LAPD shoots man, cleared of wrongdoing - Page 15

On February 17 2013 09:19 HunterX11 wrote:


The thread title is wrong and this isn't even the LAPD at all

On February 17 2013 09:25 DemigodcelpH wrote:
This officer should be publicly executed. I think an abuse of power like this, in the context of murdering someone, is treason against the US in that it violates the so-called principles that the country is supposed to be founded on to keep powers in check.

On February 17 2013 09:22 PanzerKing wrote:


The caption posted by the OP also states that a gun wasn't recovered, when one actually was. The entire post and thread are pretty much stinky bullshit trying to create a controversy out of nothing.

On February 17 2013 09:39 Qwyn wrote:
This is pathetic. That cop deserves a life sentence. There is no way he can justify what he did. No gun? This piece of shit is nothing more than murdering scum.

LAPD already has a horrible name for itself. This doesn't help and if they had any scrap of decency left they would do the right thing and put this POS in the dust. But they won't, and by God the LAPD and all similar institutions should be cleansed and higher standards instituted. It's evident that a murderous rampage won't work, though...

On February 17 2013 08:05 dcemuser wrote:


Okay, easy - guy is running with a loaded gun, so you take 2 shots at him when he keeps running (because he could easily turn and kill you). The guy goes down, and then says (quoted from the friend) "Alright, alright, I got a gun, I got a gun", which is the dumbest thing you could say since that implies intent, and the cop shoots him once more since he was moving and could have been reaching for it while saying that.

The questionable shots are the ones where he 'looks at them and then shoots again'.

Regardless of anything though, the media's protrayal of the situation is a joke. In reality, two gang members put their hands on a police car and block the officer's view partially from a third gang member who draws out a loaded gun. Force is ENTIRELY justified for the first shots.

The only question at all is whether the continued shots were justified or the result of rage/anger/fear on the officer's part.

On February 17 2013 09:43 Pansa01 wrote:


I still don't understand.... How did the cop know he had a gun if it was concealed? It doesn't make sense to me that someone would pull out a gun just to run away, why not use it? And if he did pull a gun first and start running, it didn't look like he would have any time to put it back in his "waist line" and why would he waste time doing so anyway. Also, saying "alright, alright, I got a gun, I got a gun" does not imply intent, it implies he is letting the cop know he has a gun.... because it was concealed..... but I guess maybe I can see why the cop would shoot at that point but still.. its the first few shots that I don't get. This whole thing sounds a little fishy to me.

On February 17 2013 08:58 PanzerKing wrote:


Why would he not run away? Possessing an unlicensed, loaded firearm in public is a serious felony in most, if not all jurisdictions.

Kids on the street are smart these days. In my jurisdiction, they know that possessing a loaded firearm is a felony, and unloaded firearm is a misdemeanor. So what do they do? They try to toss the mag and eject the cartridge in the chamber before they're caught, so they can plead to a misdemeanor, get mandatory youthful offender, and walk away with no criminal record and probation at worst. And that willingness to fiddle with the gun while you're running away from the cop just increases the chance that the officer will feel threatened and discharge his weapon. At any kind of distance and in an unlit part of the street, he can't tell whether you're about to turn around and kill him or whether you're trying to toss the ammo. All he can see is your hands pulling out a gun and fiddling with it.

On February 17 2013 09:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:


No, what's more pathetic is that this thread's OP constructed it such that people like you who have not seen the full story end up making conclusions such as yours. "No gun" is just 100% wrong. There was a gun recovered.

Now don't take this as a personal insult or anything, because I understand that your response is based on your assumption that the OP is accurate and truthful. It's not, and that is not your fault. It's just pathetic and sad that it stays open, confusing and stirring up negativity in people like you, who could not possibly know any better without having to wade through the entire thread