|
On February 18 2013 02:41 TirramirooO wrote:
White-horse THE POLICEMAN SHOOT a person IN THE BACK who was WALKING ON THE STREET.. Then he gets right beside HIM AND SHOOT HIM AGAIN.
What did you didnt undestant about the video?
What did you not understand about the article or the inquiries?
You clearly didn't read anything that was actually linked or posted. Stop being an idiot, read everything, and come back please.
He didn't just walk up to the guy and kill him for no reason. The guy was clearly pulling a bloody gun that the officer saw him reaching for before he even fired the first shot.
|
On February 18 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:27 semantics wrote:On February 18 2013 02:46 Dfgj wrote:On February 18 2013 02:43 TirramirooO wrote:On February 18 2013 02:38 Hyperbola wrote:
Thing is, cops have to react fast. If you tell cops that they will be prosecuted for shooting a man with a gun then you are making them panic and putting lives in danger. This cop did shoot a few too many but I don't think he should be suspended for doing his job. Another one :\ oh god please start the armagedon already I gonna explain you something... The guy was on the ground and the policeman walks towards him and shoot him while the guy was on the ground with 3 bullets in his BODY.. Did you understand?? When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Whether he was shot once, ten times, a hundred times, the intention of police drawing a weapon is the same. But this is the Internet people think police are crack shots can shoot someone in the hand from 100 meters away! I don't think many people on the Internet has ever fired a handgun before, or in possibly life threatening situations in which you fire in volleys of 3-5 shots because you never expect all your shots to actually hit the target. Really people should count decisions to shot in which i think he only made twice. It's just one of those things. Hating cops is easy. Considering the possibility that cops make mistakes often, and that real time decision making sometimes requires imperfect responses, that is hard.
Cops totally make mistakes all the time but they don't pay for the mistakes they make like a normal citizen would and that's the problem.They think there above the law and are treated as such.
|
On February 18 2013 03:39 Emokes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 03:27 semantics wrote:On February 18 2013 02:46 Dfgj wrote:On February 18 2013 02:43 TirramirooO wrote:On February 18 2013 02:38 Hyperbola wrote:
Thing is, cops have to react fast. If you tell cops that they will be prosecuted for shooting a man with a gun then you are making them panic and putting lives in danger. This cop did shoot a few too many but I don't think he should be suspended for doing his job. Another one :\ oh god please start the armagedon already I gonna explain you something... The guy was on the ground and the policeman walks towards him and shoot him while the guy was on the ground with 3 bullets in his BODY.. Did you understand?? When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Whether he was shot once, ten times, a hundred times, the intention of police drawing a weapon is the same. But this is the Internet people think police are crack shots can shoot someone in the hand from 100 meters away! I don't think many people on the Internet has ever fired a handgun before, or in possibly life threatening situations in which you fire in volleys of 3-5 shots because you never expect all your shots to actually hit the target. Really people should count decisions to shot in which i think he only made twice. It's just one of those things. Hating cops is easy. Considering the possibility that cops make mistakes often, and that real time decision making sometimes requires imperfect responses, that is hard. Cops totally make mistakes all the time but they don't pay for the mistakes they make like a normal citizen would and that's the problem.They think there above the law and are treated as such.
A cop pays for his mistakes by dying or getting wounded. And it happens a lot - especially in the USA. Running from a cop after pulling a gun is an immediate threat to the cops life, and the nightmare scenario they have to worry about every day of their career.
Running from a cop without a weapon makes you a huge douchebag, running from a cop while pulling a gun - you should never be let out of prison, ever. Or end up like this guy.
|
On February 18 2013 03:36 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 22:53 Bam Lee wrote:On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote: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. Did anyone in this thread... actually...read...the article? Or watch the video in response to the article? It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong. The dude who got shot's buddy even told the inquiry he probably ran because he was holding a gun in his waistband. Read the articles and watch the videos before you say ANYTHING so utterly ridiculous. Don't come in without even reading the thread and spew absolute bullshit.
Just cause a guy is carrying a piece doesn't mean the cops have the right to off him. Even if you believe the cops didn't plant the gun on him, the only one saying the guy was reaching for the gun is the cop. Based on the video, there's zero indication that either of the testimonies are truthful so you probably shouldn't say "It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong." Since you read the article so diligently you'd also notice all shots that hit the victim went from back to front so there is definitely cause to believe that the cop fired on this guy when he was no longer a threat.
Edit: The whole justification for the cop shooting this guy is that he was "reaching". Might remember a certain incident in NYC when a guy got ventilated by some cops for pulling out his wallet.
|
On February 18 2013 03:39 Emokes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2013 03:27 semantics wrote:On February 18 2013 02:46 Dfgj wrote:On February 18 2013 02:43 TirramirooO wrote:On February 18 2013 02:38 Hyperbola wrote:
Thing is, cops have to react fast. If you tell cops that they will be prosecuted for shooting a man with a gun then you are making them panic and putting lives in danger. This cop did shoot a few too many but I don't think he should be suspended for doing his job. Another one :\ oh god please start the armagedon already I gonna explain you something... The guy was on the ground and the policeman walks towards him and shoot him while the guy was on the ground with 3 bullets in his BODY.. Did you understand?? When you shoot, you shoot to kill. Whether he was shot once, ten times, a hundred times, the intention of police drawing a weapon is the same. But this is the Internet people think police are crack shots can shoot someone in the hand from 100 meters away! I don't think many people on the Internet has ever fired a handgun before, or in possibly life threatening situations in which you fire in volleys of 3-5 shots because you never expect all your shots to actually hit the target. Really people should count decisions to shot in which i think he only made twice. It's just one of those things. Hating cops is easy. Considering the possibility that cops make mistakes often, and that real time decision making sometimes requires imperfect responses, that is hard. Cops totally make mistakes all the time but they don't pay for the mistakes they make like a normal citizen would and that's the problem.They think there above the law and are treated as such.
See, everyone keeps saying this, and I realize that some police most certainly do get away with shit, but the picture is far more complicated than "police don't pay for their mistakes". Here in Seattle, the police are kept under close watch by the Feds, similarly to LA, and more than a few police involved in local acts of brutality have been removed from the force or prosecuted for criminal conduct. In fact, the Feds even mandated a local, civilian oversight committee that gets access to pretty much anything reasonable it wants in terms of keeping the police transparent. Troubled metropolitan areas throughout the country are going to be trouble, and some of it will be on the part of the police. There is no way to avoid this, but there is a way to fight it, and many places are already doing just that.
|
On February 18 2013 03:46 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:36 Figgy wrote:On February 17 2013 22:53 Bam Lee wrote:On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote: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. Did anyone in this thread... actually...read...the article? Or watch the video in response to the article? It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong. The dude who got shot's buddy even told the inquiry he probably ran because he was holding a gun in his waistband. Read the articles and watch the videos before you say ANYTHING so utterly ridiculous. Don't come in without even reading the thread and spew absolute bullshit. Just cause a guy is carrying a piece doesn't mean the cops have the right to off him. Even if you believe the cops didn't plant the gun on him, the only one saying the guy was reaching for the gun is the cop. Based on the video, there's zero indication that either of the testimonies are truthful so you probably shouldn't say "It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong." Since you read the article so diligently you'd also notice all shots that hit the victim went from back to front so there is definitely cause to believe that the cop fired on this guy when he was no longer a threat.
Again, you didn't actually READ the articles or the inquiries. You're the exact thing that I just asked to avoid.
It's stated in the inquiry the additional shots were fired because the suspect refused to show his hands and the officer believed he was still reaching for his gun. It was also clearly stated by the suspects friend that he most likely ran because he was carrying said gun.
There is no question at all that the gun was pulled on the police officer. And the video sure as hell doesn't dispute a single thing the officer said on his account of what happened.
Also, anyone who thinks there is any possibility that the gun was "planted" is an absolute retard.
|
On February 17 2013 14:02 NotYetAWoman wrote:![[image loading]](http://media.veryfunnypics.eu/2012/10/funny-picture-and-i-was-like-pew-pew-merica-325x205.jpg) User was warned for this post
Bwahahahaha this meme is soo frickin good and fitting ! hilarious hahaha
But seriously, guy is running away faster than usain bolt and he gets shot, then the cop walks up to him as he's down on the ground, and shoots him AGAIN wtf.
Is it like, one of those beat em up / shoot em up where you get bonus points for execution ? "Finish him!" "Fatality"
User was warned for this post
|
On February 18 2013 03:50 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:46 ZeaL. wrote:On February 18 2013 03:36 Figgy wrote:On February 17 2013 22:53 Bam Lee wrote:On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote: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. Did anyone in this thread... actually...read...the article? Or watch the video in response to the article? It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong. The dude who got shot's buddy even told the inquiry he probably ran because he was holding a gun in his waistband. Read the articles and watch the videos before you say ANYTHING so utterly ridiculous. Don't come in without even reading the thread and spew absolute bullshit. Just cause a guy is carrying a piece doesn't mean the cops have the right to off him. Even if you believe the cops didn't plant the gun on him, the only one saying the guy was reaching for the gun is the cop. Based on the video, there's zero indication that either of the testimonies are truthful so you probably shouldn't say "It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong." Since you read the article so diligently you'd also notice all shots that hit the victim went from back to front so there is definitely cause to believe that the cop fired on this guy when he was no longer a threat. Again, you didn't actually READ the articles or the inquiries. You're the exact thing that I just asked to avoid. It's stated in the inquiry the additional shots were fired because the suspect refused to show his hands and the officer believed he was still reaching for his gun. It was also clearly stated by the suspects friend that he most likely ran because he was carrying said gun. There is no question at all that the gun was pulled on the police officer. And the video sure as hell doesn't dispute a single thing the officer said on his account of what happened. Also, anyone who thinks there is any possibility that the gun was "planted" is an absolute retard.
There is no question at all that the gun was pulled on the police officer? Do you have any evidence of this besides the testimony from the police officer?
|
On February 18 2013 03:52 Marti wrote:Bwahahahaha this meme is soo frickin good and fitting ! hilarious hahaha But seriously, guy is running away faster than usain bolt and he gets shot, then the cop walks up to him as he's down on the ground, and shoots him AGAIN wtf. Is it like, one of those beat em up / shoot em up where you get bonus points for execution ? "Finish him!" "Fatality"
It's like that when you come in with a biased opinion, watch the video a couple times, apply your very own personal expert video analysis skills to it, and totally ignore the case report with all the basic facts and witness statements I suppose
|
On February 18 2013 03:38 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 02:41 TirramirooO wrote:
White-horse THE POLICEMAN SHOOT a person IN THE BACK who was WALKING ON THE STREET.. Then he gets right beside HIM AND SHOOT HIM AGAIN.
What did you didnt undestant about the video?
What did you not understand about the article or the inquiries? You clearly didn't read anything that was actually linked or posted. Stop being an idiot, read everything, and come back please. He didn't just walk up to the guy and kill him for no reason. The guy was clearly pulling a bloody gun that the officer saw him reaching for before he even fired the first shot.
Clearly pulling a gun? Do you base it on what you see through the grainy footage? Or are you taking the officer's word at face value? Do realize they found no prints on the weapon.
Here's what was absolutely clear to me: a fleeing suspect gunned down.
The only way the officer is justified in shooting is if the suspect indeed "...pull(ed) a handgun from his front waistband." But the lack of fingerprints on the weapon, unless suspect had gloves, makes it an unrealistic statement.
|
Dude. This is from the police report. Notice the 5-6th sentence that says 'the gun fell out of his waistband'. Then continue reading to the last sentence where the other deputy recovered the gun from the kid's waistband. The officer's story clearly contradicts itself, and the rest of it sounds unbelievable to boot. (He fires 3 rounds point blank, but misses with the first 2? After this guy has been shot 4 times he says 'alright already, alright'? He never actually pulls his gun initially, its always in his waistband? He's shot in the back as he runs away, gun not in hand?)
"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."
|
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
@falling
I believe it is fair to consider two possibilities based on the wording
1) it was falling- in the process of falling, without fully falling out (perhaps it didn't actually exit the band). It doesn't say "fell"
2) it never fell out, he never had a gun, officer is totally lying, whole thing's corrupt
Now I imagine some people will opt with 1 or some other explanation, while more emotional people will opt to think something along the lines of 2
|
On February 18 2013 03:50 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:46 ZeaL. wrote:On February 18 2013 03:36 Figgy wrote:On February 17 2013 22:53 Bam Lee wrote:On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote: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. Did anyone in this thread... actually...read...the article? Or watch the video in response to the article? It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong. The dude who got shot's buddy even told the inquiry he probably ran because he was holding a gun in his waistband. Read the articles and watch the videos before you say ANYTHING so utterly ridiculous. Don't come in without even reading the thread and spew absolute bullshit. Just cause a guy is carrying a piece doesn't mean the cops have the right to off him. Even if you believe the cops didn't plant the gun on him, the only one saying the guy was reaching for the gun is the cop. Based on the video, there's zero indication that either of the testimonies are truthful so you probably shouldn't say "It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong." Since you read the article so diligently you'd also notice all shots that hit the victim went from back to front so there is definitely cause to believe that the cop fired on this guy when he was no longer a threat. Again, you didn't actually READ the articles or the inquiries. You're the exact thing that I just asked to avoid. It's stated in the inquiry the additional shots were fired because the suspect refused to show his hands and the officer believed he was still reaching for his gun. It was also clearly stated by the suspects friend that he most likely ran because he was carrying said gun. There is no question at all that the gun was pulled on the police officer. And the video sure as hell doesn't dispute a single thing the officer said on his account of what happened. Also, anyone who thinks there is any possibility that the gun was "planted" is an absolute retard.
So your defense for your argument is the word of the cop that shot him, who could be trying to save himself from getting in trouble, and a friend who said there was a possibility he had a gun? Even if the guy did have a gun, he starts running away. He retreats. That's not an offensive move, the cop wasn't in danger. He just flipped out because there was fast movement. Owning a gun isn't a reason to get shot, neither is touching a gun (which apparently didn't happen because there were no finger prints on the victim's gun).
And the video definitely doesn't prove the officer's testimony, it's just possible that he could be correct by that video. There's no clear shot of the guy pulling up his shirt and trying to grab a gun from his waste. From the time the cop car pulls up to the time the guy starts running away, not much happens.
And why did he require a gun when the guy was on the ground? Could a taser worked just as well?
|
The guy was clearly pulling a bloody gun that the officer saw him reaching for before he even fired the first shot.
All we have is Deputy Jove's statement that, while on the ground (and having been shot at least once), Cuevas reached for his waistband instead of raising his hands over his head. I think it could be just as likely that he was reaching his hands for his wound instead of for his gun.
|
On February 18 2013 04:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
plogamer you are utterly ignoring that the suspect admitted to having a weapon. Moreover one witness/friend admitted that he knew of a weapon too.
Compile all the facts before coming to conclusions. Cherry picking is very transparent to those who have read over the thing, and it makes you appear disingenuous
The suspect admitted to having a weapon? Here I thought he was six feet under.
Anyways, even if he's carrying, the only one to witness him reaching for his gun is the cop. Just carrying and running away isn't justification for shooting someone to death.
|
On February 18 2013 03:55 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:38 Figgy wrote:On February 18 2013 02:41 TirramirooO wrote:
White-horse THE POLICEMAN SHOOT a person IN THE BACK who was WALKING ON THE STREET.. Then he gets right beside HIM AND SHOOT HIM AGAIN.
What did you didnt undestant about the video?
What did you not understand about the article or the inquiries? You clearly didn't read anything that was actually linked or posted. Stop being an idiot, read everything, and come back please. He didn't just walk up to the guy and kill him for no reason. The guy was clearly pulling a bloody gun that the officer saw him reaching for before he even fired the first shot. Clearly pulling a gun? Do you base it on what you see through the grainy footage? Or are you taking the officer's word at face value? Do realize they found no prints on the weapon. Here's what was absolutely clear to me: a fleeing suspect gunned down. The only way the officer is justified in shooting is if the suspect indeed "...pull(ed) a handgun from his front waistband." But the lack of fingerprints on the weapon, unless suspect had gloves, makes it an unrealistic statement.
You've been watching way too much CSI and Dexter, dude. Do you know how unbelievably difficult it is to pull a clean print off something? Who knows how many people have handled that gun.
His friend said he was carrying the gun on him. Do you think he magically just knew shit was going to go down that day and got someone to put it in his waistband for him? USE YOUR BRAIN.
|
. In fact, the Feds even mandated a local, civilian oversight committee that gets access to pretty much anything reasonable it wants in terms of keeping the police transparent.
Hold up.
The federal government set up a committee?
Guess all our problems will be solved now.
|
On February 18 2013 04:01 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +The guy was clearly pulling a bloody gun that the officer saw him reaching for before he even fired the first shot. All we have is Deputy Jove's statement that, while on the ground (and having been shot at least once), Cuevas reached for his waistband instead of raising his hands over his head. I think it could be just as likely that he was reaching his hands for his wound instead of for his gun.
According to the police report, the gun never made it out of the waistband.
|
The suspect admitted to having a weapon? Here I thought he was six feet under.
The confession was extracted via a ouija board. The officers involved swore they did not move it.
|
On February 18 2013 03:50 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 03:46 ZeaL. wrote:On February 18 2013 03:36 Figgy wrote:On February 17 2013 22:53 Bam Lee wrote:On February 17 2013 22:00 Zerothegreat wrote: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. Did anyone in this thread... actually...read...the article? Or watch the video in response to the article? It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong. The dude who got shot's buddy even told the inquiry he probably ran because he was holding a gun in his waistband. Read the articles and watch the videos before you say ANYTHING so utterly ridiculous. Don't come in without even reading the thread and spew absolute bullshit. Just cause a guy is carrying a piece doesn't mean the cops have the right to off him. Even if you believe the cops didn't plant the gun on him, the only one saying the guy was reaching for the gun is the cop. Based on the video, there's zero indication that either of the testimonies are truthful so you probably shouldn't say "It's pretty bloody clear what happened, and the officer was definitely not in the wrong." Since you read the article so diligently you'd also notice all shots that hit the victim went from back to front so there is definitely cause to believe that the cop fired on this guy when he was no longer a threat. Again, you didn't actually READ the articles or the inquiries. You're the exact thing that I just asked to avoid. It's stated in the inquiry the additional shots were fired because the suspect refused to show his hands and the officer believed he was still reaching for his gun. It was also clearly stated by the suspects friend that he most likely ran because he was carrying said gun. There is no question at all that the gun was pulled on the police officer. And the video sure as hell doesn't dispute a single thing the officer said on his account of what happened. Also, anyone who thinks there is any possibility that the gun was "planted" is an absolute retard.
No, you're the "absolute retard" who cant participate in a thread without resorting to name calling. Also there was nothing "clear" about the incident.
If the "gun was pulled" on the officer, then why were the suspect's fingerprints not found on the gun? (its on abclocal). You're either a gullible person believing everything that the police says, or a member of a the police force, which would explain your dogged defense of the excessive use of force by the officer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
