|
What I see in this video :
Officer walks 2 meters, fat belly wobles, guy runs away, officer gets mad for not being respected. Guy gets shot in the back. Guy collapses...gets shot dead , from 3 meters away, clear sight.
You can not discuss these events without mentioning guncontrol.
Mentally unstable persons (the Cop) should not be handed a gun. But in America there is no way around it, since every psycho can buy one at Walmart.
The poor shoot each other and rich earn money with it. NRA makes the "right to bear arms and arm bears and everything in between" seem equal to freedom and patriotism. It is not.
What I took from the discussion after the primary school shooting was : "Arm good people and the can stop the bad" and "bigger guns make YOU more safe, so why not AR-15 5.56mm FMJ or AK47 Compact ? "
Statements like that create the need for bigger (and therefore more expensive) guns. Thats more profit for NRA-Supporters.
This is like artificial darwinism. Bigger gun survives, so buy it.
|
On February 17 2013 22:32 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: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-assaultedOnly 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...
The population of the U.S. is more than seventy times the population of Croatia. If the U.S. has 72 police deaths a year, that's about 1 for Croatia. 2000 officers shot at? About 30 for Croatia.
|
On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 21:45 Notfragile wrote: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?
Your argumentation makes sense when thinking about normal civilians (although they would rather run away rather than giving a pointblank shot to the head i guess) - but we talk about trained cops. I understand they are not from the military or FBI /whatever, but they should still be trained for situations like these.
Target runs away, shoot him, then following and giving a headshot? When not even sure whether the target has a weapon or not? (The target ran away - thats no killerintent)
From my point of view it's murder. And i dont think the cop would be running around free if it happened in germany.
The things happening in the usa sound terrible to western countries, like the man coming out of burgerking/mcd(?), being approached by the police (without any safe distance), he moves an inch and gets shot instantly.
There has to be drawn a line. Violence is justified so easily in the USA when it's about 'selfdefense'.
(just my opinion)
|
On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 21:45 Notfragile wrote: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?
Shouldn't the police be trained to be capable of dealing with such situations? Shouldn't policemen be able to assess situations like that correctly with a calm head? Haven't they been prepared for something like that?
I mean seriously he shot him several times and then walked up to him to deliver the killing blow. After shooting him down he had enough time to clear his mind and think about what to do. He walked up and killed him. There is no excuse for that. I can understand why he shot him several times, but there is simply no excuse for walking up to him and EXECUTING him. You cant just say that his survival instinct kicked in and he had ot kill him. If that is the case then this guy shouldnt be a cop in the first place.
|
On February 17 2013 22:32 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: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-assaultedOnly 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...
Because you don't need to be maths jesus to see that in relation to the overall number of officers or even the general population it is certainly "an only". And ranting on about survival instinct when fatso decides to close the distance to his target is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard.
|
Cop was way out of line with the execution. The man was down for the count, you don't fucking execute him unnecessarily. Also, the lack of fingerprints on the gun is suspicious as fuck. I don't think the victim would've been wearing gloves when he put a fucking gun in his waistband AND when he took it out to fire at the cop.
|
This is real life? What a life. Good stuff. What do they say, it takes one to know one? As much of a killer as the cop seems to be, I have no reason to doubt he got his man. When it's killer versus killer, it's kill or be killed. Can't fault the cop for walking over to the guy and making sure he left no room for doubt. Reminded me of a quote from Casino: "You beat Nicky with fists he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife he comes back with a gun. And if you beat him with a gun you better kill him because he'll be coming back until one of you is dead." Score one for the good guys.
I don't know why you guys waste time talking about the obvious. What a distraction. Personally I'm kinda curious. Is the police profession attracting criminals due to being above the law, or is this just an outlier and no one wants to draw attention to it for fear of a repeat of the LA riots of years past? I'd love to meet the panel that found him not guilty of wrong doing. Those must be some funny fucking guys if they simply aren't biased friends. Would be quite the trip. And ofc it's the worst PR imaginable to think criminals are entrusted with protecting us from criminals.
|
On February 17 2013 14:16 WritersBlock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. ^ well thought out post, as to your previous one, I wasn't condoning police shooting every person that tries to run away, but they should have every right to protect themselves when they are in danger as this officer clearly was.
What danger? When an officer yells at the guy to stop and he starts running away where is the danger part? Even if the runner had a gun have you ever seen somebody shooting back while running at full speed?
|
On February 17 2013 13:48 Joedaddy wrote:
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. I can not imagine a scenario where I run away from a police officer. Probably because I don't do anything illegal or have anything to hide.
I guess I'm a long ways from being under the hipster umbrella when it comes to police shootings. The first thing I think when I read this kind of thing is that the person shot by the cops was most likely involved in activities worthy of punishment and the world is better off without them.
If the incident was investigated, and the cop was found innocent of any wrong doing then my hats off to him/her. Glad you made it home safe another night.
So if someone is a "bad person" we should just kill them then?
That's just wonderful.
|
On February 17 2013 14:16 Ldawg wrote:
So a handgun was found but with no fingerprints? So if the man who was shot had no gloves on, it is very unlikely he could have made any threatening motions. I am very suspicious of the LAPD on this one.
Hollywood and CSI have made people believe that fingerprints are everywhere. It's much, much harder to get a clear print than people realize. On that gun, it's probably impossible. If he's in a gang, which the article stated he was, that gun has probably been passed around between numerous people for a long time, and nobody is swabbing it with a clorox wipe. In that case, there's zero chance of a clear print.
|
On February 17 2013 23:26 KillerSOS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 13:48 Joedaddy wrote:
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. I can not imagine a scenario where I run away from a police officer. Probably because I don't do anything illegal or have anything to hide.
I guess I'm a long ways from being under the hipster umbrella when it comes to police shootings. The first thing I think when I read this kind of thing is that the person shot by the cops was most likely involved in activities worthy of punishment and the world is better off without them.
If the incident was investigated, and the cop was found innocent of any wrong doing then my hats off to him/her. Glad you made it home safe another night. So if someone is a "bad person" we should just kill them then? That's just wonderful.
well a lack of respect for the human life makes him a "bad person" by my standards as well. And by his own logic it would be fine if somebody shoots him too.
|
On February 17 2013 23:37 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 23:26 KillerSOS wrote:On February 17 2013 13:48 Joedaddy wrote:
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. I can not imagine a scenario where I run away from a police officer. Probably because I don't do anything illegal or have anything to hide.
I guess I'm a long ways from being under the hipster umbrella when it comes to police shootings. The first thing I think when I read this kind of thing is that the person shot by the cops was most likely involved in activities worthy of punishment and the world is better off without them.
If the incident was investigated, and the cop was found innocent of any wrong doing then my hats off to him/her. Glad you made it home safe another night. So if someone is a "bad person" we should just kill them then? That's just wonderful. well a lack of respect for the human life makes him a "bad person" by my standards as well. And by his own logic it would be fine if somebody shoots him too.
Running from the cops != a "lack of respect for human life"
|
this is a clear cut case of murder and the murderer (the police officer) should face the death penalty. It's not surprising that he was not penalized, police officers are above the law and can do whatever they want without facing punishment.
|
what is the theory? that the guy reached for a gun while sprinting full speed in the opposite direction?
|
Why did the cop stop them for jaywalking? Seems like selective enforcement to me, probably some BS excuse to do an unconstitutional search on the basis of the jaywalkers race or style of clothing.
|
On February 17 2013 23:46 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Why did the cop stop them for jaywalking? Seems like selective enforcement to me, probably some BS excuse to do an unconstitutional search on the basis of the jaywalkers race or style of clothing.
More likely they were showing signs of public intoxication.
|
On February 17 2013 23:44 TerribleNoobling wrote:
what is the theory? that the guy reached for a gun while sprinting full speed in the opposite direction?
Yeah, that's what a lot of people do. They either want to throw away the magazine and eject the cartridge, thereby reducing the most serious charge from a loaded firearm (which in my jurisdiction is a serious violent felony with a min penalty of 3 1/2 years, max penalty of 15 years) to an unloaded firearm misdemeanor (minimum time served/probation, max penalty 1 year), or they want to try their luck shooting at a cop.
But a cop can't tell what you're doing with your hands while you're fiddling with a gun 20 feet away from him. He can't know whether you'll turn around and fire a shot at in him in under half a second, or whether you're going to ditch the mag and live round. So if he sees something that makes him believe you're turning in his direction with the gun in hand, he's going to fire.
Now, whether he was justified in firing again while the suspect was on the ground is debatable, but it's his word against basically nothing, so there's no reasonable basis for prosecuting him here. Maybe departmental regulation, but that's very specific to his jurisdiction.
|
On February 17 2013 23:44 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Now, whether he was justified in firing again while the suspect was on the ground is debatable
Please explain how shooting in the head an incapacitated person who is unconscious due to being shoot 6 times can be debatable. If you think that can be justified in any way whatsoever, then you are obviously delusional, danger to yourself and to others and need to seek treatment.
|
On February 17 2013 23:50 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 23:44 TerribleNoobling wrote:
what is the theory? that the guy reached for a gun while sprinting full speed in the opposite direction? Yeah, that's what a lot of people do. They either want to throw away the magazine and eject the cartridge, thereby reducing the most serious charge from a loaded firearm (which in my jurisdiction is a serious violent felony with a min penalty of 3 1/2 years, max penalty of 15 years) to an unloaded firearm misdemeanor (minimum time served/probation, max penalty 1 year), or they want to try their luck shooting at a cop. But a cop can't tell what you're doing with your hands while you're fiddling with a gun 20 feet away from him. He can't know whether you'll turn around and fire a shot at in him in under half a second, or whether you're going to ditch the mag and live round. So if he sees something that makes him believe you're turning in his direction with the gun in hand, he's going to fire. Now, whether he was justified in firing again while the suspect was on the ground is debatable, but it's his word against basically nothing, so there's no reasonable basis for prosecuting him here. Maybe departmental regulation, but that's very specific to his jurisdiction.
Policemen are trained in facial psychology now. It is part of their training as cadets. They are trained to see microexpressions in the face and the general details of the eyes and what it means. They all have a meaning. I'm not saying this guy was in the wrong since he couldn't have possibly known if the guy was going to shoot earlier, but when the drunken dude ran as fast as he can in the opposite direction, there is no reason to shoot. A guy trying to get out of an arrest for having a concealed weapon that he isn't allowed to have does not justify murdering him, or even shooting him. If the guy started the confrontation, if he wanted to get into a fight with the policeman, sure then it is time to shoot because he has a gun and is not obeying the law, thus putting the officer's life in danger (that is if the suspect does put the officer's life in danger enough); however, that is not this case. I'm not one for huge punishments, but I think this officer should be taught some more facial psychology or at least be inactive for a little bit so that it appeases the public. The guy shouldn't be punished though, he acted in the moment in a way that we can only bash in hindsight.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that though the extra shot (this sounds a lot like the Bernhard Goetz shooting in a way) may not be something that actually matters, this guy found a gang member drunk on the street, who was probably blading to keep his gun concealed. He finds a perfectly legitimate reason to pull the guy aside, and then take him in for public drunkeness and illegally concealing a gun. The suspect runs, and in that moment the officer cannot know the next move of the suspect, but does know the guy has bad mental processes due to being drunk and is armed, I don't think most any policeman could trust the guy isn't going to shoot.
|
The constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms so there shouldn't be any laws against carrying firearms until the second amendment is repealed. I'm not a combat expert or anything, but I really do not think that someone can accurately aim and fire 180 degrees behind them while sprinting at break neck speed away from where they are shooting at. It makes sense that the guy wanted to ditch his gun but it also makes sense that the cop planted the piece afterwards. If the guy wanted to shoot the cop, why wouldn't he try to aim at him, instead of running full speed in the opposite direction?
The execution shot simply destroys the cops credibility. Anything he says should be dismissed without collaborating evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
