• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:48
CEST 12:48
KST 19:48
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202526RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me)
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Corsair Pursuit Micro? Pro gamer house photos
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread BWCL Season 63 Announcement
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 755 users

LAPD shoots man, cleared of wrongdoing - Page 5

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 14 15 Next All
OkStyX
Profile Blog Joined October 2011
Canada1199 Posts
February 16 2013 17:36 GMT
#81
Seeing blatant abuse of power like that drives me wild .
Team Overklocked Gaming! That man is the noblest creature may be inferred from the fact that no other creature has contested this claim. - G.C. Lichtenberg
TheRealArtemis
Profile Joined October 2011
687 Posts
February 16 2013 17:38 GMT
#82
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?

"Johnathan Cuevas, 20

Died Oct. 10, 2010

Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.

Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.

— Carla Rivera"


That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County


Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.



I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all
religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom
ragz_gt
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
9172 Posts
February 16 2013 17:39 GMT
#83
On February 17 2013 02:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Please let the government take my guns i feel safer already

User was warned for this post


So um... your solution is to return fire on the cop or something??!
I'm not an otaku, I'm a specialist.
Meiya
Profile Joined August 2007
Australia1169 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 17:45:49
February 16 2013 17:43 GMT
#84
It would be a lot easier to analyse this if somebody linked at least one reliable news source other than a very poor quality video where the number of gunshots isn't even clear.

On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?

"Johnathan Cuevas, 20

Died Oct. 10, 2010

Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.

Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.

— Carla Rivera"


That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County


Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.



I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all


The actual text of the OP is a copypaste from one of the grossly biased sources linked in the OP. And yes, it is very misleading. The same article praises Dorner like two sentences later as some sort of freedom fighter.
Perhaps there is a universal, absolute truth. Perhaps it justifies every question. But that's beyond the reach of these small hands.
fishjie
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States1519 Posts
February 16 2013 17:43 GMT
#85
i'm really glad on the timing of this. while i disagreed with what dorner did, the concerns of corruption and evil raised in his manifesto are 100% legit, and this just proves that. it just goes to show the police can shoot whoever they want to, whether its little ladies or white dudes driving trucks that don't match dorner truck's make/model, or minorities trying to run away.

this thing happens quite a lot, and before the advent of cheap digital cameras being available anywhere, you always had to take the police word for it no matter what.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
February 16 2013 17:45 GMT
#86
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?

"Johnathan Cuevas, 20

Died Oct. 10, 2010

Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.

Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.

— Carla Rivera"


That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County


Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.



I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all

Yeah, OP is just a lazy copy / paste of the Live Leak link.
FromShouri
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
United States862 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 17:46:59
February 16 2013 17:46 GMT
#87
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?

"Johnathan Cuevas, 20

Died Oct. 10, 2010

Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.

Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.

— Carla Rivera"


That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County


Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.



I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all


There is a bunch of conflicting reports, they say they found a gun but the deceased's fingerprints weren't on it.
Limited Edition, lets do some simple addition, $50 for a T-Shirt is just some ignorant bitch shit.
nunez
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Norway4003 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 17:47:43
February 16 2013 17:46 GMT
#88
edit nvm. bad post,
conspired against by a confederacy of dunces.
OniGami
Profile Joined December 2011
Japan140 Posts
February 16 2013 17:51 GMT
#89
On February 17 2013 02:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:38 TheRealArtemis wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:27 Eben wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 Warlock40 wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:20 Eben wrote:
So is this even the LAPD? One of the sources says that it is the Sheriffs Office and not the LAPD?

"Johnathan Cuevas, 20

Died Oct. 10, 2010

Johnathan Cuevas, a 20-year-old Latino, was killed by a sheriff's deputy Sunday, Oct. 10, near Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street in Lynwood, according to Los Angeles County coroner's records.

The incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. when a lone deputy approached three men. One of the men, later identified by the coroner's office as Johnathan Cuevas, allegedly reached into his waistband as he started to run. Seeing this, the deputy fired several times, striking Cuevas, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Luis Castro.

Cuevas was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A handgun was recovered at the scene, Castro said.

— Carla Rivera"


That's a good question. There are a lot of different law enforcement departments (police and sheriff) operating around the Los Angeles area, they're not all under one big department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Los_Angeles_County


Exactly my point. Anytime anyone gets killed anywhere near that city it's always the LAPD's fault. I'd like to at least make sure where the blame falls before our witch hunt begins.



I think the OP should be editied as well. Didnt the article say that a gun WAS recovered? That he actually was carrying a loaded gun. The description isnt well balanced at all

Yeah, OP is just a lazy copy / paste of the Live Leak link.

It's a matter of he says/she says right now, with different sources claiming different thing. An authoritative report will come out soon enough? Any links to the actual presence of the gun? OP needs to at least be clear on that one.
物の哀れ
billy5000
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States865 Posts
February 16 2013 17:54 GMT
#90
If you thought you were being "ambushed", why the hell would you focus all your attention on the person who's running away--the one who has the least potential to do harm in so called ambush--let alone shoot? Seems to me incompetence could also be involved.
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand. Vonnegut
mierin
Profile Joined August 2010
United States4943 Posts
February 16 2013 17:58 GMT
#91
Looks like Dorner's rolling over in his grave...
JD, Stork, Calm, Hyuk Fighting!
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 18:03:07
February 16 2013 18:02 GMT
#92
On February 17 2013 02:54 billy5000 wrote:
If you thought you were being "ambushed", why the hell would you focus all your attention on the person who's running away--the one who has the least potential to do harm in so called ambush--let alone shoot? Seems to me incompetence could also be involved.

According to the cop the guy with the gun ran after the supposed ambush failed.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-PsnQUvThWKaU1wVkRSWGlyY3c/edit
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42638 Posts
February 16 2013 18:05 GMT
#93
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
February 16 2013 18:07 GMT
#94
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.

What's reasonable though? I don't expect a firefighter to enter a building if he thinks the roof is collapsing. Unfortunately that requires me to trust the firefighter when he says that he really thought the roof was collapsing.
almart
Profile Joined November 2011
United States114 Posts
February 16 2013 18:19 GMT
#95
On February 17 2013 00:45 openbox1 wrote:
Cop kind of went overboard, especially with the two shots when he's down.
Not to say the cop shouldn't lose his badge or even go to prison depending on the circumstances, but before we shed too many tears for the victim, I wonder if they can release some pertinent info on him. If he's some convicted armed robber, repeat rapist, serial offender etc... well in the parlance of the old LAPD: "NHI"

Even if the man is a repeat offender of the law that doesn't mean you should just shoot the man. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty police officers should only use their weapon for self-defense there is no reason(based on the video) to just shoot and kill this man just because he was running.
“To go wrong in one's own way is better then to go right in someone else's” -Fyodor Dostoyevsky
OniGami
Profile Joined December 2011
Japan140 Posts
February 16 2013 18:21 GMT
#96
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.

You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.
物の哀れ
OniGami
Profile Joined December 2011
Japan140 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 18:29:00
February 16 2013 18:24 GMT
#97
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless

This is not even a valid counter argument. Are you even serious?
物の哀れ
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13924 Posts
February 16 2013 18:26 GMT
#98
On February 17 2013 02:23 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:16 Sermokala wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.
You think that anyone is going to take a job where they have a strong likelihoods of being killed for $15 an hour? This weird Idealism about the police and their relationship with the public is nice but it has no grounding in reality.

In a capitalist system you can have two outcomes from a shitty underpaid job which nobody wants.
You can either keep the job demanding and when you run into recruitment problems you can slowly up the pay and benefits until you find the free market equilibrium in which the people feel they are being adequately rewarded for the demands of the job.
or
You can lower the workload and difficulty of the job until the quality of the product is so bad that it becomes something someone whose labor is only worth $15/hr will accept.

You have claimed that the latter is the case and the problem is something intrinsically wrong with capitalism. This isn't the case. The problem happened when someone thought a good way to save money on the police budget was to hire morons, not to train them and give them liberty to fuck with the public without repercussions.

The city of LA can't afford to drive up wages and benefits when its tax base is so infested with gang violence and drugs. The problem isn't that they decided that $15/hr cops was the solution to their budget problem their situation made it so that they can only afford $15/hr. City governance isn't motivated by capitalism its motivated by politics and trying to judge this situation on the merits of capitalism is completely idiotic. I don't judge how good a football player is by how well he can hit a baseball.

The cruel and depressing irony is that the situation would get drastically worse if they demanded any more from their police.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Reason
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 18:29:48
February 16 2013 18:28 GMT
#99
On February 17 2013 03:24 OniGami wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.

You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.

I'm pretty sure if you are a police officer in the USA getting shot at is part of the job, whether you like it or not it seems likely.
Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly; for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood.
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13924 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-02-16 18:31:28
February 16 2013 18:30 GMT
#100
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.


But this breaks down incredibly once you apply it to real life. Fire fighters won't go into a building that they think will collapse around them. A doctor will know more then anyone else if they get sick and will be at the hospital to save themselves, and a policeman is going to shoot someone they think is drawing a gun on them before that gun is drawn and them and they are shot. They accept the risks of the job but you can't expect someone to not take those risks into account and try their best to minimize them.

On February 17 2013 03:28 Reason wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 17 2013 03:24 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 03:05 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:31 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:25 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:22 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 02:09 KwarK wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:57 OniGami wrote:
On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote:
One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.

I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.

But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.

But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)

EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.

I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.

Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.

As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.

A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.

Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.

Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.

You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.

I'm pretty sure if you are a police officer in the USA getting shot at is part of the job, whether you like it or not it seems likely.

Which is why they are given guns bulletproof vests and shotguns in their cars but that has nothing to do with their choices to shoot first and ask questions later policy that gets people killed more often then they would if they didn't shoot first.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 14 15 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025, Day 1
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinELIVE!
ByuN vs TBD
Astrea vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Rogue
Serral vs TBD
EWC_Arena3053
ComeBackTV 1503
TaKeTV 337
Hui .303
3DClanTV 274
Rex176
CranKy Ducklings176
Fuzer 142
Reynor103
mcanning98
UpATreeSC47
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena3053
Hui .303
Rex 176
Fuzer 142
Reynor 103
mcanning 98
UpATreeSC 47
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 27755
Barracks 1475
Bisu 1438
EffOrt 538
Jaedong 531
Mini 360
firebathero 356
Stork 299
PianO 214
Rush 185
[ Show more ]
Soma 184
Leta 165
ToSsGirL 131
Pusan 130
Free 101
Soulkey 95
soO 69
Shine 45
Snow 41
ZerO 37
NotJumperer 29
Sharp 28
zelot 20
yabsab 18
Larva 17
sSak 9
Movie 4
Dota 2
XcaliburYe360
420jenkins211
BananaSlamJamma167
canceldota69
League of Legends
JimRising 425
Counter-Strike
x6flipin466
allub194
Other Games
singsing1774
Happy378
SortOf129
crisheroes73
B2W.Neo43
Trikslyr27
ArmadaUGS25
ZerO(Twitch)7
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH326
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV362
• lizZardDota2114
League of Legends
• Stunt1116
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
23h 12m
Esports World Cup
1d 23h
Esports World Cup
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.