TLDR: LAPD officers pulls up to a group of 3 men walking on a sidewalk. One of the men starts running away. Cop shoots man 6 times in the back. The man collapses on the sidewalk and the cop walks up and fires one more kill shot. Then another 2 kill shots. Man dies. The cop later claims the man had a gun. Gun never found. Cop claims self defense and is cleared of any wrongdoing.
This is developing news so updates will follow, especially the details before the event and the result of the investigations.
Well, this won't improve their image any. You'd think they'd tread carefully after the recent...incident. Looks like they don't care either way, cuz they think they are invincible.
The man should not have run from the cop and never should you ever do anything that would suggest threatening the cop or doing a sudden motion. They do not know who you are, your motive, how willing you are to kill, etc.
That being said, the cops reaction was excessive. Its a shame he hadn't pulled a taser instead of a gun, but how fast he was to shoot and the manner in which he shot was too much.
On February 17 2013 00:29 [Agony]x90 wrote: The man should not have run from the cop and never should you ever do anything that would suggest threatening the cop or doing a sudden motion. They do not know who you are, your motive, how willing you are to kill, etc.
That being said, the cops reaction was excessive. Its a shame he hadn't pulled a taser instead of a gun, but how fast he was to shoot and the manner in which he shot was too much.
Djeez, the no-matter-what-happened , authority-defenders are really early in the thread this time. Excessive? Outright illegal. This "cop" should go to jail for life.
On February 17 2013 00:29 Reaper9 wrote: Well, this won't improve their image any. You'd think they'd tread carefully after the recent...incident. Looks like they don't care either way, cuz they think they are invincible.
This was two years ago; it's the video that's just being released now. I believe his family is presently filing a wrongful death suit. Even so: What the fuck, LAPD?
Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
That is crazy. Even if you can justify shooting him once (I personally don't think you can), there is definitely no reason to continue firing and shoot him at close range, that's just ridiculous. If the guy is running away from you it doesn't look like self defence to run him down firing, although I am making judgement with limited information.
On February 17 2013 00:29 [Agony]x90 wrote: The man should not have run from the cop and never should you ever do anything that would suggest threatening the cop or doing a sudden motion. They do not know who you are, your motive, how willing you are to kill, etc.
That being said, the cops reaction was excessive. Its a shame he hadn't pulled a taser instead of a gun, but how fast he was to shoot and the manner in which he shot was too much.
What the fuck?! The cop is no animal which acts purely out of instinct. He should be trained to react fast and calm in such situations and not shoot this guy like 6 times in the back! Self defense, when he is clearly running AWAY from you?! It's disgusting what this cop did, the very least that should be done is making sure, that this guy never will be able to have a gun in his hands...
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"
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
I disagree, in Sweden our police force is nothing like LAPD. theres barely any corruption and no nearly as much freedom given to the police force, the way some cops are acting as if they are superior human beings (some sort of judge dredd mentality). partly probably because of culture but also because of the way swedish policemen are more restricted by law when it comes to using force and violence.
Also, police departments should never ever take care of cases within their own ranks.
this is disgusting. but from what Ive heard about the LAPD and how incredibly corrupt some US police-departments seem to be (NYPD is another one that comes to mind) sadly, this doesnt surprise me at all.
Dorner, Cuevas... this things happen a lot more often in the streets of US than many realize. We have a cabinet just for "unprovoked police officer shooting citizens" cases in our office, and mind you, that;s not even what we specialize at.
Still, due process. For everyone. Even for the cops. Let's see what the investigation says.
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"
I'm gonna half agree with you here. Effectively, we don't know the victim's identity, and there maybe some informations we are dismissing. But serious criminal or not, he deserves a fair trial to prove anything. That's how the justice system is supposed to work. Policemen don't have the right to shoot anyone under serious good reasons. Shooting a guy running away from you is not one. Finishing the guy at close range is even more fucked up.
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
While I can see where you're coming from, if that were the case why wouldn't we hear a lot more about such incidents coming from other countries as well? I mean I can attest to policemen *here* being pretty scummy, but they mostly stick to taking bribery and occasionally helping out various underground cartels, rather than killing innocent people for no reason whatsoever and then making it look like self-defense. Or brutalizing minorities, for that matter. In fact the opposite is true here, for all the wrongdoings and injustices they do, gypsies are very rarely mistreated or abused by power-tripping / racist police officers.
But hey, all of this is topic for a different discussion altogether.
Quite disgusting that these things are more than a rare occurrence. Not expecting much to be done about it either. -_-
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
I think it was a figure of speech meant to convey the fact that the cop had definite intent to kill going into it. But hey, nice copy paste skills, I bow down to your superior intellect.
On February 17 2013 00:55 Qikz wrote: Why the guy ran away from the police I have no idea, but the cop definately should not have shot the guy 6 times in the back just for running away.
To be honest I think the incident probably justifies running away. I'd flee from that police officer, even if I'd done nothing wrong.
On February 17 2013 00:29 Reaper9 wrote: Well, this won't improve their image any. You'd think they'd tread carefully after the recent...incident. Looks like they don't care either way, cuz they think they are invincible.
This was two years ago; it's the video that's just being released now. I believe his family is presently filing a wrongful death suit. Even so: What the fuck, LAPD?
In other words though, Dorner had something right, even though he was part of the crazy himself. Well, I'm glad it's getting noticed now, bunch together the problems all at one time. Maybe there is hope for change within the LAPD.
On February 17 2013 00:55 Qikz wrote: Why the guy ran away from the police I have no idea, but the cop definately should not have shot the guy 6 times in the back just for running away.
To be honest I think the incident probably justifies running away. I'd flee from that police officer, even if I'd done nothing wrong.
Yeah but now there's precedence, if the LAPD get away with no penalties then running away from a cop can be a death sentence, literally. Who knows, maybe they want you to flee.
On February 17 2013 00:55 Qikz wrote: Why the guy ran away from the police I have no idea, but the cop definately should not have shot the guy 6 times in the back just for running away.
To be honest I think the incident probably justifies running away. I'd flee from that police officer, even if I'd done nothing wrong.
Yeah but now there's precedence, if the LAPD get away with no penalties then running away from a cop can be a death sentence, literally. Who knows, maybe they want you to flee.
Sadistic pleasure, desire to hunt, that sort of stuff? It's sad that such pathetic people manage to end up in positions of power in police departments of some of the largest cities in the world. Sadder still is the fact that their abhorrent behaviour is always swept under the rug, if it's even acknowledged to begin with.
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.
The saddest thing is that some people are already brainwashed enough to justify this. In most countries that cop would get life in prison (or 20-25 years minimum).
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
If we're going to be all morally and ethically correct like we're in the court of law on mount olympus in greece...
then cite your sources because for all I know you dug this out of urbandictionary.com
Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband.
As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot me!” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of trafñc on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car.
Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel” Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove.
This version and the video that we can see on youtube don't collaborate at all. On the video we see the cop running at the young man who was on ground and promptly shoot at him. I don't see the scene of ambiguous talk and acting from the victim (while he was wounded on the ground) as portayed in the policeman's report.
To give u guys an idea why we europeans can't wrap our head around this.
In my country after every shot is fired by a cop an investigation is launched by a DIFFERENT police station eg from another state to prevent bias. I feel perfectly safe and i know of only 1 case of police brutally There were ca. 80 shots fired from police officers in 2011 i think.
How can a country that is so proud on their 2nd amendment not demand change?
On February 17 2013 00:55 Qikz wrote: Why the guy ran away from the police I have no idea, but the cop definately should not have shot the guy 6 times in the back just for running away.
To be honest I think the incident probably justifies running away. I'd flee from that police officer, even if I'd done nothing wrong.
Running away from a police officer is ALWAYS a bad idea. They are legally protected to use fair judgment on the course of action they can take as a response. At best, you get a chase. At worst, you get shot. It all goes down to corroborating evidence and in any situation, you end up losing or dead. There should be a public announcement or something about police procedure, at least people know how to respond to police authorities.
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
If we're going to be all morally and ethically correct like we're in the court of law on mount olympus in greece...
then cite your sources because for all I know you dug this out of urbandictionary.com
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
If we're going to be all morally and ethically correct like we're in the court of law on mount olympus in greece...
then cite your sources because for all I know you dug this out of urbandictionary.com
see what I did there?
No, actually, I don't see. You called it an execution. It was not an execution. I opened a new tab. Googled "Execution" and a dictionary definition box popped at the top. Did the same for "Murder". Copy and pasted. That's about it.
On February 17 2013 00:29 derpface wrote: This is so fucking disgusting. But it happend in the USA so Im not surprised.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why is he temp banned? Is it wrong to state that you're not surprised that it happened in the USA? Do we see news like this often in Europe? No. He's simply stating what is fact.
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.
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 agree with this. I do not trust the LAPD at all, but if the deceased was pointing a gun at the police officer that does change things considerably.
On February 17 2013 00:29 derpface wrote: This is so fucking disgusting. But it happend in the USA so Im not surprised.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why is he temp banned? Is it wrong to state that you're not surprised that it happened in the USA? Do we see news like this often in Europe? No. He's simply stating what is fact.
User was temp banned for this post.
Because only "Only in Russia" is legal here. Don't you know? There are some patriot mods around here.
The one releasing the video now, was clearly waiting for the right moment. After Chris Dorners drama around the LAPD. This doesn't really shine a good light on them now.
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 usually avoid these threads but this is such a good choice of words. I completely agree with your view of this.
On February 17 2013 01:40 cilinder007 wrote: Wow this stuff with the LAPD....so when is something going to be done ? Does the goverment not care its inforcing organ is murdering their citizens ?
The LAPD by name is not an organ of the federal government its the organ of the city government of Los Angeles. The enforcing organ of the government is called the FBI.
get compensated? don't know about cops in britain but they sure as hell aren't compensated enough for risking their lives in the netherlands brosan the killshot was over the top but this shooting is more than justified in my opinion.
Even though I love the police, I'm still absolutely disgusted by this. There's no way to spin this so that you can call what the officer did "just."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're a civilian and you hit someone while they're on the ground isn't that a felony? Which would make this an ultra felony.
On February 17 2013 01:24 Verzweiflung wrote: To give u guys an idea why we europeans can't wrap our head around this.
In my country after every shot is fired by a cop an investigation is launched by a DIFFERENT police station eg from another state to prevent bias. I feel perfectly safe and i know of only 1 case of police brutally There were ca. 80 shots fired from police officers in 2011 i think.
How can a country that is so proud on their 2nd amendment not demand change?
Some parts of the US have / had serious crime problems. The situation's been improving since the early 90's but until violence - in general - goes down to W. European levels don't be surprised to see violence from cops at elevated levels too.
Also keep in mind the US is a big place - just because things happen frequently in some parts doesn't make it the case throughout the whole country.
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.
As regards policemen dying on duty in opposition to policemen misjudging and killing innocents, I most definitely agree. But let's be honest here, the most primal instinct hardwired into any creature on this Earth is the one to survive. And should you legitimately feel the threat, then you will do whatever it takes to survive. People altruistic enough to not only say that they would die for others, but actually follow through with it, are unsurprisingly rare.
But all of this is assuming the best, i.e. that policemen actually deem that guy a threat. Let's not kid ourselves, there's a lot of deranged, possibly traumatized lunatics obsessed with power in law enforcement. Position of power tends to draw this kind of people in, how surprising right? I'm not saying most cops are like that. But when you look at how many of these incidents occur, then look at how little attention they get in the mainstream media and the way in which the stories are portrayed and described, if you put two and two together you will find that a lot more of these are successfully covered up, which then leads you to make the assumption that there's a lot of sick fucks in the police force. Sadly there will never be any hard statistics from within the system that would confirm any of this, since it would delegitimize the whole shebang. But you really *have* to see that it's the case.
On February 17 2013 01:50 fartosis77 wrote: get compensated? don't know about cops in britain but they sure as hell aren't compensated enough for risking their lives in the netherlands brosan the killshot was over the top but this shooting is more than justified in my opinion.
Is being a police officer a particularly dangerous job in the Netherlands? Few die in the line of duty over here.
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
Thankfully people arent like you everywhere in the world. The corruption is barely exciting in my home country, the cops here are regular peoplel. Its almost the other way around actually which makes it funny. Countries like america people fear the cops and harassment.
In denmark people here know their rights, and alot of them, uses it to verbal abuse the cops and be 'cheeky' to the point where you wanna punch them. I hate the fake gangsta NWA mentality, of fuck the police.
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.
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
If we're going to be all morally and ethically correct like we're in the court of law on mount olympus in greece...
then cite your sources because for all I know you dug this out of urbandictionary.com
see what I did there?
No, actually, I don't see. You called it an execution. It was not an execution. I opened a new tab. Googled "Execution" and a dictionary definition box popped at the top. Did the same for "Murder". Copy and pasted. That's about it.
It's called sarcasm, I guess you're a forever aloner though and can't go along with it.
I'll help you out though, when you shoot him running away.. no that's not an execution
when he's down, the chase is over.. and then you walk up, and fire "finishing" shots, that is basically you executing the guy.
I'll assume you're from another country and english is your second language. Sorry if I missed a comma somewhere too.
On February 17 2013 00:29 derpface wrote: This is so fucking disgusting. But it happend in the USA so Im not surprised.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why is he temp banned? Is it wrong to state that you're not surprised that it happened in the USA? Do we see news like this often in Europe? No. He's simply stating what is fact.
User was temp banned for this post.
Not surprised , still shocked at the barbarism at the other side of the Ocean though.
I find it incredibly ironic that you link to a website call reason.com and then everyone proceeds to use preconceived notions and a video of abysmal quality to reinforce their personal beliefs about the LAPD.
You can see almost nothing in this video except that the cop shoots. You can't really corroborate or deny the cops claim that he pulls a gun. You see that the cop shoots him in the back of course, and that the cop fires when he's down.
Here's the problem though, once you pull a gun on a cop in this country he has the right to fire whether you are running away or not. That's fair in my opinion. A gun is a lethal weapon with only one purpose (ie he probably wasn't going to use it to light his cigarette, or something equally mundane), and if you are dumb enough to pull it on someone else with a gun, and then cry when they use their gun on you, you are beyond stupid and you win the Darwin award.
I don't know if any of you have been to California, but the gangs there are absolutely brutal. They target cops all the time. They don't care about going to prison at all, it's a mark of pride. Until you have seen what the gangs here do to cops and the general public, I think it would behoove you not to compare LA to anything that exists in the Netherlands.
By the way, there was a gun found at the scene. Is it possible that it was planted? Sure.
Is it rational for you people to jump to all of these conclusions about a situation you know absolutely nothing about? No.
On February 17 2013 01:50 fartosis77 wrote: get compensated? don't know about cops in britain but they sure as hell aren't compensated enough for risking their lives in the netherlands brosan the killshot was over the top but this shooting is more than justified in my opinion.
Is being a police officer a particularly dangerous job in the Netherlands? Few die in the line of duty over here.
Britain is a really bad comparison, since a british cop would not of been armed.
According to wikipedia 16 british cops have died in the last 10 years (on duty), or about 1.6 per year. The USA is at around 156 per year. With the US having around 5 times the population, cops are around 20 times more likely to die in the USA than in the UK. I do not think you can expected American police to risk their lives in the way ours do because American police are much more likely to die when they do so.
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.
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
Indeed, and the ones we know about, are the ones that fucked up.
Still cant imagine the cop being released in this country after what he did..
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"
how does his past history in any way change whether what the cop did was right or wrong?
Hm...seems the cop just did not want to move his own ass faster than normal. How did they explain, that the gun was never found when he claimed the suspect was armed? Was the judge some kind of alcoholic delusional?
Reminded me of a south Park Episode. Ignore the patriot act stuff. + Show Spoiler +
On February 17 2013 01:50 fartosis77 wrote: get compensated? don't know about cops in britain but they sure as hell aren't compensated enough for risking their lives in the netherlands brosan the killshot was over the top but this shooting is more than justified in my opinion.
Is being a police officer a particularly dangerous job in the Netherlands? Few die in the line of duty over here.
Britain is a really bad comparison, since a british cop would not of been armed.
According to wikipedia 16 british cops have died in the last 10 years (on duty), or about 1.6 per year. The USA is at around 156 per year. With the US having around 5 times the population, cops are around 20 times more likely to die in the USA than in the UK. I do not think you can expected American police to risk their lives in the way ours do because American police are much more likely to die when they do so.
The solution to this is not to take fewer chances with the lives of police officers by being more reckless with the lives of potentially innocent suspects.
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.
This isn't a nice area of the country where the cops know your name and care for the citizens on a case by case basis. Its the middle of one of the most gang war torn parts of america. The guy in the youtube can probably name off 5 friends to you that have been killed in the same exact spot he was in and he didn't want to die the same way. We can't judge all cops the same because its wrong and its not fair. My dad got paid $45 an hour in a city that see's a murder every 20 years and he never had to even shoot his gun on duty. These guys are lucky to get paid $15 an hour and get to go home without seeing someone get shot for some stupid reason or another. 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.
He thought that the guy might have a gun in his wast ban and was reaching for it and decided to shoot first and not take the risk. you can line up 100 other cops and they'll make the same decision over and over again in his situation. The problem with the situation is that the LA can't afford a better police department because of the problems that the city faces with a bad police department. The only way that the city is going to get better is if there is federal intervention to fix the problem.
I'm not even defending them, everyone knows that the LAPD sucks but no one has a serious solution to make the problem any better. Kicking a dog doesn't help anyone.
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.
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.
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 labour 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zeesh is that right? i knew there were alot of officers in that LAPD county but just off County Sheriffs and the LAPD itself that's 18k officers. And by county records the LA county has about 11 mil population making it larger then Sweden, Switzerland, Finland or Norway.
On February 17 2013 02:13 Eisregen wrote: Hm...seems the cop just did not want to move his own ass faster than normal. How did they explain, that the gun was never found when he claimed the suspect was armed? Was the judge some kind of alcoholic delusional?
Reminded me of a south Park Episode. Ignore the patriot act stuff. + Show Spoiler +
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.
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
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 02:20 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Getting shot at is a thing that happens in the job, even an unavoidable consequence. It does not make it part of the job. I am American by the way.
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
While that may be true where your teacher is from - it is also a common practice in most police departments in the united states to unload their entire weapon at the target. They are not shooting to wound or disable, they are shooting to kill. If the need to use lethal force is presented then it is just that, lethal force, not shoot a few times and check on him.
EDIT: Not saying that he should have shot/killed the guy, but that is usually the protocol.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
Oh you. Don't nitpick him. Fine, if we want to be super-correct: This is what you call an execution-style murder.
On February 17 2013 00:29 [Agony]x90 wrote: The man should not have run from the cop and never should you ever do anything that would suggest threatening the cop or doing a sudden motion. They do not know who you are, your motive, how willing you are to kill, etc.
That being said, the cops reaction was excessive. Its a shame he hadn't pulled a taser instead of a gun, but how fast he was to shoot and the manner in which he shot was too much.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's like the LAPD should be considered a wild lion according to you? No sudden motions in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION?
Did the LAPD guy think the runner was going to do a retreating straffing run on him? Is 'Oh shit he's going to kill me!' the first thought of someone bolting away from an officer?
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, because they don't know who you are. Normally, once the cop is able to assess that there is no threat, he can relax and just talk. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous and he had to respond as such.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
On February 17 2013 04:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: ...and right after the Dorner incident too. Suddenly, his claims of massive corruption seem a lot more realistic.
Isnt exactly right after...It happened two years ago. Corruption in america isnt a new thing. But rather calling it corruption, I would call it very poor judgement calls.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
No, I think you're mixing up reality with a fantasy world. Soldiers are trained to use their firearms as their answer to "Potentially lethal force", which is a legal definition and is the top of the use of force continuum. Firearms are the most efficient examples of potentially lethal force, but this also includes knife attacks within a certain proximity, explosives and pretty much anything potentially lethal and in immediate proximity. It doesn't matter if it's domestic, or a warzone, or high intensity or low intensity or in a house or a poppy field or a forest or a school, soldiers shoot to kill. If they don't want to kill, they don't shoot, they use other options. This is how Australia trains its soldiers, America and any professional army is no different, and if you don't agree you are just plain wrong and I'm not going to argue that point with you.
On February 17 2013 00:23 Twinkle Toes wrote: TLDR: LAPD officers pulls up to a group of 3 men walking on a sidewalk. One of the men starts running away. Cop shoots man 6 times in the back. The man collapses on the sidewalk and the cop walks up and fires one more kill shot. Then another 2 kill shots. Man dies. The cop later claims the man had a gun. Gun never found. Cop claims self defense and is cleared of any wrongdoing.
This is developing news so updates will follow, especially the details before the event and the result of the investigations.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
On February 17 2013 04:10 blagoonga123 wrote: At this point I feel like I have an equal chance of getting harmed by the LAPD as I do of getting helped by them
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
Advocating for more guns in the hands of civilians based on this incident is completely ridiculous.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
"LAPD is a bastion of corruption, you see, the LAPD just keeps killing people randomly........Oh wait, this wasn't the LAPD? All police must be corrupt!"
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
It should also be mentioned that "occupied state" and "enemy of the state" are not military terminology and in this context have nothing to do with anything.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
Advocating for more guns in the hands of civilians based on this incident is completely ridiculous.
Not only this occasion but many more. Read the news more often please.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone.
I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
Adding more guns to the equation brings nothing good to the table.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
That's okay, you just clearly made a terrible assumption regarding how I took your statement.
To state my position. I believe status quo to be much better than the proliferation of weapons, as i trust a corrupt cop to have a better handle on his weapon then a pissed off joe schmo.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
I mean if you guys want to advocate for a citizens militia to stand in the streets with guns to back up the police you can do that as an argument for fixing the situation you can but you're going to run into the same problems we had back with trayvon martin happen up.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone.
I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
What on Earth are you talking about?
You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" Plain & simple -- you were completely wrong. Accept that and move on
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
There were 4 gunshot wounds, none to the head. He died later at the hospital.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone.
I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
Even if that is what the police are taught, which I doubt (aiming for the head in battle shooting, yeah okay), the only difference between those two approaches to shooting a human target is the efficiency of it. "Center mass" with modern 5.56 rounds is a kill, that's not shooting to wound. There is almost nowhere you can shoot somebody in the torso that won't kill them untreated. That's shooting to kill. I honestly have no idea what you *are* talking about at this point.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them. 2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
That's okay, you just clearly made a terrible assumption regarding how I took your statement.
To state my position. I believe status quo to be much better than the proliferation of weapons, as i trust a corrupt cop to have a better handle on his weapon then a pissed off joe schmo.
I would trust more a responsible trained civilian with a weapon than a police officer that wants to shoot me just because i decide to run away.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them. 2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say.
Have you ever heard of the bill of rights? you must not be American.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them. 2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say.
Have you ever heard of the bill of rights? you must not be American.
Bill of rights in what way says you don't have to listen to the police? Which one?
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
What is a whole neighborhood of combatants armed against police going to do against a whole government response that comes together?
Regardless of politics and who is wrong or right, throwing guns at the problems won't help.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good. If you want to berate people for being unreasonable, consider that you are coming off that way to others.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
What is a whole neighborhood of combatants armed against police going to do against a whole government response that comes together?
Regardless of politics and who is wrong or right, throwing guns at the problems won't help.
We pick the government.
The government was created to help us not control us.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
The burden rests on you for claiming that more guns would solve the problem.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia -'thefrankone'
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do.
Read it and comprehend it what it is about. Even better educate yourself more.
On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote: [quote]
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind: [quote]
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
you should take your advice as well.
Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police. So go on, more one liners about how oh so smart you are please.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
you should take your advice as well.
Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than the offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police.
That was posted by the other user. He was trying to say that I based y comment on a movie. Sorry but I dont have time to waste with people that have no arguments.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
I'm still curious which amendment in the Bill of Rights says you don't have to do what a cop tells you to do.
Read it and comprehend it what it is about. Even better educate yourself more.
You can't list the number of the amendment? Why not? Probably because there isn't one.
On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: [quote]
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
You do realize you are describing the movie Training Day........which is a movie....... + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNDQD0gkAU
What you fail to realize is that King Kong ain't got shit on a corrupt cop.
I am not describing any movie. I was thinking about the riots that happened in California.
People like you make me sick, defend this atrocities instead of acting reasonably.
Oh you mean the riots in which armed citizens robbed Korean store owners and killed their own people? That part isn't in Training Day, maybe you thought it was. In the meantime, just breathe and make sure you keep swallowing. Sometimes that keeps the vomit at bay.
you should take your advice as well.
Oh, but you see, I am not at all sick. I am curious, however, as to how you can even continue posting after you've been shown to base your understanding of police/citizen dynamics on movies and fantastic imaginings of organized local uprisings, when in reality, an armed populace driven to violence has shown itself far more liable to destroy itself than the offer up any sort of meaningful resistance towards the police.
That was posted by the other user. He was trying to say that I based y comment on a movie. Sorry but I dont have time to waste with people that have no arguments.
Bye! I wont answer any more of your posts.
I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario
What is a corrupt cop going to do against a whole neighborhood that comes together?
has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that their reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Edit: I even said sorry because i dont like to name call either.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read.
I'm fine with that so long as it's reasonable. But some level of gun control is necessary. The guy who got shot in the OP shouldn't have had one.
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
My neighbor is a cop. We hang a lot and I know he carrys a concealed gun even when he is not on duty on his pouch. Never I saw or heard about him shooting someone. In Portugal the most big cop news you get about police abuse is them punching someone that was actually throwing rocks (or next to someone who was) in a manifestation.
On February 17 2013 00:39 Bleak wrote: Well as much as people like to bash USA, I think policemen everywhere are pretty much the same. Most of them can be quite cruel. When you give a group of people a gun and permission to use force, you can't expect every one of them to stop and think the consequences of their actions before using that force.
I disagree, in Sweden our police force is nothing like LAPD. theres barely any corruption and no nearly as much freedom given to the police force, the way some cops are acting as if they are superior human beings (some sort of judge dredd mentality). partly probably because of culture but also because of the way swedish policemen are more restricted by law when it comes to using force and violence.
Also, police departments should never ever take care of cases within their own ranks.
this is disgusting. but from what Ive heard about the LAPD and how incredibly corrupt some US police-departments seem to be (NYPD is another one that comes to mind) sadly, this doesnt surprise me at all.
I'll give you that your police force has less corruption. However, keep in mind that I feel a lot of the time like NY is one of the worst states in the US, the NYPD is actually not so bad. In the 70s and 80s, yes, but since the early/mid 90s or so the NYPD has actually been pretty good. There have been a couple incidents here and there, but mostly they've been pretty good. LAPD is going above and beyond to prove how much of a bunch of corrupt sleazeballs they are at the moment though. For some reason most television shows seem to portray NYPD in a negative light, but in reality I have no complaints as someone who interacts with them frequently.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
And so far you cannot.
People on meth shouldn't be walking around in public areas with loaded guns. Is that a fair (and relevant!) statement?
Maybe read when I said that responsible trained civilians should have it? oh right you cannot read.
I'm fine with that so long as it's reasonable. But some level of gun control is necessary. The guy who got shot in the OP shouldn't have had one.
I a glad we are reaching a common ground here. I also agree with what you posted right now. But i do not nor will ever justify the action by the police officer.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents.
Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea.
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response?
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents.
Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea.
But it isnt and that si what you do not understand. You cannot claim that someone did something and then try to forget about it. You are acting like the LAPD.
I would like an apology from you as well before i continue answering. Until then, i will not.
On February 17 2013 04:29 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is defending any "atrocity". We're refuting your belief that simply increasing ownership of guns will do anything good.
"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection."
"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
What is your point when you cite all the articles? how does this apply when a cop is shooting at you and you cannot defend yourself?
Read them and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual.
You keep spending a lot of time telling people they are idiots and that they're reading comprehension is bad. Instead why not take that time to read up and reply with counter-evidence? These are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself" is a bad idea.
I never insulted anyone. I only said "naive." So your comment does not apply here either.
Why not respond to the matter at hand rather than focus on some trivial tangent?
Why do you keep trying to put things in my mouth? When I clearly did not insult any other user?
It's unsettling how hard you are trying to avoid the brunt of the matter by focusing your efforts on meaningless tangents.
Read the evidence posted and you'll see the relevance. They're actual data-supported conclusions rather than baseless conjecture/speculation of one individual. Instead why not take the time you are spending on responding to meaningless tangents and read up and reply with counter-evidence? The cited articles and quotes are all reasons why throwing guns on the streets in order to "defend yourself from cops" is a bad idea.
But it isnt and that si what you do not understand. You cannot claim that someone did something and then try to forget about it. You are acting like the LAPD.
I would like an apology from you as well before i continue answering. Until then, i will not.
Can somebody just report this post? I think it's obvious what is going on here.
After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response?
???
You seemed quite...sure...of your facts.
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
You were wrong and didn't even spend ten seconds on Google to verify your conclusion.
I don't mind gun control talk, as guns need to be regulated. But wrongful arrogance is annoying, especially when it comes to facts.
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
That movie was based on a real incident, you know. Except the town was called Athens...
......and that has what to do with the silliness that is some sort of organized anti police neighborhood response?
On February 17 2013 04:39 farvacola wrote: I said you based your comment on a movie, because the only time this scenario has ever actually happened......was in a movie. It's really quite simple. If you'd like to discuss reality, maybe you ought to........discuss reality?
You were wrong. I don't mind gun control talk, but wrongful arrogance is annoying.
If you are going to say that I am wrong, please, prove it. I'd like a good piece of credible evidence that an armed neighborhood stopped a corrupt cop. I'm waiting.
Edit: Google does not prove anything you've said. Still waiting.
An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars.
On February 17 2013 04:57 hzflank wrote: An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars.
I do not think you read the other posts. But i will not tolerate when someone tries to state something I did not. And the apology was because he stated that I was insulting other users when I clearly was not.
On February 17 2013 04:49 acker wrote: I'm getting almost no independent information on this incident from Google. Where are people getting this meth stuff from?
The reason article linked to the police letter that closed the case.
On February 17 2013 04:57 hzflank wrote: An apology? You think that increasing gun ownership will reduce police brutality or corruption. That is not worthy of an apology. It is not even worthy on an explanation. That is a completely crazy opinion. There is more chance that increasing gun ownership would put men on Mars.
I do not think you read the other posts. But i will not tolerate when someone tries to state something I did not. And the apology was because he stated that I was insulting other users when I clearly was not.
You on multiple occasions stated that people can't read, which is a light insult. The point was that you are spending time -- wasting time -- chasing tangents that aren't directly relevant to the discussion at hand. You claim that increasing gun ownership will improve the public's safety from corruption. I posted a lot of stuff that points in the other direction, and instead of addressing this rationally, you decided to focus 100% of your efforts on seeking apology and other things.
Running away doesn't sound very threatening. This is ridiculous and absolutely heinous that anyone can get away with this. Unfortunately this kind of thing is more common than it should be in the LAPD. Terrible.
After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
At this point im not even mad at Americans to wanna keep the guns, if police is going around killing people randomly i would prefer hiding with a helllot of guns myself. Is this country still able to recover and come to a "normal" solution? I doupt it. Its not a very rare incident we had several of these on TL in the past 5 years. And those were just the tip of the iceberg for each of those there are probably 50 others not even making it here, becouse of no Video or no clear evidence, it seems this happens on regulare bases.
After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
"Autopsy Report
Los Angeles County Medical Examiner David B. Whiteman, M.D., performed a post-mortem examination on the body of Johnathan Cuevas on October 13, 2010. Cuevas had a total of four gunshot wounds. He sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the middle right back which was back to front, right to left and upward. He sustained two fatal gunshot wounds to the right flank which were back to front, right left and upward. There was a fourth potentially life threatening wound to the lower right back which was back to front, right to and upward. The toxicology report revealed that Cuevas’ blood tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine and
marijuana."
"Other Evidence
Deputy Jove’s service weapon is a Heckler & Koch .45 auto caliber semiautomatic handgun. He normally carries it with one round in the chamber and the twelve round magazine loaded to capacity. When the weapon was recovered it contained seven Winchester .45 auto caliber
cartridges in the magazine.
Two Winchester .45 auto casings were recovered on Long Beach Boulevard southwest of the patrol car. F our Winchester .45 auto casings were recovered in the vicinity ofthe northeast corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street. Two possible bullet strikes were observed on the east curb just north of the northeast corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Josephine Street."
After shooting him twice, he asks the guy to "show his hands", someone tell me how you are supposed to that after being shot twice? and then he finally shoots him again? Sounds like either an inexperienced, or trigger happy, cop.
He managed to put his hands on his head after the last shot. So I assume he could have done the same after two.
Thanks for posting that Jonny. The easy gut reaction is to say "Wow, police need to be punished!" -- and indeed I may have felt that way too for a bit. But upon reading that report it seems clear that the man who was shot was more at fault than the officer. I suppose one could counter here and claim that the report is fabricated or something, though I think that would be a pretty weak counter
On February 17 2013 05:12 -Kaiser- wrote: If somebody shoots me multiple times, I'm probably going to be having a hard time following orders in a prompt and deliberate manner.
Probably. But you shouldn't engage in threatening behavior either. If you have the ability to do that, then you have the ability to comply with the officer's order.
On February 17 2013 04:55 farvacola wrote: If you are going to say that I am wrong, please, prove it. I'd like a good piece of credible evidence that an armed neighborhood stopped a corrupt cop. I'm waiting.
Edit: Google does not prove anything you've said. Still waiting.
If the movie is "An American Story" you refer to...
I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Edit: After rereading the OP, I realize it may be agenda-driven rather than a fair and reasonable look at things. It claims a gun was never found which directly contradicts the District Attorney report describing the gun's important role in the incident, which was indeed found on Cuevas
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband.
As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot me!” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of trafñc on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car.
Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel” Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove.
This version and the video that we can see on youtube don't collaborate at all. On the video we see the cop running at the young man who was on ground and promptly shoot at him. I don't see the scene of ambiguous talk and acting from the victim (while he was wounded on the ground) as portayed in the policeman's report.
"....and guy glared at me. I knew at that moment that those were the eyes of someone who would jump me any second, so I shot him. He screamed out some suspicious curse words and started running away. He was clearly running toward his arsenal of weapons to attack me back, so I shot him again. He screamed and I clearly heard '....fucking shot...' He clearly had a gun that he was going to shoot me with, so I shot him again. He fell down and started flailing his arms, which meant he was scrambling to find that rocket launcher he was hiding in his pants pocket, so I shot him. I shot him two more times to make sure that he could not access his weapons. He stopped resisting and said 'alright already, alright'. I had saved the town from another dangerous criminal"
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
On February 17 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote: How interesting; right after Dorner exposed corruption in the LAPD; you'd think they'd want to lay low on the whole police brutality/excessive force stuff.
On February 17 2013 05:13 ChoDing wrote: w...t...f... this is so wrong... -______-
i think that cop was pmsing about Dorner...
though Dorner is a murderer and deserved to die.... i wish he was alive to continue his manifesto, bringing justice to LAPDs..
GOOD JOB you didn't read the thread. And couldn't at least skim for the fact that the OP clearly left out which was this happened years ago.
On February 17 2013 04:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: ...and right after the Dorner incident too. Suddenly, his claims of massive corruption seem a lot more realistic.
Isnt exactly right after...It happened two years ago. Corruption in america isnt a new thing. But rather calling it corruption, I would call it very poor judgement calls.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
The video is very biased and edited to be so just like the OP also i don't think police need to count to 3 before every command or action is taken.
How interesting; right after Dorner exposed corruption in the LAPD; you'd think they'd want to lay low on the whole police brutality/excessive force stuff.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
Well that's an interesting personal opinion I suppose. Thanks for the alternative viewpoint -- always enjoy reading the creative opinions of others. Cheers
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
Well that's an interesting personal opinion I suppose. Thanks for the alternative viewpoint -- always enjoy reading the creative opinions of others. Cheers
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
This idea simply isn't true. Yes, people in the US have lots of guns. But they do not shoot cops every chance they get, even criminals don't.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
He pulled a gun on the cops then ran away. Any actions he took afterwards that even suggested he was going to use it would have to be taken seriously.
Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
This idea simply isn't true. Yes, people in the US have lots of guns. But they do not shoot cops every chance they get, even criminals don't.
Only 72? In 2011, zero British cops were killed in the line of duty. I posted this earlier but most would of missed it, and I only compared the USA to the UK, but you have roughly 20 cops dying on duty for each one that we have (adjusted for population). Being a cop in the USA is dangerous.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
Well that's an interesting personal opinion I suppose. Thanks for the alternative viewpoint -- always enjoy reading the creative opinions of others. Cheers
Well more like facts mate cheers.
No, it's your opinion as an onlooker. We can only evaluate accounts of facts from people that were there. We can't look at a video and judge with authority what is factual and what isn't. We can hold the opinion that those who were there are liars, of course
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
He pulled a gun on the cops then ran away. Any actions he took afterwards that even suggested he was going to use it would have to be taken seriously.
Or the cops thought he pulled a gun but he didn't have one at all, and they put a drop gun on him once they realized what had happened.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
So the District Attorney report is fabricated and the ones who contributed to it are liars? I'm wondering if you would agree with this statement.
Well he is lying becouse he wanna save his ass this happens ALL THE TIME. And yes most of it is fabricated on the statements of the cop who is trustet. The guy isnt innocent but he was clearly JUST running away try to say all those stuff in like 8 seconds its just plain not possible.
He pulled a gun on the cops then ran away. Any actions he took afterwards that even suggested he was going to use it would have to be taken seriously.
Or the cops thought he pulled a gun but he didn't have one at all, and they put a drop gun on him once they realized what had happened.
Funny the camera just looked at the parking lot after the incident cover up anyone?
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
This idea simply isn't true. Yes, people in the US have lots of guns. But they do not shoot cops every chance they get, even criminals don't.
Only 72? In 2011, zero British cops were killed in the line of duty. I posted this earlier but most would of missed it, and I only compared the USA to the UK, but you have roughly 20 cops dying on duty for each one that we have (adjusted for population). Being a cop in the USA is dangerous.
Yeah and delivering pizzas in the USA is even more dangerous. Most cops who die in the line of duty die in car accidents (including being hit by cars while on foot).
Yeah to be fair, its not only 72 it is FUCK 72!!!!!!!!!. However i have hard time beliving he pulled a gun on policeman when there was no fingerprints found. That sounds more like planting the gun. People make up stories, make fals claims and aquasations all the time. Law enforcment officails help each other. Just because something is in a report doesnt make it true.
On February 17 2013 05:54 Silvanel wrote: Yeah to be fair, its not only 72 it is FUCK 72!!!!!!!!!. However i have hard time beliving he pulled a gun on policeman when there was no fingerprints found. That sounds more like planting the gun. People make up stories, make fals claims and aquasations all the time. Law enforcment officails help each other. Just because something is in a report doesnt make it true.
Fair opinion. To play devil's advocate, consider: Just because people are capable of making up stories and false claims does not mean they have done so in this case.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
This idea simply isn't true. Yes, people in the US have lots of guns. But they do not shoot cops every chance they get, even criminals don't.
Only 72? In 2011, zero British cops were killed in the line of duty. I posted this earlier but most would of missed it, and I only compared the USA to the UK, but you have roughly 20 cops dying on duty for each one that we have (adjusted for population). Being a cop in the USA is dangerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers The US has 794,300 police officers. Only 72 were killed in the line of duty. So what if it's relatively more common than in the UK, it still isn't a frequent occurrence. It certainly isn't enough to warrant a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.
I'm not sure what you are discussing here? Whether or not 72 deaths are a lot or not is fairly irrelevant, the mindset of the cops is what is important. Most people don't hold those kind of stats in their mind and base their fears on it. If you are wondering if US cops have a shoot first ask question later attitude it would be more relevant to look at the other side of the coin, of how many guns shot injuries/deaths the cops are responsible for or something like that.
I think it is relevant. Some cops might use excessive force because they are just vicious people, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if a cop feels in danger then he is more likely to use strong force. The cops do not need to know the stats because they work the job. They must know how dangerous their area is and are likely to be more forceful when they are in more dangerous areas.
On February 17 2013 06:15 hzflank wrote: I think it is relevant. Some cops might use excessive force because they are just vicious people, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if a cop feels in danger then he is more likely to use strong force. The cops do not need to know the stats because they work the job. They must know how dangerous their area is and are likely to be more forceful when they are in more dangerous areas.
The fact that there were only 72 deaths seems to suggest that there aren't really ANY areas that are all that dangerous. Remember, its not 72 deaths for just LA, or even just California, its 72 deaths for the entire country.
On February 17 2013 06:15 hzflank wrote: I think it is relevant. Some cops might use excessive force because they are just vicious people, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if a cop feels in danger then he is more likely to use strong force. The cops do not need to know the stats because they work the job. They must know how dangerous their area is and are likely to be more forceful when they are in more dangerous areas.
The fact that there were only 72 deaths seems to suggest that there aren't really ANY areas that are all that dangerous. Remember, its not 72 deaths for just LA, or even just California, its 72 deaths for the entire country.
Right, so that is roughly 1 in 10,000 cops is killed on the job in a year. That is a high death rate for a developed country. My belief (which I admit I cannot substantiate) is that the more danger the cops are in the worse they will behave.
On February 17 2013 06:15 hzflank wrote: I think it is relevant. Some cops might use excessive force because they are just vicious people, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if a cop feels in danger then he is more likely to use strong force. The cops do not need to know the stats because they work the job. They must know how dangerous their area is and are likely to be more forceful when they are in more dangerous areas.
The fact that there were only 72 deaths seems to suggest that there aren't really ANY areas that are all that dangerous. Remember, its not 72 deaths for just LA, or even just California, its 72 deaths for the entire country.
Right, so that is roughly 1 in 10,000 cops is killed on the job in a year. That is a high death rate for a developed country. My belief (which I admit I cannot substantiate) is that the more danger the cops are in the worse they will behave.
It is a high death rate, but it's still extremely uncommon. If you were a cop, the likelyhood that you will be killed in the line of duty is 1 in 10,000. The odds seem to be in your favor here. You're more likely to die from crashing your car on your way to the police office in the morning than from a traffic stop gone bad or whatever.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
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??!
Would it have had been right to fire back at the cop, seeing how he was clearly violating the U.S Constitution? That was a rhetorical question because I know for a fact it would be sane and just. I mean in the sixth amendment it implies due process and this is a tyrannical act and that's the purpose of the second amendment, to protect ourselves from these people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
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??!
Would it have had been right to fire back at the cop, seeing how he was clearly violating the U.S Constitution? That was a rhetorical question because I know for a fact it would be sane and just. I mean in the sixth amendment it implies due process and this is a tyrannical act and that's the purpose of the second amendment, to protect ourselves from these people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Do you believe there is any interpretation of the sixth amendment that allows for an officer to kill a suspect? Your post does not seem to indicate so.
On February 17 2013 06:09 nihlon wrote: I'm not sure what you are discussing here? Whether or not 72 deaths are a lot or not is fairly irrelevant, the mindset of the cops is what is important. Most people don't hold those kind of stats in their mind and base their fears on it. If you are wondering if US cops have a shoot first ask question later attitude it would be more relevant to look at the other side of the coin, of how many guns shot injuries/deaths the cops are responsible for or something like that.
A huge part of the problem is that the mindset of American cops is based on an unjustified level of fear drilled into them in an attempt to promote officer safety with the unintended side effect of endangering the public. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, etc.
On February 17 2013 07:12 Blargh wrote: How can a TL;DR come before any text? I'd like a block of text giving more info please on the whole situation.
Also, I like the "slow motion kill" etc shit in video.
Ah, a reasonable request. Sure! Here ya go:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
Yea. Just not a good song to have stuck in your head. Especially if you tend to sing to yourself. Probably should have put an explicit lyrics warning. <3 The Offspring though.
On topic, I'm surprised at how much the LAPD is getting away with things and wouldn't be surprised if they get cracked down on soon
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
On February 17 2013 07:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Guys, it doesn't really matter how likely a cop is to be killed on average. What matters is how likely the cop is to be killed in a given situation.
That's what matters when justifying the use of deadly force.
The only shot I disagree with is the one where the guy is running away. Shooting him in the back as a cop is meh.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Yeah im just asking questions, I dont try to attack you, just looking into evidence wondering why you try to argue against facts. Im reconsider if you are right and look deeper into the evidence, compare his arguing with the video try to find a conclusion who is right.
Yes my first impression was that there is something fishy going on so i wrote my first comment waiting to be disproved, but all you do is repeating "thats your opinion", but not a single word about the claimes i maid.
Well if you argue like this in harvard i dont see you coming far. Have a nice day sir.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
I don't follow you. What I am saying is that his judgement of the FACTUAL ANALYSIS is a personal opinion. He isn't refuting it with other evidence-based facts. He's looking at a video and forming an opinion that disagrees with the factual analysis. It's ok to call the ones who complied the factual analysis LIARS, but to absolutely disprove what it says sort of demands strong evidence rather than personal opinion
@chilling You specifically asked me for my occupation, to which I responded accurately. No need to rub in what I said as if to imply I was being elitist or something -- i wasn't. Cut it out. With regard to your claims -- that's just it, they are your OPINION/INTERPRETATION of the video. You are not qualified to view a video and decide absolutely what was or was not possible!
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
I don't follow you. What I am saying is that his judgement of the FACTUAL ANALYSIS is a personal opinion. He isn't refuting it with other evidence-based facts. He's looking at a video and forming an opinion that disagrees with the factual analysis. It's ok to call the ones who complied the factual analysis LIARS, but to absolutely disprove what it says sort of demands strong evidence rather than personal opinion
@chilling You specifically asked me for my occupation, to which I responded accurately. No need to rub in what I said as if to imply I was being elitist or something -- i wasn't. Cut it out
I'm pretty sure the family's lawyer, for example, has a different factual analysis.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
I don't follow you. What I am saying is that his judgement of the FACTUAL ANALYSIS is a personal opinion. He isn't refuting it with other evidence-based facts. He's looking at a video and forming an opinion that disagrees with the factual analysis. It's ok to call the ones who complied the factual analysis LIARS, but to absolutely disprove what it says sort of demands strong evidence rather than personal opinion
@chilling You specifically asked me for my occupation, to which I responded accurately. No need to rub in what I said as if to imply I was being elitist or something -- i wasn't. Cut it out
Man you contradict yourself so hard its already getting sad. I asked a YES or NO question, and you tryed to look smart by saying you are going to harvard, that came out so fast i was suprised. You never looked into any facts just claimed things out of thin air, now you try to presume the same goes for me, but thats actually not true.
Also a PM is a PRIVATE Massage you dragged that into here to let me look stupid or over interrested.
All you do is dragging attention away from the actual problem and i really dont want that!
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
I don't follow you. What I am saying is that his judgement of the FACTUAL ANALYSIS is a personal opinion. He isn't refuting it with other evidence-based facts. He's looking at a video and forming an opinion that disagrees with the factual analysis. It's ok to call the ones who complied the factual analysis LIARS, but to absolutely disprove what it says sort of demands strong evidence rather than personal opinion
@chilling You specifically asked me for my occupation, to which I responded accurately. No need to rub in what I said as if to imply I was being elitist or something -- i wasn't. Cut it out
I'm pretty sure the family's lawyer, for example, has a different factual analysis.
I would love to read it and form a new opinion on the matter. Please post it if it's available! I really don't have an agenda here.
On February 17 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote: I think the OP needs to post the factual analysis:
On October 10, 2010, at 12:23 am., LASD Deputy Julio Jove was traveling north on Long Beach Boulevard when he observed Ernie Ray Campos walking in the northbound lanes of traffic showing gang signs at passing cars. Several vehicles had to brake and swerve around Campos to avoid hitting him. At the same time, Eduardo Villa, Jr. was running back and forth from the east sidewalk to the middle of the street. Jove also observed Johnathan Cuevas standing on the east sidewalk near both men. Jove pulled over to the east curb and used his driver side spotlight to illuminate the men. Campos immediately raised his hands in the air and placed them on the hood of the police car. As Jove opened his driver’s door, Villa walked to the front passenger door. It appeared to Jove that Villa was attempting to block his View of Cuevas who was standing behind him on the sidewalk. Based on their unusual behavior, Jove believed they were setting him up for an ambush. Jove then saw Cuevas pull a handgun from his front waistband. As Jove jumped out of the police car, Cuevas Walked southbound on the sidewalk with his back to the deputy.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon. Cuevas began running southbound. As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him. Jove ñred another round at Cuevas fearing that he was still trying to shoot him. Cuevas ran a short distance before falling to the curb just north of the northeast corner of Josephine Street and Long Beach Boulevard. Cuevas screamed, “You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles. The drivers were honking their horns at him as he stood in the street. He could also hear Campos and Villa yelling and cursing at him back at the police car. Cuevas was lying on his stomach with his hands beneath his body at his waistband. He was aggressively moving his shoulders from side to side. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas to, “Let me see your hands, let me see your handsl” Cuevas did not comply and continued to move his body While screaming, “Fuck you! Fuck you! You fucking shot me, you fucking shot rnel”
Cuevas began “messing with his waistband” then rolled toward his left shoulder. His right shoulder and knee came off the ground. Cuevas was looking directly at Jove while ignoring his commands to show his hands. Jove believed that Cuevas was attempting to roll over in order to pull the gun from beneath his body and shoot him. He fired a third round at Cuevas. Cuevas rolled onto his back and put his hands above his head. Jove saw the gun falling out of Cuevas’ waistband.l Cuevas arched his back While cursing at Jove and complaining of pain. Jove ordered Cuevas to stop moving several times before it appeared to Jove that he was complying. Jove turned his attention to Campos and Villa and ordered them to their knees. Cuevas began to move again and his hands lowered toward his waistband. Jove repeatedly ordered Cuevas not to reach for the gun. Cuevas ignored the commands and continued to reach for the gun. In fear for for his life, Jove tired two to three rounds from his service weapon to prevent Cuevas from grabbing the gun. He did not believe he struck Cuevas until the last round when
Cuevas said, “Alright already, alright,” and put his hands back above his head. Cuevas stopped moving but continued to yell profanities at Jove. A responding deputy arrived and recovered the handgun from Cuevas’ waistband. Cuevas was transported to St. Francis Hospital where he was
pronounced dead at 1:04 am.
Just for clarification that it was not a simple shooting of a guy running away with no other factors to consider. I'm not sure what to think, but I know that it should be important to consider all the facts.
Just from what i see in the video no chance this happend, it all went down much too fast!
He was just running becouse he wanted to avoid the control. No intention to shoot him at all.
LOL WHAT?
You have no clue what you're talking about. You have no clue what that man's intention was because you can't actually make any details of his facial expressions or his actual body language. Let me make it clear that both of those things are good indicators of what people are thinking or about to do.
To completely discount the events because 'it happened so fast' just so ignorance about just how quickly critical incidents go down. It looks like about five seconds right? Assuming that the report is true...it felt like a few minutes to that officer.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove.
This isnt happening! you can clearly see that the guy startet running 1 second after cop leaves his car
As Jove gave chase, he saw Cuevas turn once more and blade his body toward him.
HE is running full speed no chance to do something like that.
“You fucking shot mel” Jove ran up to Cuevas and stood in the number two lane of traffic on Long Beach Boulevard. He was momentarily blinded by the headlights of oncoming vehicles.
No car passing at this time of the event.
If he lied in this 3 occations i dont trus anything he says!
also:
On February 17 2013 05:47 Chilling5pr33 wrote: Yeah well he stated the view to the suspect was blocked thats why he was assuming it was a trap still he could clearly see he was pulling a gun (contradiction 1), The Video shows the guy running full speed away how can you turn around while running full speed (contradicition 2). The third thing is if you are shot and lying on the floor you natually reach for the wound and are unable to follow orders so there were no additional reason to shoot another 2 to 3 bullets.
This is all just your personal opinion though. And before you send me another PM asking me if I'm a cop or if I'm being "employed by another organization" maybe you should consider that I'm just trying to maintain a level of reasonable discussion, keeping opinions separated from facts. We can call the people who produce the facts liars, but we can't look at the video and decide what exactly happened based on our flimsy perspective
Saying it is a fact that there is an opinion it was a good shooting is pretty disingenuous, especially when you are talking about the difference between opinion and fact. You are not keeping opinions separate from facts, but deliberately conflating the two. I mean, I could say that I think you're wrong, and that's a 100% objective indisputable, documented FACT, but mentioning that my opinion being what it is is a fact is of course a bad argument.
I don't follow you. What I am saying is that his judgement of the FACTUAL ANALYSIS is a personal opinion. He isn't refuting it with other evidence-based facts. He's looking at a video and forming an opinion that disagrees with the factual analysis. It's ok to call the ones who complied the factual analysis LIARS, but to absolutely disprove what it says sort of demands strong evidence rather than personal opinion
@chilling You specifically asked me for my occupation, to which I responded accurately. No need to rub in what I said as if to imply I was being elitist or something -- i wasn't. Cut it out
Man you contradict yourself so hard its already getting sad.
It would be more useful to explain what the contradictions are so that I can attempt to clarify them. It's not very useful to say something vaguely and then explain that it's sad. That doesn't really help much -- in fact it actually comes off as nothing more than name-calling.
On February 17 2013 01:11 Silvanel wrote: The saddest thing is that some people are already brainwashed enough to justify this. In most countries that cop would get life in prison (or 20-25 years minimum).
The funniest thing is that everyone in this thread thinks that the world is brainwashed into thinking this is a good thing, yet almost nobody has rushed to this officer's defense. How does it even make sense to claim people are brainwashed when the vast majority is agreeing with you?
Who's brainwashed? If anything, it is you. The media's selective reporting of the 0.01% of cop incidents that go badly or involve cops that should be fired or imprisoned makes the entire country look down upon its own police force, when in reality, most of the cops are honest people.
Yes, I understand the reasons (capitalism). People don't like stories about cops risking their own life or dying to save people; stories about cops breaking the law are probably the best selling concept besides celebrity affairs.
The truth is that there are hundreds of thousands of cops in this country, and only one of them has to fuck up or be fucked up and the entire country will shit all over cops everywhere. It's stupid and people who buy into it are even stupider.
Good question Warlock. Someone who is familiar with this process could probably provide the answer. Perhaps it is standard procedure? Perhaps it is an example of bad report making? I'm not really sure, but that's a good point to raise in my opinion
Actions like this explain why people like Dorner go on his rampage and why a growing number of people view police as legalized gangs. In my state, I can shoot someone and claim self-defense if they break into my house, but not if they are on my property or even if they are damaging my property. I don't understand why anyone can claim self-defense and be found not-guilty if the victim did not possess a weapon of any kind and was running away.
I would state I hope the victim's family sues but even in that case if they are successful that means the California taxpayers are the ones being punished.
The one we've been discussing. BTW I'm still open to attempting to clarify all my contradictions. I just need for you to explain what they are and then I'll be happy to sort things out
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
On February 17 2013 07:50 Ldawg wrote: Actions like this explain why people like Dorner go on his rampage and why a growing number of people view police as legalized gangs. In my state, I can shoot someone and claim self-defense if they break into my house, but not if they are on my property or even if they are damaging my property. I don't understand why anyone can claim self-defense and be found not-guilty if the victim did not possess a weapon of any kind and was running away.
I would state I hope the victim's family sues but even in that case if they are successful that means the California taxpayers are the ones being punished.
It's actually the biggest point in the whole case.
That guy was fleeing, not attacking. There's a slight difference, like 180°. He did not dive into cover. He ran full steam ahead, turning his back on the cop - completely exposed. That's not a threat.
I agree, as a cop, i would not chase him, because he might pull a gun on me. But killing him in that case is not justified, just because there could be danger if i chase him.
In other countries, as a cop, you need to protect your life. If my life is in danger when i chase someone, i just don't chase him alone. There's no need to kill a maybe innocent or "small criminal" just because he "might do something if i do something stupid, like chasing someone who i think could have a gun".
In every other country than the US, that guy would go to jail. And that would be justified.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
I agree it seemes to me that he got asked just the right questions to let it still look as it could have been justified.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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'.
I thought its theoretical legal to carry a loaded gun? So its legal but you always can get shot anytime by any police man? That makes no sence for me
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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'.
That assumes that the officer was telling the truth that he saw a gun before the man took off running. The friend's statement does not agree with that, but it doesn't disagree either. The statement says he was looking at the deputy and did not see anything. The statement does seem to confirm that after being shot, the man on the ground said he had a gun.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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'.
If he admits that he has a gun, the intention to kill the cop is kinda gone, isn't it? How stupid would it be to tell him that you're going to kill him? That sounds like him admitting that he has a gun, to prevent getting shot even more.
Also, about the "ambush-thing", he turns his frikkin back on the other two guys, tell me how he knew that there was no danger from these two? Because based on the video and his statement, i kinda can't, or tells me, that he knew that there was no threat.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
I agree it seemes to me that he got asked just the right questions to let it still look as it could have been justified.
Then why didn't the other witness (Campos) get asked "just the right questions?"
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
I agree it seemes to me that he got asked just the right questions to let it still look as it could have been justified.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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'.
I thought its theoretical legal to carry a loaded gun? So its legal but you always can get shot anytime by any police man? That makes no sence for me
"California Penal Code 12031 PC punishes carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle or public place." When something appears to make absolutely no sense whatsoever, it's usually a good indication that you should seek more information in order to verify whether the thing in question is truly nonsensical or if it's that you need to be more informed.
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
I agree it seemes to me that he got asked just the right questions to let it still look as it could have been justified.
Then why didn't the other witness (Campos) get asked "just the right questions?"
Let me see some good questions:
What did the officer said to the killed person? Did the suspect ever turned towards the police man? Did the Suspect ever reached for his gun? I guess there are even better ones.
Ugh the testimonies vary a lot...this is why eyewitness stories aren't that great to go on etc. They don't vary that much, but they do so enough that the liability of the officer might be drawn into question. At the same time, they don't vary so much that they surpass the potential effects of constructive memory and just misremembrance. It's possible that the officer was in fight/flight mode, thought his life was threatened, and really thought the victim was about to pull a gun on him after the victim had run a distance, but it's also possible that the officer shot him without good cause. I would, however, be inclined to think the latter if only because I think the testimonies seem to suggest it and because one would tend to extend sympathy toward the victim and outrage toward the shooter.
On February 17 2013 08:15 Aerisky wrote: Ugh the testimonies vary a lot...this is why eyewitness stories aren't that great to go on etc. They don't vary that much, but they do so enough that the liability of the officer might be drawn into question. YET so much that they surpass the potential effects of constructive memory and just misremembrance. It's possible that the officer was in fight/flight mode, thought his life was threatened, and really thought the guy was about to pull a gun on the victim after the victim had run a distance, but it's also possible that the officer shot him without good cause. I would, however, be inclined to think the latter if only because I think the testimonies seem to suggest it and because one would tend to extend sympathy toward the victim and outrage toward the shooter.
On February 17 2013 07:40 Warlock40 wrote: How is it that Deputy Jove's statement is automatically included as part of the "factual analysis"?
Witness statements are evidence. It doesn't mean that statements are assumed factually correct.
I know the witness statements are not assumed to be factually correct. I'm asking why Deputy Jove's statement is.
From the report:
Deputy Jove provided a voluntary statement which was considered as part of this analysis.
First of all, what does "voluntary statement" mean? I was under the impression that whenever anyone gets killed or even seriously hurt, there is a lot of paperwork involved. Does this mean that Jove did not even need to provide a statement to the people reviewing the case?
But the main point is about Jove's statement being considered fact. I understand that the testimony of sworn officers of the law has greater weight than the testimony of the average joe, but to just consider it fact doesn't seem very impartial.
Also, could an admin change the title to accurately reflect the department involved (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department)?
There is absolutely no defense for what this cop did. The guy was running away and was no threat to him. Just another example of what a joke law enforcement is here in the States (especially the LAPD, probably being some of the worst of the lot).
i really doubt ANY media station will pick out the two truck shootings and past events such as this one, question LAPD, create awareness. thats what sucks
Deputy Jove provided a voluntary statement which was considered as part of this analysis.
First of all, what does "voluntary statement" mean? I was under the impression that whenever anyone gets killed or even seriously hurt, there is a lot of paperwork involved. Does this mean that Jove did not even need to provide a statement to the people reviewing the case?
But the main point is about Jove's statement being considered fact. I understand that the testimony of sworn officers of the law has greater weight than the testimony of the average joe, but to just consider it fact doesn't seem very impartial.
Also, could an admin change the title to accurately reflect the department involved (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department)?
Voluntary statement is when he waived his fifth amendment rights and spoke without a lawyer.
You do not have to answer any questions without your lawyer present if you do not want to. You can, but you don't have to.
On February 17 2013 01:11 Silvanel wrote: The saddest thing is that some people are already brainwashed enough to justify this. In most countries that cop would get life in prison (or 20-25 years minimum).
The funniest thing is that everyone in this thread thinks that the world is brainwashed into thinking this is a good thing, yet almost nobody has rushed to this officer's defense. How does it even make sense to claim people are brainwashed when the vast majority is agreeing with you?
Who's brainwashed? If anything, it is you. The media's selective reporting of the 0.01% of cop incidents that go badly or involve cops that should be fired or imprisoned makes the entire country look down upon its own police force, when in reality, most of the cops are honest people.
Yes, I understand the reasons (capitalism). People don't like stories about cops risking their own life or dying to save people; stories about cops breaking the law are probably the best selling concept besides celebrity affairs.
The truth is that there are hundreds of thousands of cops in this country, and only one of them has to fuck up or be fucked up and the entire country will shit all over cops everywhere. It's stupid and people who buy into it are even stupider.
It sounds like you're living in a privileged bubble where you don't talk to many "average" individuals. The vast majority of this country practically reveres police officers/military veterans. It's definitely worthy of respect, but our cultural fascination with respecting these professions, combined with our irrational obsession with "security" (leading to an obnoxiously massive military and far, far too much leniency for law enforcement/military personnel) has led us to turn a blind eye to the crimes of officers/military personnel.
On February 17 2013 08:50 Dontkillme wrote: It seems like the guy was running away. If the suspect had a gun why did he run away?
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 07:50 Ldawg wrote: Actions like this explain why people like Dorner go on his rampage and why a growing number of people view police as legalized gangs. In my state, I can shoot someone and claim self-defense if they break into my house, but not if they are on my property or even if they are damaging my property. I don't understand why anyone can claim self-defense and be found not-guilty if the victim did not possess a weapon of any kind and was running away.
I would state I hope the victim's family sues but even in that case if they are successful that means the California taxpayers are the ones being punished.
It's actually the biggest point in the whole case.
That guy was fleeing, not attacking. There's a slight difference, like 180°. He did not dive into cover. He ran full steam ahead, turning his back on the cop - completely exposed. That's not a threat.
I agree, as a cop, i would not chase him, because he might pull a gun on me. But killing him in that case is not justified, just because there could be danger if i chase him.
In other countries, as a cop, you need to protect your life. If my life is in danger when i chase someone, i just don't chase him alone. There's no need to kill a maybe innocent or "small criminal" just because he "might do something if i do something stupid, like chasing someone who i think could have a gun".
In every other country than the US, that guy would go to jail. And that would be justified.
Well according to the cop he shot when the suspect turned.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon.
We can see ex post from the video that Cuevas did not fully turn to shoot. But ex ante the cop doesn't know that and waiting even a fraction of a second too long could have been a fatal mistake.
On February 17 2013 07:50 Ldawg wrote: Actions like this explain why people like Dorner go on his rampage and why a growing number of people view police as legalized gangs. In my state, I can shoot someone and claim self-defense if they break into my house, but not if they are on my property or even if they are damaging my property. I don't understand why anyone can claim self-defense and be found not-guilty if the victim did not possess a weapon of any kind and was running away.
I would state I hope the victim's family sues but even in that case if they are successful that means the California taxpayers are the ones being punished.
It's actually the biggest point in the whole case.
That guy was fleeing, not attacking. There's a slight difference, like 180°. He did not dive into cover. He ran full steam ahead, turning his back on the cop - completely exposed. That's not a threat.
I agree, as a cop, i would not chase him, because he might pull a gun on me. But killing him in that case is not justified, just because there could be danger if i chase him.
In other countries, as a cop, you need to protect your life. If my life is in danger when i chase someone, i just don't chase him alone. There's no need to kill a maybe innocent or "small criminal" just because he "might do something if i do something stupid, like chasing someone who i think could have a gun".
In every other country than the US, that guy would go to jail. And that would be justified.
Well according to the cop he shot when the suspect turned.
Jove yelled to Cuevas, “Let me see your hands! Let me see your handsl” Cuevas quickly turned his upper body toward Jove. Fearing that Cuevas was about to shoot him, Jove fired one round from his service Weapon.
We can see ex post from the video that Cuevas did not fully turn to shoot. But ex ante the cop doesn't know that and waiting even a fraction of a second too long could have been a fatal mistake.
Let's also not forget that the video is, quality-wise, on par with an Atari 2600 game. Nobody can tell with any degree of accuracy how much of his body was turned towards the cop or how quickly he was turning it. I mean, a person can turn their upper body around in a fraction of a second. At that resolution, it's impossible to say definitively what was happening.
On February 17 2013 01:11 Silvanel wrote: The saddest thing is that some people are already brainwashed enough to justify this. In most countries that cop would get life in prison (or 20-25 years minimum).
The funniest thing is that everyone in this thread thinks that the world is brainwashed into thinking this is a good thing, yet almost nobody has rushed to this officer's defense. How does it even make sense to claim people are brainwashed when the vast majority is agreeing with you?
Who's brainwashed? If anything, it is you. The media's selective reporting of the 0.01% of cop incidents that go badly or involve cops that should be fired or imprisoned makes the entire country look down upon its own police force, when in reality, most of the cops are honest people.
Yes, I understand the reasons (capitalism). People don't like stories about cops risking their own life or dying to save people; stories about cops breaking the law are probably the best selling concept besides celebrity affairs.
The truth is that there are hundreds of thousands of cops in this country, and only one of them has to fuck up or be fucked up and the entire country will shit all over cops everywhere. It's stupid and people who buy into it are even stupider.
It sounds like you're living in a privileged bubble where you don't talk to many "average" individuals. The vast majority of this country practically reveres police officers/military veterans. It's definitely worthy of respect, but our cultural fascination with respecting these professions, combined with our irrational obsession with "security" (leading to an obnoxiously massive military and far, far too much leniency for law enforcement/military personnel) has led us to turn a blind eye to the crimes of officers/military personnel.
Firstly, the context of the people dcemuser is referring to is clearly the posters in this thread. While, as you say, "average individuals" may have a reverence for police officers, the majority here seems to be decidedly of the "fuck tha police" variety.
Secondly, why bring up the military at all? It is completely separate from the police. What does the size of the military or the actions of personnel overseas have anything to do with this thread?
Sigh. Posting stupid bullshit articles like these aren't going to lessen the hate and bitching any more. But for what it's worth, LAPD has royally screwed up, and they deserve all the negative attention they can get for this crap.
On February 17 2013 09:15 Areon wrote: Sigh. Posting stupid bullshit articles like these aren't going to lessen the hate and bitching any more. But for what it's worth, LAPD has royally screwed up, and they deserve all the negative attention they can get for this crap.
The thread title is wrong and this isn't even the LAPD at all
On February 17 2013 09:15 Areon wrote: Sigh. Posting stupid bullshit articles like these aren't going to lessen the hate and bitching any more. But for what it's worth, LAPD has royally screwed up, and they deserve all the negative attention they can get for this crap.
The thread title is wrong and this isn't even the LAPD at all
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.
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 09:25 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.
I think that ideal went out the window a long time a go. Dronestrikes, Guantanamo, Security checks etc etc. The list can be made long where those principles have been abandoned for other gains.
On February 17 2013 09:15 Areon wrote: Sigh. Posting stupid bullshit articles like these aren't going to lessen the hate and bitching any more. But for what it's worth, LAPD has royally screwed up, and they deserve all the negative attention they can get for this crap.
The thread title is wrong and this isn't even the LAPD at all
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.
Yeah, im surprised it hasnt been closed, since nothing will ever come of such a onesided biased thread and info.
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...
EDIT: Apparently this case is extremely old, and the situation described may be inaccurate.
You know, this is very difficult for me. My hatred of PD in the United States overrides any sense of objectivity I might have. So I'll refrain from making a fool of myself and just say that firing such a high quantity of shots, and two kill shots, in response to "gun fiddling" is excessive and that, to my knowledge, the cop should still be discharged for misconduct.
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...
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
On February 17 2013 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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.
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 07:48 Chilling5pr33 wrote: What do the two friends of the shot guy claimed, where are theire statements i would love to see them.
Based on the statement of his friends, it sounds like the first four shots were entirely justified, and the only ones in question were the two where he was bleeding and on the ground (but still had a gun within reach).
How you came to that conclusion based on the statements is beyond me.
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.
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.
I don't know how true the following information is, but assuming it's accurate, it seems like a pretty logical explanation for why one might attempt to fiddle with but not actually use a firearm while running from a police officer:
On February 17 2013 08:50 Dontkillme wrote: It seems like the guy was running away. If the suspect had a gun why did he run away?
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 09:39 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...
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
I edited my post. I understand now this may not be accurate. I am not insulted. The thread is designed to evoke emotion, especially in people like me who have strong feelings against PD. It is partly my fault for making a post while FEELING uninformed. Yet I know enough about the LAPD to stand firm in my convictions...
What I mean to say is that even if the situation is constructed differently, however I look at it, the cop overreacted.
Closing this for not developing news, no clear picture of the facts involved and LASD rather than LAPD. If it can be remade as a decent topic that may be allowable, PM me with your ideas for it if you want to do that.
EPT
the killshot was over the top but this shooting is more than justified in my opinion.
