On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
On February 17 2013 14:23 hypercube wrote: I'm more worried about the fact that they 'found' a gun with no prints on it. If it was planted (a reasonable assumption, if the claim about no prints is true), he didn't just make a mistake, he, and probably some of his collegues covered it up.
You can't defend that by saying the victim shouldn't have run.
Then why did one of the witnesses on scene claim that he knew the suspect had a gun beforehand AND hear him yell to the officer that he had a weapon?
I guess it's possible but you gotta ask why the DA's report has no mention of the victim's prints or lack thereof. Also, having a gun is no reason to run, unless you had used it kill someone, for example.
It is a serious offense to be in possession of a loaded firearm without a license, which may have been the case for the man. It is possible that he was fleeing due to intending to ditch the item. If this is accurate, it may explain why he was fidgeting with his weapon as he was fleeing. Unfortunately the officer may not have interpreted the action as an attempt to ditch it.
On February 17 2013 14:23 hypercube wrote: I'm more worried about the fact that they 'found' a gun with no prints on it. If it was planted (a reasonable assumption, if the claim about no prints is true), he didn't just make a mistake, he, and probably some of his collegues covered it up.
You can't defend that by saying the victim shouldn't have run.
Then why did one of the witnesses on scene claim that he knew the suspect had a gun beforehand AND hear him yell to the officer that he had a weapon?
I guess it's possible but you gotta ask why the DA's report has no mention of the victim's prints or lack thereof. Also, having a gun is no reason to run, unless you had used it kill someone, for example.
It is a serious offense to be in possession of a loaded firearm without a license, which may have been the case for the man. It is possible that he was fleeing due to intending to ditch the item. If this is accurate, it may explain why he was fidgeting with his weapon as he was fleeing. Unfortunately the officer may not have interpreted the action as an attempt to ditch it.
It's possible, I don't think there is enough here in any case to make the officers story be clearly wrong or anything else. So in my eyes he should walk free.
The officer shot him 3 times, then ran up to him and shot him again, EXECUTION style. now the fact that your defending someone like this WritersBlock is beyond me. there's a reason the police is getting called out like they are in the US, their recruitment system is a failure and its showing badly, a cleanup is needed. funny thing is, the only reason this shit is happening is because of the dumb ass gun laws the US has.
Every week there's like 3-4 stories that come up with brutal police violence, and in most of the cases they just get a pat on the back and say "be careful next time!".. fucking read some proper news once in a while instead of watching FOX NEWS for your socalled "facts".
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
The police all have Kevlar vests, and they work pretty damn well at stopping bullets. There aren't many handguns that can shoot through a bullet-proof vest. And since exceedingly few long-guns are used in crimes, we don't need to worry much about them.
On February 17 2013 15:05 NotYetAWoman wrote: The officer shot him 3 times, then ran up to him and shot him again, EXECUTION style. now the fact that your defending someone like this WritersBlock is beyond me. there's a reason the police is getting called out like they are in the US, their recruitment system is a failure and its showing badly, a cleanup is needed. funny thing is, the only reason this shit is happening is because of the dumb ass gun laws the US has.
Every week there's like 3-4 stories that come up with brutal police violence, and in most of the cases they just get a pat on the back and say "be careful next time!".. fucking read some proper news once in a while instead of watching FOX NEWS for your socalled "facts".
You got a link for those 3-4 weekly stories? It's one thing to believe the officer is lying in this particular instance, but quite another to suggest "brutal police violence" is an almost daily occurrence.
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
The police all have Kevlar vests, and they work pretty damn well at stopping bullets. There aren't many handguns that can shoot through a bullet-proof vest. And since exceedingly few long-guns are used in crimes, we don't need to worry much about them.
those vests dont cover arms, legs, or the head. you don't wanna be shot at all i think.
On February 17 2013 14:28 KingAce wrote: Man watching someone die. I can never get used to that. Why shoot a man who's running away from you?
what does an innocent man have to hide from?
Some people question his motive for shooting but you have to consider the officer's position. Whether or not he is crooked you have to realize that they are going out to strangers and essentially putting their lives in the stranger's hand. They never know when they could be shot or given a handshake.
In this country, there are a lot of reasons for an innocent man to be wary of police officers.
In the general public in view of pedestrians and witnesses? Are you kidding me?
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
The police all have Kevlar vests, and they work pretty damn well at stopping bullets. There aren't many handguns that can shoot through a bullet-proof vest. And since exceedingly few long-guns are used in crimes, we don't need to worry much about them.
So you would feel perfectly safe wearing a bullet proof vest, where it doesn't make you invulnerable, it just doesn't let a bullet go through you. It would stun you if you got shot and then what? They walk away saying that they only had 1 bullet?
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
The police all have Kevlar vests, and they work pretty damn well at stopping bullets. There aren't many handguns that can shoot through a bullet-proof vest. And since exceedingly few long-guns are used in crimes, we don't need to worry much about them.
those vests dont cover arms, legs, or the head. you don't wanna be shot at all i think.
That is true, but as I pointed out previously, getting shot/shot at is exceedingly rare, even in terrible neighborhoods. Out of 800,000 police in the US, ~2000 were shot at in 2011.
(Had to do some math in the FBI one, firearms were used in 4% of assaults, there were ~55,000 assaults, and when I did the math, that means around 2,000 assaults were with guns).
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
The police all have Kevlar vests, and they work pretty damn well at stopping bullets. There aren't many handguns that can shoot through a bullet-proof vest. And since exceedingly few long-guns are used in crimes, we don't need to worry much about them.
So you would feel perfectly safe wearing a bullet proof vest, where it doesn't make you invulnerable, it just doesn't let a bullet go through you. It would stun you if you got shot and then what? They walk away saying that they only had 1 bullet?
Doesn't really look too stunned does he?
I'm sure it stings like hell, but he is in no way incapacitated, even momentarily.
On February 17 2013 15:05 NotYetAWoman wrote: The officer shot him 3 times, then ran up to him and shot him again, EXECUTION style. now the fact that your defending someone like this WritersBlock is beyond me. there's a reason the police is getting called out like they are in the US, their recruitment system is a failure and its showing badly, a cleanup is needed. funny thing is, the only reason this shit is happening is because of the dumb ass gun laws the US has.
Every week there's like 3-4 stories that come up with brutal police violence, and in most of the cases they just get a pat on the back and say "be careful next time!".. fucking read some proper news once in a while instead of watching FOX NEWS for your socalled "facts".
You got a link for those 3-4 weekly stories? It's one thing to believe the officer is lying in this particular instance, but quite another to suggest "brutal police violence" is an almost daily occurrence.
Reddit is about as far from a reliable news source as you can get. It's all kneejerk partisan trolling-for-replies sort of stuff, not to mention there were a number of duplicate stories there just from one glance at one page. I'm not going to read that garbage and neither should anybody else who wants to have a serious discussion.
Edit: That page describes the USA as a "developing police state", that about sums up the reliability of reddit for pretty much anything right there. You might as well include a link from 4chan's /pol/ too.
Could someone explain to me how cops work in the USA?
I was a cop here in Singapore. We were not allowed to draw our weapon unless our life, or someone else's life is in danger.
I hope it's only telly drama when I see all television cops draw their weapons at every given opportunity. Like the typical "Put your hands on your head" shit, we aren't allowed to pull it here.
On February 17 2013 15:05 PanN wrote: I can understand the six shots if he's certain the dude had a gun. But walking up and shooting him in the head? What?
Exactly this. Is everyone in this thread so blind? Both pro and anti LAPD.
Main debate: IF the officer thought he was threatened (highly possible) should it be reasonable to shoot him or not?
Why the hell is everyone ignoring that the cop ran to the dying dude and shot him point blank, when he was flat on the pavement and immobile (after the cop approached him)? He had a clear view on the suspect, who did not move. He standed there for a couple of seconds and THEN he shot him dead. That's execution, it's no self defense. And everyone is freaking out about the start of the shooting? That policeman was out for blood and this clip proves it.
And yes, if you are shot 3 times, you will be moving and you will not be behaving "rationally". Pulling your hands over your head, etc. The person on the pavement was shot, in pain and the cop thought that HIMSELF was in danger???
On February 17 2013 15:05 PanN wrote: I can understand the six shots if he's certain the dude had a gun. But walking up and shooting him in the head? What?
Exactly this. Is everyone in this thread so blind? Both pro and anti LAPD.
Main debate: IF the officer thought he was threatened (highly possible) should it be reasonable to shoot him or not?
Why the hell is everyone ignoring that the cop ran to the dying dude and shot him point blank, when he was flat on the pavement and immobile (after the cop approached him)? He had a clear view on the suspect, who did not move. He standed there for a couple of seconds and THEN he shot him dead. That's execution, it's no self defense. And everyone is freaking out about the start of the shooting? That policeman was out for blood and this clip proves it.
And yes, if you are shot 3 times, you will be moving and you will not be behaving "rationally". Pulling your hands over your head, etc. The person on the pavement was shot, in pain and the cop thought that HIMSELF was in danger???
It's easy to rationalize things behind a computer, while safely at your desk.
Let's put ourselves in the cop's position though... Now if you are in the middle of a dark LA street with 3 guys and one is attempting to pull a gun on you (or at least it seems like) would your adrenaline and survival instincts kick in?
I for one would not wait to be shot at to pull my gun out either. One shot to your head and you would never have the chance to fire back. I'm sorry but I would do anything to take precautions and protect myself. Do you know how many cops get killed trying to protect people?
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
Problem is when the mass can walk around with guns, you have to arm the police equally.
There should be armed fast respond special units like SWAT but patrolling officers should have like non-lethal shootguns. They are extremely effective and not properly mentally trained police officers cannot use them to kill unarmed civilians.
On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote: I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead?
...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!!
Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them.
On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all.
This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted Only 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
oh my god how in the hell is 72 killed an "only" ?
and 2000 police officers getting shot at? jesus christ.
except for special forces, the biggest excitement police force gets around here is home disturbances, you know, the "good kind" (with no guns involved), and a occasional robbery perhaps... funny thing is, most of the people will tell you they don't feel safe. imagine what would living in the States do for your perception of public safety
p.s. sorry for derailing the topic, his wording was just shocking...
Fucking cops, able to kill people with no repercussions - regardless if he 'had a gun' or not, the man was running - back to the cop - having a gun shouldnt justify murder.
EPT
