's enough to have the time to draw the gun and shoot before the suspect do.
On February 15 2012 07:35 Rassy wrote: .Sic. United States. February 15 2012 07:10. Posts 267 Swede New Zealand. February 15 2012 07:22. Posts 684 Kaitlin United States. February 15 2012 07:24. Posts 1187
Ya this. Cant realy blame the cop. Allowing cops to use lethal force at the slightest suspicion is a consequence of allowing firearms to the public. Guess its one of the manny drawbacks of allowing firearms. Dont get why americans are so found of their right to bear arms, it seems to give nothing but trouble.
Tread title is kinda epic btw lol, should have left it at "marine killed by OC..."
If you look at the statistics of cities that enacted gun control regulations (bans of handguns, for example), you'll see that gun control doesn't work and actually increases the number of deaths.
Also you guys are saying eliminate guns as if it would be so easy to just stop guns from flowing into a country. Look how well the war on drugs is doing...do you really think that the government has the power to prevent criminals from getting their hands on weaponry? They can't even manage border control for illegal immigrants. The only one who suffers is the law abiding citizen who can't protect him or herself and their families. Overall I think, based on the statistics, allowing guns saves more lives.
Some relevant quotes from the website (all of these quotes are sourced, feel free to check them out!):
"Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect."
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
"Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"
(among many, many more graphs that are easy to read if you want to see yourself)
I know its not proof, but its probably the best evidence that we're going to get on the effectiveness of the bans you guys are (probably) talking about.
On February 15 2012 07:35 Rassy wrote: .Sic. United States. February 15 2012 07:10. Posts 267 Swede New Zealand. February 15 2012 07:22. Posts 684 Kaitlin United States. February 15 2012 07:24. Posts 1187
Ya this. Cant realy blame the cop. Allowing cops to use lethal force at the slightest suspicion is a consequence of allowing firearms to the public. Guess its one of the manny drawbacks of allowing firearms. Dont get why americans are so found of their right to bear arms, it seems to give nothing but trouble.
Tread title is kinda epic btw lol, should have left it at "marine killed by OC..."
If you look at the statistics of cities that enacted gun control regulations (bans of handguns, for example), you'll see that gun control doesn't work and actually increases the number of deaths.
Also you guys are saying eliminate guns as if it would be so easy to just stop guns from flowing into a country. Look how well the war on drugs is doing...do you really think that the government has the power to prevent criminals from getting their hands on weaponry? They can't even manage border control for illegal immigrants. The only one who suffers is the law abiding citizen who can't protect him or herself and their families. Overall I think, based on the statistics, allowing guns saves more lives.
Some relevant quotes from the website (all of these quotes are sourced, feel free to check them out!):
"Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect."
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
"Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"
(among many, many more graphs that are easy to read if you want to see yourself)
I know its not proof, but its probably the best evidence that we're going to get on the effectiveness of the bans you guys are (probably) talking about.
Well, the ban on your graph is pretty explicit : nothing changed for 10 years, then, an uprising, then, the situation was normalizing.How can you relate it *directly and only* to the ban :/ Seems pretty far-fetched. Then they removed the law when it was more or less the same as before.
Trace a virtual line involving all the countries except the US. Now look at the US. Pretty self explanatory.
No, a ban is not going to ease things on a short term basis. But you have to think long term, maybe 10/20years, and then, ponder about whether it's a good decision for the future or not.
Why do people create threads like this, when they know they don't have any information about what happened? There is an ongoing investigation, when the DA's office makes a determination on whether the shooting was justified and releases detailed information to the press, then you have a reasonable basis for discussion. Until that time, there's no point in creating a thread like this one because it becomes derailed by people trying to make larger political points and it devolves into a bunch of people flinging google'd statistical data at each other without any serious analysis of the original incident.
the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
After living in foreign countries for awhile, the amount of American cops that are allowed to carry weapons completely surprised me. I'm not surprised that bad things happen occasionally, especially with the amount of cops that are quite stupid
On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote: the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum.
This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote: the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum.
This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
a good life was lost due to suspicion. was there a real threat? there wasn't, it seems like (i read the articles posted). so, whos to blame? no one to blame, "they were just doing thier job" and move on?
i'm sure there's a lot of information missing but it can go both ways, good shot or bad shot. the fact is, a life was lost when it wasn't necessary. and what triggered the death was the officer's discretion on how threatening the situation was.
and i do have some bias against "high rate of speed" bullshit as i've faced it before and many people i know in car community.
if what i said is flawed, i'd be more than happy to be enlightened.
Our police don't even carry guns, they might have a shotgun in the trunk. When they need to deal with armed criminals they will call in the armed offenders squad (SWAT).
Things like this shouldn't be allowed to be published I mean there are so many details that haven't been explained to the public, it just says that someone was shot. The article doesn't say anything else, no details, nothing. Now people are going to get all fired up in this thread about police not being allowed to wield a gun, and police being horrible people, etc.
I'm not going to make any assumptions or choose any sides until I get more information, and I think that it is a good idea that the rest of the people in this thread do the same. Jumping to conclusions is a bad idea in every situation.
Making a thread / article about cops being bad cops is a stupid practice and shouldn't be allowed, it's just making cops look like they are sociopaths with no emotions at all and shoot everyone they come across...
On February 14 2012 20:39 BlackJack wrote: The details haven't been released so why bother discussing the justification of it based purely on speculation?
btw I don't think you should have omitted the part that the guy was fleeing from police and crashed through a gate. You make it sound like he was pulled over for speeding and was shot because he went to get his registration when a cop told him not too. Obviously when you flee from police the cops are going to get a whole lot more trigger happy as you've already demonstrated you won't be taken down without a fight.
This. The OP has a pretty obvious agenda and wants us to think that this guy got shot while getting pulled over for speeding or something. This was after a chase crashing through shit. The cops had every right to think that this guy was dangerous.
Is there ever any reason to not do what the cops tell you to do and just refuse all their orders? If your innocent just obey orders till everything get sorted out, or resist orders and risk getting shot, tasered, beaten, etc till you're no longer a threat.
On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote: the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum.
This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
We are trying to move away from the idea that whatever the law states automatically ends a rational discussion. Law is fallible - it was created by men just like us. The insight you've brought to the table is that now we can investigate police procedures and see how culpable they are for this unnecessary slaying.
Not even worth conjecture until good details come out about the conversation they had, interviews with wife and daughters, and investigation into the circumstances of that morning. Really depends if there was additional factors that are unreported as of now.
Doesn't seem like very much information is available in those articles. The 2nd one is the best and says there were ~4 cops involved while the OP states 1.
So all we know is he allegedly sped through a fence at 4:30 am with 2 kids, went onto the football/was out of site for 5 min, then tried to get back in the car, said somethings to the officers and then was shot fatally.
Instead of shooting because he felt his life was threatened (which seems questionable based on the info presented) he claims he shot because he was in fear for the safety of the children in the car. Seems like a pretty legitimate rationale. Unless information is being falsely presented and the officers attempted to use less than lethal force leading up to using lethal force, I don't think there is really any issue here.
Its sad because apparently the Marine was a good man, but I don't think lack of major media attention is really of note. There have been 34 murders in Philadelphia alone since the new year, and I think a murder is more newsworthy than a justifiable police shooting, and I'm fairly sure 0 of those 34 murders have made national news. Its a sad world we live in man
Yeah because we know exactly what happened right? We also know the exact circumstances behind every "brutality" situation and it's never been the victim's fault.
Oh wait...
I'm so tired of all this anti-cop bullshit. Yes, everyone agrees that police brutality is fucked up and everyone is completely against it.
this is semi off-topic and I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but it bothers me a bit that the article title proclaims that it was a marine that got shot. I mean... if it had been a janitor or cashier from walmart, would the article be proclaiming "janitor/cashier killed by sheriff's deputy"? I don't think so. it's like the article is implying that the person's life was somehow more valuable because they were a marine.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/twKzd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l0eP2.gif)
