LA County Sheriff's Deputy Julio Jove told three young men, including 20-year-old Jonathan Cuevas, to halt. They had been out partying and drinking, and they had just jaywalked. It was around 1:45 in the morning in Lynwood, California. When Deputy Jove told the three men to stop, Cuevas ran.
Then, Deputy Jove says Cuevas reached for a handgun at his waist, and pointed the weapon at him. So the Deputy reacted by shooting Cuevas multiple times.
he newly-released, frustratingly grainy and faraway surveillance footage from that night does not discount the claim of Cuevas pulling a gun. But what it does definitively show is that Jove fired multiple shots at Cuevas as he ran — saving the last one for when Cuevas had fallen on the ground. A WCSH6 Portland report says the autopsy shows at least three bullets had already struck Cuevas, bringing the total to at least four.
A gun was found at the scene, but Cuevas' family's attorney James Segall Gutierrez claims that it's suspicious because the young man's prints were not found on it. He also counts seven total shots fired by Deputy Jove in the footage.
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.
The evidence examined in this investigation indicates that rather than risk arrest, Cuevas chose to flee from Deputy Jove with a loaded firearm in his hand. Cuevas ignored J ove’s commands to show his hands, and instead turned toward the deputy on two occasions as he fled. Cuevas’ actions placed Jove in reasonable fear that he was about to be shot causing him to respond with deadly force.
It is undisputed that Cuevas was moving around once he fell to the sidewalk. Although the witnesses attributed his behavior to pain, they were unaware that he was armed with a gun. Jove believed that his life was in jeopardy when Cuevas rolled from his stomach exposing the gun beneath him and ñred additional rounds. Once on his back, Deputy Jove continued to order Cuevas to stop moving and not to reach for the gun falling out of his waistband. Instead of complying, Cuevas placed Deputy Jove in reasonable fear for his life when he reached for the gun.
I do believe the officer saw a gun, or believed to have seen a gun. It seems odd that any reasonable person would start shooting after someone fails to obey your order.
It seems to me like a taser could have been used once Cuevas was on the ground. Also, the gun with no finger prints is pretty suspicious... Doesn't seem like a good situation for the police, but who's gonna do anything about it?
On February 17 2013 13:04 Slaughter wrote: I think we have a thread for this? Mmm don't see it so it might have turned into a shitfest and got closed.
That one was closed due to the OP being rather biased. This one provides a lot more information about both sides, so hopefully it won't have as many people just spouting off while being ill-informed.
A gun was found at the scene, but Cuevas' family's attorney James Segall Gutierrez claims that it's suspicious because the young man's prints were not found on it. He also counts seven total shots fired by Deputy Jove in the footage.
This sounds sketchy as fuck. I don't get how that could happen and am a bit ~_- about that. I find it hard to believe that it would not have any fingerprints at all since he probably had to put it in his waste band at some point.
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.
Don't think any of this is convincing whatsoever. LA cops are still a fucking joke and the poster children for the pathetic excuse for a law enforcement system we have in this country.
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.
If anything, siding with the cops in these stories is the "hipster thing".
Your rationale is incredibly idiotic. Let's just forgive this cop for shooting a man that posed zero threat to him (running full speed away from him and then multiple shots while on the ground) because the world "might" be better off without him (not even addressing the fact that this is a completely subjective claim that throws due process out the window). There's a reason this country's laws continue to be a fucking laughing stock to the rest of the developed world. We allow this shit to happen.
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.
he was drunk and wasn't even walking straight, I can imagine a LOT of people would start running if the police/stranger shouting and telling you to stop, especially once you see him pulling his gun out and start shooting at you
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.
he was drunk and wasn't even walking straight, I can imagine a LOT of people would start running if the police/stranger shouting and telling you to stop, especially once you see him pulling his gun out and start shooting at you
No most people don't try to run and pull a gun when a cop pulls over next to them. Your imagination must match the magnitude of your ignorance and exceed your ability to reason. Being drunk doesn't mean it's alright to do stupid shit like run from the police. I'd love to see the asshole above me who calls officers pigs try to live in a world without any. People are so fucking ungrateful for police that put their lives on the line everyday to protect lawful citizens that it makes me sick.
On February 17 2013 14:02 NotYetAWoman wrote:
User was warned for this post
Really? Just a warning? I remember when this forum was moderated competently...
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.
he was drunk and wasn't even walking straight, I can imagine a LOT of people would start running if the police/stranger shouting and telling you to stop, especially once you see him pulling his gun out and start shooting at you
No most people don't try to run and pull a gun when a cop pulls over next to them. Your imagination must match the magnitude of your ignorance and exceed your ability to reason. Being drunk doesn't mean it's alright to do stupid shit like run from the police. I'd love to see the asshole above me who calls officers pigs try to live in a world without any. People are so fucking ungrateful for police that put their lives on the line everyday to protect lawful citizens that it makes me sick.
Plenty of people are grateful for police, but an officer who shoots and kills a fleeing target like this doesn't deserve respect. I don't care if it's stupid to run from a cop; it doesn't justify shooting the kid. Many cops are pigs and are little more than bullies that are legally allowed to carry a gun, and many of us have experience with this. No one said that they all are, but there are far too many of them that are like this in this country.
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?
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.
But what would you say about the cop's decision if it turned out that he genuinely interpreted the actions of the guy along with all the factors of the situation and other guys present as being a lethal threat? What would you criticize him for then, if it turned out he had good reason to act that way?
I'm really not bringing this up because I think I know exactly what happened. I'm just raising the question because it seems possible yet no one wants to approach it that way. It seems the more common assumption is that the officer truly felt no threat, and only fired because he was acting out of line in a murderous fashion.
It may be true that he did not fire because he felt he had to -- but it may also be true that he evaluated the situation to the best of his ability and came to that conclusion, in which case it seems like the worst he deserves is to be relieved of duty rather than prosecuted as a murderer.
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.
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.
On February 17 2013 14:15 FallDownMarigold wrote: But what would you say about the cop's decision if it turned out that he genuinely interpreted the actions of the guy along with all the factors of the situation and other guys present as being a lethal threat? What would you criticize him for then, if it turned out he had good reason to act that way?
I'm really not bringing this up because I think I know exactly what happened. I'm just raising the question because it seems possible yet no one wants to approach it that way. It seems the more common assumption is that the officer truly felt no threat, and only fired because he was acting out of line in a murderous fashion.
It may be true that he did not fire because he felt he had to -- but it may also be true that he evaluated the situation to the best of his ability and came to that conclusion, in which case it seems like the worst he deserves is to be relieved of duty rather than prosecuted as a murderer.
It doesn't matter if he felt a threat. The problem is that these cops "feel" a threat when they're pissed off, when it's a minority kid that he doesn't like, when they're tired, or for any other BS reason that gets people killed unnecessarily. If you are legally allowed to carry a gun and use deadly force on citizens, you have the responsibility to be competently - actually, excellently trained in analyzing a situation and deciding when to use deadly force. Again, when you are legally allowed to use deadly force like this, you shouldn't get leniency; the expectations are necessarily high because you have a legal pass to use physical (possibly deadly) force on a citizen. The logic simply doesn't add up; if he was running like he was in the video, he shouldn't be any threat to the cop, and even after that, when he's down with a bullet to the back, the cop could've done a number of other things besides firing multiple kill-shots to the back, but he didn't. This is why this is a problem.
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.
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
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?
On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
I agree in the case that he made a mistake in his evaluation that he should be punished accordingly (e.g. relieved from duty or something -- perhaps a fine to his department). I don't know for certain whether or not he did make a mistake, so that's the difficulty in coming to a final judgement on him. Evidently the court/system found him to not be mistaken, but I suppose it is possible that they are incompetent or colluding against the victim.
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?
I think in most cases you would not choose to shoot a person running away from you. However if you are in contact with a perceived lethal threat, it may be necessary to ensure that the threat is eliminated when, for example, you believe that the threat remains as it is fleeing or will remain after finding cover in a retreat.
I suppose that a clear sign of the threat being eliminated would be when the person surrendered the weapon or when the person stopped fleeing and displayed open hands away from the body in order to verify no possibility for further lethal action.
I don't know what the situation was here -- perhaps the cop really was just out for blood -- but that seems to be one reason one might opt to shoot a fleeing individual.
On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
if he did something wrong he would have been punished, thats how the system works... he was found innocent after investigation. Did you not read the thread? Why are you still posting here? Are you arguing some other theoretical situation that didn't happen here?
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.
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.
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.
2000 events occurred where people were bold enough to fire at armed police and you for some reason believe this number would be lower if police were equipped with high-fives and peace signs? Now you're just being delusional.
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.
I'm not sure how that stat is pertinent. You have no idea what would have happened in the same period if people knew cops weren't armed.
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.
It seems possible that given the number of guns already present in the US, police officers would not bring the same level of security and control without their own weapons equipped. Maybe it is possible that police are not targeted by those with weapons in some cases due to the fact that the police possess their own weapons.
The best case for the US might possibly be less guns overall, in which case it may be possible for police to rely less on carrying weapons to maintain security, as is the case in many European countries
On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
if he did something wrong he would have been punished, thats how the system works... he was found innocent after investigation. Did you not read the thread? Why are you still posting here? Are you arguing some other theoretical situation that didn't happen here?
The point is that the definition of what constitutes a mistake is flawed. Also the process that decides if a mistake was committed or not (even by those flawed standards) is not trustworthy.
The first one is mostly an American problem (at least as far as democracies in developed countries are concerned), but the second is an issue almost everywhere.
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.
and the fact THAT they are carrying guns could by no means have anything to do with those numbers being so "low". 72 cops killed in action may seem low to you, to a german it's a LOT. but that's cause of local gun law etc.
the thing that i find most disturbing about this event, is that he went up to the already injured person to straight up shoot him dead. again, that is possibly due to me being from a country with rather few gun-related crimes, but still. if police in germany would pull something like that off, there'd be quite the shitstorm. i'm not saying that there never were cases of questionable use of violence versus suspect or possible threats, but they are very rare.
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.
~60,000 police officers were assaulted, according to your statistics. More than a quarter were injured. 20% of those assaults were using dangerous weapons. 4% involved guns.
I don't know what kind of statistics you need to see in order to justify someone having a weapon to defend themselves, but 7.5% is a fairly substantial number.
Not to mention that knowledge that police officers are trained and armed would act as a deterrent for a sizable number of people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2000 events occurred where people were bold enough to fire at armed police and you for some reason believe this number would be lower if police were equipped with high-fives and peace signs? Now you're just being delusional.
I never said it'd be lower if they didn't have guns, I said it wasn't a common occurrence, so this idea that the police are in an arms race against criminals is bunk.
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.
It seems possible that given the number of guns already present in the US, police officers would not bring the same level of security and control without their own weapons equipped. Maybe it is possible that police are not targeted by those with weapons in some cases due to the fact that the police possess their own weapons.
The best case for the US might possibly be less guns overall, in which case it may be possible for police to rely less on carrying weapons to maintain security, as is the case in many European countries
The biggest deterrent for criminals shooting cops is the fact that that triggers a huge manhunt, not that that one officer may be armed. Kill a cop, there is absolutely no escape.
Now I'm not saying they should all be disarmed; bank guards, SWAT teams, ATF agents all need guns, but I'm not sure the average patrolman needs one. Especially when you consider that most jurisdictions have insanely low training requirements for their service weapon. In my jurisdiction, the requirement is only 50 shots.
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.
~60,000 police officers were assaulted, according to your statistics. More than a quarter were injured. 20% of those assaults were using dangerous weapons. 4% involved guns.
I don't know what kind of statistics you need to see in order to justify someone having a weapon to defend themselves, but 7.5% is a fairly substantial number.
Not to mention that knowledge that police officers are trained and armed would act as a deterrent for a sizable number of people.
Most of those 60,000 did not use their gun. They simply didn't need it. A taser, mace, or nightstick was good enough.
I am all for the right to bear arms, but the police are an arm of the state, and therefore they should be held to a higher standard than your average civilian.
As I said, the average patrolman is hardly trained when it comes to their service weapon.
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.
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 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...
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 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 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 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...
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 14:11 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?
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 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 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.
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 23:44 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.
The guy is dead with more bullets than police officers have ammunition in their weapons in Portugal and the police was in danger???
Comon people :\ police went out of the car and shoot him in the back.. Nothing and i repeat nothing that men could have done to deserve being shot from the back.
America dont believe in courts anymore??? I dont believe but was the USA grow in that thought.
That policeman is just nasty and worst than the guy he shoot at. ANd for the policemens here triyng to defend the Police Honour and WE LIVE IN DANGER and should have every right to protect themselves... YOU SOUND LIKE A GANG.
This shit makes me laugh and piety for the people that policeman kill everyday just because they can PEW PEW PEW.
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.
I think you're taking that idea way, way too far. Cops are not capable of reading your mind. They can get a feeling about whether you're going to do something, or if you have something to hide, but they cannot possibly have the kind of knowledge you're attributing to them.
That being said, if you point a gun in a cop's direction, or if you turn to face them while holding a gun, you will most likely be shot at. So don't do it. There's no ifs and or buts, there's no morality of ethics to discuss - it's pretty much standard police training. An officer facing the threat of imminent death has to react accordingly. Drop the fucking thing and lay down - it should be common sense.
And even in spite of that, we do have cops, even seasoned, decorated cops, who get shot by perps that are running away. Cops like Peter Figoski.
When was the last thread on TL for a cop that was shot?
The only reason, this could have been justified, and I'm only talking about the part where he shoots the kid while running, (the kill shot should be death sentence for the cop, 100%, in your wonderful country where you can execute people), is if the suspect was a known an extremely dangerous individual, but yeah, a drunk 20 years old kid, who runs away because he's scared (most "gangsters" wouldnt run in that situation, except if they have 2 kilos of heroin of them, they know the drill, they just get booked and they move on, this kid just seemed to run out of fear more than anything else) Imagine for a second, you're drunk, maybe you smoked a joint or two, a really agressive cop pulls a gun and starts ordering you to halt, it's human to do what he says and be afraid of whats going to happen ("What if he's crazy or on a power trip? fuck he got a gun on me, lets lie down and prey he's not loosing his mind"), but it's just as human to panic and do something stupid, like running : no court, no judge, no evidence, no witnesses, 7 shots fired at you, one execution style for no reason, you just took 3 bullets in the back you cant even breathe, your body moves but at that point you probably dont even understand whats happening anymore, he comes up, you realize, he shoots you in the face... And I actually see people defending blindly the officer? Guys like you make me vomit, I'm ashamed that we're both humans, you're a disgrace for man-kind if you ever blindly justify the EXECUTION (last shot) of a 20 years old person, 20 FUCKING YEARS OLD, no matter his background, his origin (oh maybe if its latino its ok I guess?), or even behaviour at that particular moment, if he doesnt have a gun pointed at you, he's drunk, people do stupid shit when they're drunk, alcohol is legal, but well, guess he will never have time to sober up. I cannot believe what I just read here, I'm sincerely disgusted.
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.
Nice. After that kind of reasoning I dont understand how any cop can be blamed for anything in US. You just make sure you kill the bastard so that he doesn't say anything against you (word vs nothing heh? how convenient) and through a random gun somewhere on the scene. And if there are no witnesses or cameras around he doesn't even have to run away.
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.
I think you're taking that idea way, way too far. Cops are not capable of reading your mind. They can get a feeling about whether you're going to do something, or if you have something to hide, but they cannot possibly have the kind of knowledge you're attributing to them.
That being said, if you point a gun in a cop's direction, or if you turn to face them while holding a gun, you will most likely be shot at. So don't do it. There's no ifs and or buts, there's no morality of ethics to discuss - it's pretty much standard police training. An officer facing the threat of imminent death has to react accordingly. Drop the fucking thing and lay down - it should be common sense.
And even in spite of that, we do have cops, even seasoned, decorated cops, who get shot by perps that are running away. Cops like Peter Figoski.
When was the last thread on TL for a cop that was shot?
I was in psych class about 2 days ago watching a documentary about facial psychology where a policeman (forgot the guys name) who is an author on the subject said that police have the knowledge I stated they do. However, I'm probably thinking in the best case scenario and you are thinking more realistically, something I have a tendency to do. I definitely agree on the imminent danger part, you can't really expect someone to take a bullet somewhere to justify protecting his own life.
On February 18 2013 00:05 mahO wrote: The only reason, this could have been justified, and I'm only talking about the part where he shoots the kid while running, (the kill shot should be death sentence for the cop, 100%, in your wonderful country where you can execute people), is if the suspect was a known an extremely dangerous individual, but yeah, a drunk 20 years old kid, who runs away because he's scared (most "gangsters" wouldnt run in that situation, except if they have 2 kilos of heroin of them, they know the drill, they just get booked and they move on, this kid just seemed to run out of fear more than anything else) Imagine for a second, you're drunk, maybe you smoked a joint or two, a really agressive cop pulls a gun and starts ordering you to halt, it's human to do what he says and be afraid of whats going to happen ("What if he's crazy or on a power trip? fuck he got a gun on me, lets lie down and prey he's not loosing his mind"), but it's just as human to panic and do something stupid, like running : no court, no judge, no evidence, no witnesses, 7 shots fired at you, one execution style for no reason, you just took 3 bullets in the back you cant even breathe, your body moves but at that point you probably dont even understand whats happening anymore, he comes up, you realize, he shoots you in the face... And I actually see people defending blindly the officer? Guys like you make me vomit, I'm ashamed that we're both humans, you're a disgrace for man-kind if you ever blindly justify the EXECUTION (last shot) of a 20 years old person, 20 FUCKING YEARS OLD, no matter his background, his origin (oh maybe if its latino its ok I guess?), or even behaviour at that particular moment, if he doesnt have a gun pointed at you, he's drunk, people do stupid shit when they're drunk, alcohol is legal, but well, guess he will never have time to sober up. I cannot believe what I just read here, I'm sincerely disgusted.
This exactly. I have to wonder TL, how do you justify the killing of another human being in cold blood to protect the perceived safety of someone who is supposed to be risking their lives to protect other people? Why the fuck would it ever be okay to shoot someone who is lying on the ground with 3 bullets in them? How the fuck are you justifying this to yourself? What isn't okay for a cop to do in your eyes?
Kingsville, Texas: A now-former police corporal was indicted on a charge of continual sexual abuse of a child under 14-years old. http://ow.ly/hIRjN
Update: Seattle, Washington: A police lieutenant who was charged with violating a domestic-violence court order reached an agreement that could lead to charges being dropped. The officer has a checkered history with the department. http://ow.ly/hIATC
Volusia County, Florida: A deputy has been suspended after being arrested on grand-theft charges. He is accused of stealing thousands of dollars from a homeowner’s association. ow.ly/hHAIM
Update: Sarasota, Florida: An officer who was fired after being caught on camera punching a man in the face will not be charged with a crime. ow.ly/hIwKX
oh, and this fun mistake :
According to sources familiar with the investigation, Kern was at the Rosewood Center for a training exercise when recruits peered through a window from another room. He playfully pointed a weapon in their direction, the sources said, and did not intend to harm anybody. The shot struck the trainee — who remained in critical condition Thursday and has not been identified — in the front of the head, and a second officer was injured from broken glass, police have said.
The problem is systemic. Police are immune from prosecution. They are 'super citizens' who can operate above the law. Police should be like anyone else, with no special powers or immunity from prosecution. If a police officer commits a crime, they should face the same penalty as anyone else. Unfortunately police unions wield significant political power so this will never happen.
Microexpressions and shit... YOU GUYS MAKE ME LAUGH My brother is a policeman and he is a dumbass, and if a ask him what microexpresions his, dude i cant even imagine what he would respond.
Everyone can be a policeman this days, and with that video you should be certain of that. Man in the ground???? He's not dead yet??? PEW PEW!!!!!!!! Now he is...
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.
Nice. After that kind of reasoning I dont understand how any cop can be blamed for anything in US. You just make sure you kill the bastard so that he doesn't say anything against you (word vs nothing heh? how convenient) and through a random gun somewhere on the scene. And if there are no witnesses or cameras around he doesn't even have to run away.
Actually, my reasoning is based in logic, experience and the penal law of my jurisdiction. Yours is based on some shitty Atari-quality video footage and your ignorant, uneducated rants against every cop in the world as a general entity.
I mean, if you actually believe that cops carry around a second gun just so that they can plant one on a guy when they have to discharge their weapon, which most cops never do in the entire course of their career, then you are completely out to lunch, lol.
On February 18 2013 00:12 TerribleNoobling wrote:The problem is systemic. Police are immune from prosecution. They are 'super citizens' who can operate above the law. Police should be like anyone else, with no special powers or immunity from prosecution. If a police officer commits a crime, they should face the same penalty as anyone else. Unfortunately police unions wield significant political power so this will never happen.
I don't want to break up your flow, but you just linked two articles where cops ARE being charged with crimes, then in the same breath you say that cops can't be prosecuted.
I mean, that's just astonishing cognitive dissonance. Assume that every cop ever accused of a crime is de facto guilty, acknowledge that sometimes (just like everyone else in the world) they are in fact prosecuted, then blame unions? Do you really think, for a second, that the union has any say in whether a cop is prosecuted?
On the other hand, most of the time they do not get punished for their crimes- like, for example, when they shoot someone who is sprinting full speed away from them in the back. Yes, every once in a while the abuses are SO blatant, the evidence SO overwhelming, that the legal system throws us a bone. But more often ambitious prosecutors and DA's cannot risk offending and losing the votes of the legions of police so they are allowed to get away with murder.
Who is going to arrest a cop for breaking the law? His cop buddies? Not likely.
And this video quality is more than enough to tell that the victim was running full speed away from the cop, so any notion that the victim posed a deadly threat to the murderer is simply apologetix. How can you possibly pose a deadly threat to someone when you are running full speed in the opposite direction away from them?
More likely, the cop, annoyed that someone dare defy his authority, let his anger take control and he executed an innocent man.
Police, like any authority figure, love to order people around. Defy that authority and they will turn violent.
On February 18 2013 00:20 TerribleNoobling wrote: On the other hand, most of the time they do not get punished for their crimes- like, for example, when they shoot someone who is sprinting full speed away from them in the back. Yes, every once in a while the abuses are SO blatant, the evidence SO overwhelming, that the legal system throws us a bone. But more often ambitious prosecutors and DA's cannot risk offending and losing the votes of the legions of police so they are allowed to get away with murder.
Who is going to arrest a cop for breaking the law? His cop buddies? Not likely.
Uh, yes, very likely. In fact, that's actually how it works. After the DA's office has decided whether to clear the cops or not. And they cleared this one. Hence, why he was not arrested.
You know literally nothing about the criminal justice system or how cases are prosecuted. You make sweeping generalizations about how prosecutors are afraid to prosecute cops, but you know nothing about how prosecutors work. You've probably never met one. You don't have a law degree. You've probably never even met a cop outside of a traffic stop. And you have the balls to slander my entire profession, saying that we're afraid to prosecute cops, without even the slightest piece of illuminating knowledge whatsoever?
Man, you have to love the internet. Suddenly everyone is a Rhodes Scholar on every subject imagineable, lol.
On February 18 2013 00:20 TerribleNoobling wrote: On the other hand, most of the time they do not get punished for their crimes- like, for example, when they shoot someone who is sprinting full speed away from them in the back. Yes, every once in a while the abuses are SO blatant, the evidence SO overwhelming, that the legal system throws us a bone. But more often ambitious prosecutors and DA's cannot risk offending and losing the votes of the legions of police so they are allowed to get away with murder.
Who is going to arrest a cop for breaking the law? His cop buddies? Not likely.
You know literally nothing about the criminal justice system or how cases are prosecuted. You make sweeping generalizations about how prosecutors are afraid to prosecute cops, but you know nothing about how prosecutors work. You've probably never met one. You don't have a law degree. You've probably never even met a cop outside of a traffic stop. And you have the balls to slander my entire profession, saying that we're afraid to prosecute cops, without even the slightest piece of illuminating knowledge whatsoever?
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.
Nice. After that kind of reasoning I dont understand how any cop can be blamed for anything in US. You just make sure you kill the bastard so that he doesn't say anything against you (word vs nothing heh? how convenient) and through a random gun somewhere on the scene. And if there are no witnesses or cameras around he doesn't even have to run away.
Actually, my reasoning is based in logic, experience and the penal law of my jurisdiction. Yours is based on some shitty Atari-quality video footage and your ignorant, uneducated rants against every cop in the world as a general entity.
I mean, if you actually believe that cops carry around a second gun just so that they can plant one on a guy when they have to discharge their weapon, which most cops never do in the entire course of their career, then you are completely out to lunch, lol.
Yeah, right. So where did I rant against every cop in the world again? You can't even understand my point which was not that every cop is carrying around a second gun to frame people, but that if there are any overly aggressive cops in there who do, they would never get caught for executing people thanks to that great reasoning of yours.
When someone says "fuck the police" or a variation of it, I imagine an angst-ridden, bleeding-heart anarchist/communist/marxist, emo teenager. If you're going to make a conclusion just by watching the video and blaming all the fault on the evil cop for gunning down an innocent person running away, you couldn't have a more elementary level of thought.
You guys forget to see the world from the shoes of a policeman. Even when they are just patrolling on their cruiser or out for lunch during their breaks, policemen are in constant anxiety and pressure whenever they walk around in their uniform because they are a potential target for gang members, crazy people, etc. especially if they are part of departments that work around large cities, metropolitan areas, or low-income neighborhoods. So it's really important that you don't do anything that suggests any kind of aggressive behavior in any kind of way. If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns, and they are trained over and over again to do this in order to protect themselves and the general public. So it's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you. Most policemen are just people trying to do their job faithfully and they definitely are not interested in killing somebody at whatever chance they get. So the best thing is really (1) don't do stupid things that attract the attention of the police in the first place and (2) follow all orders from the police if you end up encountering one. It's not that hard to be a law-abiding citizen..
On February 18 2013 02:10 white_horse wrote: When someone says "fuck the police" or a variation of it, I imagine an angst-ridden, bleeding-heart anarchist/communist/marxist, emo teenager. If you're going to make a conclusion just by watching the video and blaming all the fault on the evil cop for gunning down an innocent person running away, you couldn't have a more elementary level of thought.
You guys forget to see the world from the shoes of a policeman. Even when they are just patrolling on their cruiser or out for lunch during their breaks, policemen are in constant anxiety and pressure whenever they walk around in their uniform because they are a potential target for gang members, crazy people, etc. especially if they are part of departments that work around large cities, metropolitan areas, or low-income neighborhoods. So it's really important that you don't do anything that suggests any kind of aggressive behavior in any kind of way. If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns. It's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you. They are only trying to do their job. So the best thing is really (1) don't do stupid things that attract the attention of the police in the first place and (2) follow all orders from the police if you end up encountering one. It's not that hard to be a law-abiding citizen..
And here I was thinking a police member is supposed to give up his own life in defense of the law if necessary. You are not supposed to shoot at them with the intent to kill unless they have already tried to kill you. Better to be a dead police officer and not have broke the law than be a living one who shot an innocent thinking he was a threat.
If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns, and they are trained over and over again to do this in order to protect themselves and the general public
Then you say this
So it's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you.
Seems like the first statement seems to contradict the second. Are cops psychopaths who can kill me at a moments notice, a hair trigger away from executing me, or is it cynical to believe these guys are out to get me?
If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns, and they are trained over and over again to do this in order to protect themselves and the general public
So it's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you.
Seems like the first statement seems to contradict the second. Are cops psychopaths who can kill me at a moments notice, a hair trigger away from executing me, or is it cynical to believe these guys are out to get me?
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Read the beginning of the sentence: "If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them". If you aren't doing anything that is causing trouble in the public or doing something overtly suspicious, then why would they come after you with a gun raised? I don't know why some people choose to carry an automatically negative attitude towards the police. If you don't do stupid things (ie drinking underage and then having the nerve to walk around half-drunk in the public, carrying a gun, ignoring orders from a policeman, etc) the police aren't going to come over and shoot you while you are walking down the street. If you're going to drink illegally, at least do it at home so nobody catches you or stay inside until you are a little sober before you go out.
On February 18 2013 02:17 TerribleNoobling wrote: First you say this
If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns, and they are trained over and over again to do this in order to protect themselves and the general public
Then you say this
So it's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you.
Seems like the first statement seems to contradict the second. Are cops psychopaths who can kill me at a moments notice, a hair trigger away from executing me, or is it cynical to believe these guys are out to get me?
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Read the beginning of the sentence: "If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them". If you aren't doing anything that is causing trouble in the public or doing something overtly suspicious, then why would they come after you with a gun raised? Carrying an automatically negative attitude towards the police means that you're only going to do stupid things when a real situation involving the police happens.
They shouldn't kill on suspicion, unless you have actually made an attempt on their life they should have no justification for shooting at you.
On February 18 2013 02:10 white_horse wrote: When someone says "fuck the police" or a variation of it, I imagine an angst-ridden, bleeding-heart anarchist/communist/marxist, emo teenager.
Nice way of attacking other people's opinions to promote your own in ways that is similar to demonizing.
If you aren't doing anything that is causing trouble in the public or doing something overtly suspicious, then why would they come after you with a gun raised?
Because it makes them feel powerful? Because they can? If Jonathan Cuevas pulled a gun, then why didn't the cop try to take cover? We would see in the video his body mechanics changing. You can't run straight ahead full speed and pull a gun and aim it at someone behind you.
On February 18 2013 02:10 white_horse wrote: When someone says "fuck the police" or a variation of it, I imagine an angst-ridden, bleeding-heart anarchist/communist/marxist, emo teenager. If you're going to make a conclusion just by watching the video and blaming all the fault on the evil cop for gunning down an innocent person running away, you couldn't have a more elementary level of thought.
You guys forget to see the world from the shoes of a policeman. Even when they are just patrolling on their cruiser or out for lunch during their breaks, policemen are in constant anxiety and pressure whenever they walk around in their uniform because they are a potential target for gang members, crazy people, etc. especially if they are part of departments that work around large cities, metropolitan areas, or low-income neighborhoods. So it's really important that you don't do anything that suggests any kind of aggressive behavior in any kind of way. If they have any reason to suspect that you could hurt or kill them, they are going to be a hair away from pulling the trigger from their own guns, and they are trained over and over again to do this in order to protect themselves and the general public. So it's really cynical to assume that all policemen are out to "get" you. Most policemen are just people trying to do their job faithfully and they definitely are not interested in killing somebody at whatever chance they get. So the best thing is really (1) don't do stupid things that attract the attention of the police in the first place and (2) follow all orders from the police if you end up encountering one. It's not that hard to be a law-abiding citizen..
I'm pushing 30, and I still say 'fuck the police' as a general rule. Some are great, most are fine, and some are malevolent assholes who take pleasure in causing others pain. Just like any normal sample of people, except here the assholes carry guns and have their aggression sanctioned by the state.
I don't know what happened in this case, but it looks bad when a cop is pumping rounds into a drunk kid while he is face down on the pavement.
Not to demonize all cops, but to blindly trust them, all the time, is stupid. Especially if you're a minority in LA.
And here I was thinking a police member is supposed to give up his own life in defense of the law if necessary. You are not supposed to shoot at them with the intent to kill unless they have already tried to kill you. Better to be a dead police officer and not have broke the law than be a living one who shot an innocent thinking he was a threat.
Hell no, everyone for themselves. Nobody in this time in usa will ever die for an idea, not for justice, not for righteousness, and especially not for law.
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.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
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..
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
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.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
Btw jerk face. This is in the youtube video linked in the main page of the thread.
"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."
So according to the evidence I was presented with, I actually forgot to mention a shot.
According to the link in the OP, the reason the kid was shot while he was down was because he was laying on his stomach, writhing around (he had been shot 3 times at this point), and cursing the officer. The officer told him to 'let me see your hands', and shot him again when he failed to comply, fearing that he was reaching for his gun in his waistband.
This doesn't add up. The officer claims the kid fired at him before running, and while running. He then later claims that he shot him on the ground because he was reaching for his gun in his waistband. That would mean that this kid, after running and being shot 3 times, placed his gun back into his waistband before collapsing on his stomach. I definitely don't believe that.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
You are the definition of a negative nancy. Enjoy that.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
You are the definition of a negative nancy. Enjoy that.
If "negative nancy" means I don't believe everything I'm told by youtube, I think I'm quite happy with that.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
You are the definition of a negative nancy. Enjoy that.
If "negative nancy" means I don't believe everything I'm told by youtube, I think I'm quite happy with that.
Yeah man, sorry that I went off what was written on the video in the main page of the OP. I'm like, soooooooooooooo sorry master reedjr. Next time I'll be sure to read everything before I reply with a statement that was correct based off of what I saw.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
You are the definition of a negative nancy. Enjoy that.
If "negative nancy" means I don't believe everything I'm told by youtube, I think I'm quite happy with that.
Yeah man, sorry that I went off what was written on the video in the main page of the OP. I'm like, soooooooooooooo sorry master reedjr. Next time I'll be sure to read everything before I reply with a statement that was correct based off of what I saw.
(negative nancy)
Bro. Facts are important. You got them wrong, and you got called out for it. Don't get all hurt just because you were wrong. Your point's still partially valid - was the deputy wrong to fire upon Cuevas after he was on the ground? But you should make yourself aware of the circumstances first.
Here's another thing : all but one of the shots were in the guys back. You can see on the video the cop shoots the guy TWICE when he's down. So one of those shots was in the guy's back, while he's already shot 4 times and on the ground.
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.
Dude. The cop shot the guy 6 times and he was down. The cop then walks up probably 3-4 meters and shoots him twice in the head.
Are you out of your mind? Don't think he should be suspended? He should be on trial for murder.
You literally doubled the number of gunshot wounds mentioned in the autopsy. At no point was he ever shot in the head. Look at the facts next time.
I'm going off what I heard yesterday. How about you relax a little buddy? Does this take anything away from the fact that the cop runs up 3-4 meters and shoots the guy again? Nope!
It proves that instead of making yourself more knowledgeable about the situation, you'd rather just go with your gut and make absurdly incorrect statements. Did you even bother reading the official statement linked in the OP?
You are the definition of a negative nancy. Enjoy that.
If "negative nancy" means I don't believe everything I'm told by youtube, I think I'm quite happy with that.
Yeah man, sorry that I went off what was written on the video in the main page of the OP. I'm like, soooooooooooooo sorry master reedjr. Next time I'll be sure to read everything before I reply with a statement that was correct based off of what I saw.
(negative nancy)
Bro. Facts are important. You got them wrong, and you got called out for it. Don't get all hurt just because you were wrong. Your point's still partially valid - was the deputy wrong to fire upon Cuevas after he was on the ground? But you should make yourself aware of the circumstances first.
Dude, I went off the video on the main page of this thread. I have no problem with being wrong, the number of shots have nothing to do with what I'm concerned about anyway. Which is him going up to him and shooting him again after he was on the ground likely dying.
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.
he was drunk and wasn't even walking straight, I can imagine a LOT of people would start running if the police/stranger shouting and telling you to stop, especially once you see him pulling his gun out and start shooting at you
No most people don't try to run and pull a gun when a cop pulls over next to them. Your imagination must match the magnitude of your ignorance and exceed your ability to reason. Being drunk doesn't mean it's alright to do stupid shit like run from the police. I'd love to see the asshole above me who calls officers pigs try to live in a world without any. People are so fucking ungrateful for police that put their lives on the line everyday to protect lawful citizens that it makes me sick.
Really? Just a warning? I remember when this forum was moderated competently...
User was temp banned for this post.
That hilariously backfired :D Martyring like a boss lol
Anyway, it is suspicious there were no fingerprints on the gun. There are really only two conclusions, there was a gun at the scene and the cop did what was right or the gun was planted and the cop overreacted, panicked and realized he best plant a gun. First seems more likely.
That report in the OP is fucked up. Kid lying on ground, shot 3 times, cop screaming at him to 'show his hands', then shooting him in the back, AGAIN, when he fails to comply.
Hmm, maybe being shot 3 times made it difficult to comply?
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.
he was drunk and wasn't even walking straight, I can imagine a LOT of people would start running if the police/stranger shouting and telling you to stop, especially once you see him pulling his gun out and start shooting at you
No most people don't try to run and pull a gun when a cop pulls over next to them. Your imagination must match the magnitude of your ignorance and exceed your ability to reason. Being drunk doesn't mean it's alright to do stupid shit like run from the police. I'd love to see the asshole above me who calls officers pigs try to live in a world without any. People are so fucking ungrateful for police that put their lives on the line everyday to protect lawful citizens that it makes me sick.
On February 17 2013 14:02 NotYetAWoman wrote:
User was warned for this post
Really? Just a warning? I remember when this forum was moderated competently...
User was temp banned for this post.
That hilariously backfired :D Martyring like a boss lol
Anyway, it is suspicious there were no fingerprints on the gun. There are really only two conclusions, there was a gun at the scene and the cop did what was right or the gun was planted and the cop overreacted, panicked and realized he best plant a gun. First seems more likely.
There are certainly other options that aren't so black and white.
Moral of the story: If you don't do stupid shit that is illegal (for good reason) in the first place, you won't have to run from the police and end up getting shot.
Any news on how many warrents were already out for this guy? I'm guessing at least 2 and multiple arrests/convictions.
Also, the articles have made it clear that the guy had a gun on him, and that the officer saw it before he fired anything.
Me and 4 of my buddies got pulled over for Jaywalking once exactly like this. Not a single one of us thought that running the fuck away was a good idea.
Some people actually do deserve what they get, a lot of people with rose colored glasses on here.
On February 18 2013 03:14 Figgy wrote: Moral of the story: If you don't do stupid shit that is illegal (for good reason) in the first place, you won't have to run from the police and end up getting shot.
Any news on how many warrents were already out for this guy? I'm guessing at least 2 and multiple arrests/convictions.
Also, the articles have made it clear that the guy had a gun on him, and that the officer saw it before he fired anything.
Me and 4 of my buddies got pulled over for Jaywalking once exactly like this. Not a single one of us thought that fucking running away was a good idea.
Some people actually do deserve what they get, a lot of people with rose colored glasses on here.
On February 18 2013 03:14 Figgy wrote: Moral of the story: If you don't do stupid shit that is illegal (for good reason) in the first place, you won't have to run from the police and end up getting shot.
Any news on how many warrents were already out for this guy? I'm guessing at least 2 and multiple arrests/convictions.
Also, the articles have made it clear that the guy had a gun on him, and that the officer saw it before he fired anything.
Me and 4 of my buddies got pulled over for Jaywalking once exactly like this. Not a single one of us thought that fucking running away was a good idea.
Some people actually do deserve what they get, a lot of people with rose colored glasses on here.
I'm guessing you're not a Latino who lives in LA.
So you're saying all the latinos are dealing in drugs/murder or the police are all horribly racist?
Both of those statements are pretty terrible to make.
This thread really brings out some emotional responses driven by gut reaction more than "all things considered" reason. It's understandable but sort of prohibitive to having a decent discussion.
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.
On February 18 2013 03:14 Figgy wrote: Moral of the story: If you don't do stupid shit that is illegal (for good reason) in the first place, you won't have to run from the police and end up getting shot.
Any news on how many warrents were already out for this guy? I'm guessing at least 2 and multiple arrests/convictions.
Also, the articles have made it clear that the guy had a gun on him, and that the officer saw it before he fired anything.
Me and 4 of my buddies got pulled over for Jaywalking once exactly like this. Not a single one of us thought that fucking running away was a good idea.
Some people actually do deserve what they get, a lot of people with rose colored glasses on here.
I'm guessing you're not a Latino who lives in LA.
So you're saying all the latinos are dealing in drugs/murder or the police are all horribly racist?
Both of those statements are pretty terrible to make.
I didn't say either of those things, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
What I'm saying is this: The kids involved in this incident live in a totally different world than you do. Their circumstances, options, and choices are things that you can't really understand. I'm not implying you are automatically blameless simply by being a minority in LA, or even that these kids specifically didn't act poorly. Still, their unique circumstances make your snap judgements and assumptions about their character quite unfair.
Also, by assuming that this guy has multiple 'warrents' and arrests and convictions based on the information at hand, you come across as slightly racist.
Anyway, it is suspicious there were no fingerprints on the gun. There are really only two conclusions, there was a gun at the scene and the cop did what was right or the gun was planted and the cop overreacted, panicked and realized he best plant a gun. First seems more likely.
If the gun was planted, the second deputy would have had to be in on it as well, the odds of which seem unlikely.
That report in the OP is fucked up. Kid lying on ground, shot 3 times, cop screaming at him to 'show his hands', then shooting him in the back, AGAIN, when he fails to comply.
Hmm, maybe being shot 3 times made it difficult to comply?
Yeah, this part is really fishy, which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that Deputy Jove's statement is being treated as fact by the investigators when it doesn't seem to add up.
Shooting at a fleeing "suspect" who is armed and not complying with instructions - we'll accept that for now. But according to his own statement and as shown in the video, Deputy Jove ran up to Cuevas, on the ground at this point, and was standing over him. At this point, he had already fired three rounds, at least one of which had struck Cuevas, and at least one of which was fatal. ("fatal" in the report seems to imply that even with medical treatment, Cuevas would have died.) So at this point, Cuevas is already a dead man.
Here's what doesn't add up:
Deputy Jove sees the gun. In the report, it says he did not go for it because it would leave him exposed to Campos and Villa. However, at the time when Deputy Jove was confronting Cuevas on the ground, Deputy Levang had already arrived on site. So what was going on here?
Second question. The first three shots were at a running Cuevas; the last three shots were at Cuevas while on the ground. Jove justifies the last three by saying Cuevas did not move his hands above his head, instead rolling around and moving his hands "for the gun". But it seems odd to expect a man who has just sustained at least one lethal gunshot wound to not move on the ground and not try to examine it with his hands.
Third question. Jove fired three shots while Cuevas was on the ground but believed only one of them hit. Seriously? A deputy trained in the use of firearms, standing over a person on the ground, only hit his target once out of three shots?
Fourth question. After the sixth shot, four of which connected with Cuevas, his only reaction was "Alright already, alright"? Was he in so much pain that the final shots didn't register to him, or did he just shrug it off, like "oh alright, ya got me"?
EDIT: The report is rather vague about when exactly Deputy Levang arrived. When he arrived, Cuevas was already on the ground, Jove was still shouting at him, and Cuevas still had a gun. But was this before Jove's last three shots or after?
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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"
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?
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
We're not talking about a perfect match here. They didn't even find any partials.
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.
1) yes he did admit to it. before he was 6 under
2) under the assumption that he was just carrying and just running away-- maybe. If that isn't entirely accurate, which very well may be the case here, then not necessarily
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.
We're not talking about a perfect match here. They didn't even find any partials.
Focus your attention now to the fact that 2 people on the scene other than the cop mentioned there being a gun.
Consider that there being no prints on the gun may not be sufficient to contradict the other observations. Consider that it may be possible to be in possession of a gun without printing it up
. 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.
If the gun was planted, the second deputy would have had to be in on it as well, the odds of which seem unlikely.
Yeah totally, a cop would never cover for another cop. That's absurd! It's not like there's this huge blue line, where they all protect each other and lie for each other constantly.
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.
1) yes he did admit to it. before he was 6 under
2) under the assumption that he was just carrying and just running away-- maybe. If that isn't entirely accurate, which very well may be the case here, then not necessarily
Can you point me to where Cuevas admits to it? All I see from the police report is him yelling "FUCK YOU YOU SHOT ME" and then "alright, alright" after he had been shot for the fourth time.
I did read the article and things simply don't add up. If he pulled a gun in the very beginning, which is what prompted the first shot before he started to run, why was he still reaching for it after? Why, did the officer not keep his distance if he feared for his life and got extremely close to him when he was on the ground, which would give the suspect an easy shot?...I could ask more, but the point is that the officers story doesn't make sense to me.
"Regardless of whether Jove was in the right, it behoovs us to remember that the penalty for carrying a gun, even illegally, should not be death. And a man who has been shot multiple times would tend to move around a lot."
im on my iPhone so I can't easily find the DA report
look around in the thread I'm sure it's been linked. If not check page ~10-12ish of the other thread on this that got closed for being sensational- "LAPD cleared..." Something like that
On February 18 2013 04:15 FallDownMarigold wrote: im on my iPhone so I can't easily find the DA report
look around in the thread I'm sure it's been linked. If not check page ~10-12ish of the other thread on this that got closed for being sensational- "LAPD cleared..." Something like that
keep looking. I said DA report meaning to refer to the whole thing, not one excerpt copy pasted into a TL post. There is a link to the whole original document
On February 18 2013 04:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: no. That's 1 section of it
keep looking. I said DA report meaning to refer to the whole thing, not one excerpt copy pasted into a TL post. There is a link to the whole original document
I thought you were talking about another document or something. I've read the factual analysis sections and testimonies a few times already and still haven't seen anything about Cuevas admitting anything besides getting shot. The only other witness besides the cop who even mentions Cuevas having a gun is Villa.
On February 18 2013 04:33 TirramirooO wrote: I crush a ZIP and i almost cry and that 20 years old dude with 3 shoots in the back was going to shoot the police officer. Nice try but NOOOOOOO.
THIS IS HILARIOUS. Keep it coming.
PEW PEW PEW. America "Land of The Opportunity and all of that shit"
"guy in the ground ??? I HAVE TO SHOOT HIM. 3 Shoots dont do nothing to him.. HE'S IRON MAN
Forget everything I've posted in this thread, this dude gets it. Poetry imo.
On February 18 2013 04:33 TirramirooO wrote: I crush a ZIP and i almost cry and that 20 years old dude with 3 shoots in the back was going to shoot the police officer. Nice try but NOOOOOOO.
THIS IS HILARIOUS. Keep it coming.
PEW PEW PEW. America "Land of The Opportunity and all of that shit"
"guy in the ground ??? I HAVE TO SHOOT HIM. 3 Shoots dont do nothing to him.. HE'S IRON MAN
Come back when you have something mature and thoughtful to add. Get your emotions in check before coming into a thread like this. Sheesh
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?
American citizens insist on being able to carry around huge amount of fire power, so obviously the party responsible of policing the citizens need to be at least equally armed. As long as owning an AK-47 is a human right, police needs to be able to respond in kind. If you want less police shootings, that's where you need to start.
On February 18 2013 04:33 FallDownMarigold wrote: He admits:
"Alright I got a gun I got a gun"
According to witness Villa. I suppose we may argue whether or not Villa is a liar
We could I guess, given that that quote is not in the main section for whatever reason, but that's beyond the point. The real issue at hand is whether the officer used an appropriate amount of force. And I guess given that the video is grainy as fuck, people will just interpret this sequence of events differently depending on how much they like/dislike the police.
On February 18 2013 04:37 TirramirooO wrote: Listen dude's go check the video again please.. And if your a cop please dont be biases. Just all i have to say..
Listen go read the DA report. Listen you aren't a video analysis expert. Listen the ones judging this incident require more than low quality surveillance footage.
On February 18 2013 04:33 FallDownMarigold wrote: He admits:
"Alright I got a gun I got a gun"
According to witness Villa. I suppose we may argue whether or not Villa is a liar
We could I guess, given that that quote is not in the main section for whatever reason, but that's beyond the point. The real issue at hand is whether the officer used an appropriate amount of force. And I guess given that the video is grainy as fuck, people will just interpret this sequence of events differently depending on how much they like/dislike the police.
Bingo.
And then don't forget about the ones who couldn't care less about liking/disliking police. Some just care about coming to or looking for the most parsimonious and reasonable conclusion while trying to fight off emotional urges
I have a brother police officer dude, and i have to say that they abuse the authoraty given to them... Im NOT saying ALL the police officers but most. People who disagree with this are just blind :| ALL OVER THE WORLD.
On February 18 2013 04:48 TirramirooO wrote: DUDE CHECK THE FKING VIDEO. THE GUY RUN AS FAST AS BOLT. Are you dumb or what? and in the ground the police officer PEW PEW PEW
really? okay first of all this is not a way to talk to anyone on the forums. im pretty sure hes seen the video since hes posting in this thread. if your going to argue something at leas make points.
That report in the OP is fucked up. Kid lying on ground, shot 3 times, cop screaming at him to 'show his hands', then shooting him in the back, AGAIN, when he fails to comply.
Hmm, maybe being shot 3 times made it difficult to comply?
Yeah, this part is really fishy, which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that Deputy Jove's statement is being treated as fact by the investigators when it doesn't seem to add up.
Shooting at a fleeing "suspect" who is armed and not complying with instructions - we'll accept that for now. But according to his own statement and as shown in the video, Deputy Jove ran up to Cuevas, on the ground at this point, and was standing over him. At this point, he had already fired three rounds, at least one of which had struck Cuevas, and at least one of which was fatal. ("fatal" in the report seems to imply that even with medical treatment, Cuevas would have died.) So at this point, Cuevas is already a dead man.
Here's what doesn't add up:
Deputy Jove sees the gun. In the report, it says he did not go for it because it would leave him exposed to Campos and Villa. However, at the time when Deputy Jove was confronting Cuevas on the ground, Deputy Levang had already arrived on site. So what was going on here?
Second question. The first three shots were at a running Cuevas; the last three shots were at Cuevas while on the ground. Jove justifies the last three by saying Cuevas did not move his hands above his head, instead rolling around and moving his hands "for the gun". But it seems odd to expect a man who has just sustained at least one lethal gunshot wound to not move on the ground and not try to examine it with his hands.
Third question. Jove fired three shots while Cuevas was on the ground but believed only one of them hit. Seriously? A deputy trained in the use of firearms, standing over a person on the ground, only hit his target once out of three shots?
Fourth question. After the sixth shot, four of which connected with Cuevas, his only reaction was "Alright already, alright"? Was he in so much pain that the final shots didn't register to him, or did he just shrug it off, like "oh alright, ya got me"?
EDIT: The report is rather vague about when exactly Deputy Levang arrived. When he arrived, Cuevas was already on the ground, Jove was still shouting at him, and Cuevas still had a gun. But was this before Jove's last three shots or after?
You Sir make a lot of sense. Thanks for that.
The combination of "I didn't think I hit him and that's why I shot again" and "I was able to catch up and shoot him from point blank" doesn't make any sense at all. If he didn't hit him it's highly unlikely that he throws himself to the ground trying to pull his gun and shoot back. If he did hit him he has to assume that the suspect isn't complying because he is in pain.
"Rolling around trying to move your hands for the gun" isn't something someone who wants to shoot you in the face does. If he wanted to do that he would either do it while running or he was trying to defend his life against an over excessive threat.
This whole case basically rests on reasonable doubt because you can't say a 100% sure that the suspect did not try to reach for a gun and fire back. Sad as hell if you ask me that it's made this easy to take another life.
That report in the OP is fucked up. Kid lying on ground, shot 3 times, cop screaming at him to 'show his hands', then shooting him in the back, AGAIN, when he fails to comply.
Hmm, maybe being shot 3 times made it difficult to comply?
Yeah, this part is really fishy, which is why I think it's absolutely absurd that Deputy Jove's statement is being treated as fact by the investigators when it doesn't seem to add up.
Shooting at a fleeing "suspect" who is armed and not complying with instructions - we'll accept that for now. But according to his own statement and as shown in the video, Deputy Jove ran up to Cuevas, on the ground at this point, and was standing over him. At this point, he had already fired three rounds, at least one of which had struck Cuevas, and at least one of which was fatal. ("fatal" in the report seems to imply that even with medical treatment, Cuevas would have died.) So at this point, Cuevas is already a dead man.
Here's what doesn't add up:
Deputy Jove sees the gun. In the report, it says he did not go for it because it would leave him exposed to Campos and Villa. However, at the time when Deputy Jove was confronting Cuevas on the ground, Deputy Levang had already arrived on site. So what was going on here?
Second question. The first three shots were at a running Cuevas; the last three shots were at Cuevas while on the ground. Jove justifies the last three by saying Cuevas did not move his hands above his head, instead rolling around and moving his hands "for the gun". But it seems odd to expect a man who has just sustained at least one lethal gunshot wound to not move on the ground and not try to examine it with his hands.
Third question. Jove fired three shots while Cuevas was on the ground but believed only one of them hit. Seriously? A deputy trained in the use of firearms, standing over a person on the ground, only hit his target once out of three shots?
Fourth question. After the sixth shot, four of which connected with Cuevas, his only reaction was "Alright already, alright"? Was he in so much pain that the final shots didn't register to him, or did he just shrug it off, like "oh alright, ya got me"?
EDIT: The report is rather vague about when exactly Deputy Levang arrived. When he arrived, Cuevas was already on the ground, Jove was still shouting at him, and Cuevas still had a gun. But was this before Jove's last three shots or after?
You Sir make a lot of sense. Thanks for that.
The combination of "I didn't think I hit him and that's why I shot again" and "I was able to catch up and shoot him from point blank" doesn't make any sense at all. If he didn't hit him it's highly unlikely that he throws himself to the ground trying to pull his gun and shoot back. If he did hit him he has to assume that the suspect isn't complying because he is in pain.
"Rolling around trying to move your hands for the gun" isn't something someone who wants to shoot you in the face does. If he wanted to do that he would either do it while running or he was trying to defend his life against an over excessive threat.
This whole case basically rests on reasonable doubt because you can't say a 100% sure that the suspect did not try to reach for a gun and fire back. Sad as hell if you ask me that it's made this easy to take another life.
What makes me wonder is why they to prove he did not attempt to reach rather than prove that he did. The cop(or his department) who executed this guy should have the burden of proof on this. It makes me wonder if outfitting cops with those cameras that mall cop uses would help solve cases like this or if the footage would just be "corrupted" in these cases.
No prints on the gun with the victim being gloveless goes against that statement if anything.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn.
I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
Even partials?
For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand.
right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion)
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun.
?
Said it may be possible that one might handle a gun or object without leaving prints on it
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun.
?
Said it may be possible that one might handle a gun or object without leaving prints on it
Handle? Let's steer clear of semantics here. The report clearly says the suspect pulled a gun. Pull, not handle.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun.
The report isn't consistent. It says the suspect 'pulled a handgun from his waistband', which we assume means he pulled the gun out. However, when the gun is recovered by another deputy at the scene, its still in the suspect's waistband.
The report says he pulled the gun out, and then turned and walked away with his back to the officer. The officer shoots him from this position, so we assume that the suspect still has the gun in his hand to present an immediate threat. After he's shot, he starts to run and is shot at two more times (at least 1 bullet hit, maybe all 3). He falls to his stomach, and the officer claims that the gun was back in his waistband at this point.
That means that after being shot, and while running away from the officer, he took the time to put the pistol back in his waistband. We also have no way of knowing if he ever truly pulled it, or if he did, when.
The official report says the suspect pulls a gun from his waistband, and then all subsequent references to the weapon suggest it is still in the waistband. Since it is possible to pull on something and not actually remove it, it simply seems like a poor word choice, not a definitive drawing of the weapon.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand.
right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion)
The problem is exactly that. How is it clear that the cop thought suspect was drawing a gun? It would be reasonable if there were prints on the weapon, or if there was some form of altercation. All we have is the suspect dashing away. Otherwise, it is simply based on the officer's testimony. That leaves for a very dangerous precedent.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially.
This is not a definitive fact. There may be cases when no prints no gloves = gun handled
Read the official report.
Suspect draws gun. Runs with gun in hand.
right because reports are always 100 percent representations of what actually happened. i think its clear the cop thought the suspect was drawing a gun. whether he did or not isnt clear(at least in my opinion)
The problem is exactly that. How is it clear that the cop thought suspect was drawing a gun? It would be reasonable if there were prints on the weapon, or if there was some form of altercation. All we have is the suspect dashing away. Otherwise, it is simply based on the officer's testimony. That leaves for a very dangerous precedent.
im not saying the officer was right im saying he possibly saw something he interpreted as a threat or improperly catastrophized the situation in his head and reacted regardless of how legitimate that threat was, like the time the guy was shot at 42 times for pulling out his wallet. split second reactions can often be based on incorrect assumptions. (at least in my opinion. guiess i should have originally used i think instead of sayin that it was clear because of the connotations.) Im not saying we should instantly accept the officers account but that we shouldn't instantly assume he shot the guy cause he randomly felt like it.
note him thinking the guy is drawing a gun does not instantly equal the guy drawing a gun or even making any movements that look like it. also I'm not trying to excuse the cop from responsibility. its possible the cop wanted to fire his gun and that influenced him to make a completely unreasonable assumption. its also possible that the cop did in fact shoot the guy randomly but i think thats a relatively low possibility at least considering I don't know anything about the officer in question.
srry if this is long I just dont intend on staying int this thread cause i have stuff to do and i wanted to be clear. feel free to disagree with anythign i said.
guess i should mention i didnt actually watch the video and most of my thoughts are based on op and discussion in the thread.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn.
I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
Even partials?
For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired.
Actually the 3 shots when he's on the ground isn't fishy as i've gone over this before police train to fire in vollys 3-5 rounds in the center of mass every time they decide to shoot. If the officer tells the truth he guy was reaching for his waist band after the suspected already flashed a gun, any officer would take that as he's pulling the gun to shoot in which case you again shoot 3-5 rounds at the suspect. I only see 2 decisions to shoot being made, one when he ran and one when he was on the ground. The one of the ground is actually less controversial to me then shoot the fleeing suspect, although if the gun is presented to the officer and the suspect flees how do you respond to that? Do you give chase knowing at any time he could fire at you and risk that or do you shout the commands to stop and get on the floor with hands visible and shoot if he doesn't comply. 2nd one is safer for the officer but the 1st one is just better for everyone else in case the officer was mistaken.
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
That still does not support the claim that he had his gun drawn.
I don't know why the cops own account holds for anything in court, it is quite obvious what motive he would have for perjury.
On February 18 2013 05:36 plogamer wrote:
On February 18 2013 05:29 farvacola wrote:
On February 18 2013 05:25 plogamer wrote:
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
@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
No prints, no gloves = no gun drawn, even partially. Having a gun alone does not make you a cop-shooter. The official report does also not show that the gun was illegally possessed.. There is a reason the official report clearly spells out how the gun was drawn, etc. The real issue is whether the gun was indeed drawn as the official report claimed.
To bring up an irrelevant topic, and thus effectively ignoring the primary issue, is the very definition of 'cherry picking'.
Fingerprint transference is never 100%. In other words, it is very possible for someone to draw a gun with bare hands and leave no fingerprints, just as it is possible to shoot someone point blank range in the head and have them survive.
Even partials?
For nothing to be left at all on the object is very rare if you are bare handed, even more so if your hands might be dirty. Something tells me this guy was not squeaky clean as he was stumbling home after a night drinking. The gun being free from prints is really fucking fishy, and so are the 3 execution shots fired.
Actually the 3 shots when he's on the ground isn't fishy as i've gone over this before police train to fire in vollys 3-5 rounds in the center of mass every time they decide to shoot. If the officer tells the truth he guy was reaching for his waist band after the suspected already flashed a gun, any officer would take that as he's pulling the gun to shoot in which case you again shoot 3-5 rounds at the suspect. I only see 2 decisions to shoot being made, one when he ran and one when he was on the ground. The one of the ground is actually less controversial to me then shoot the fleeing suspect, although if the gun is presented to the officer and the suspect flees how do you respond to that? Do you give chase knowing at any time he could fire at you and risk that or do you shout the commands to stop and get on the floor with hands visible and shoot if he doesn't comply. 2nd one is safer for the officer but the 1st one is just better for everyone else in case the officer was mistaken.
How about the part where he supposedly misses the first two shots from point-blank? Keep in mind this means that he shot him 3 times prior to the suspect going down, given that the suspect was shot 4 times.
Suspect has a gun, suspect pulls gun, suspect runs, Cop kills suspect. I like this narrative better than the one where the cops wait for the guy to start using innocent civilians as human shields because he really doesn't want to get caught.
Don't be stupid when the cops are involved and I doubt you'll have any problems.
On February 18 2013 06:00 Reedjr wrote: The official report says the suspect pulls a gun from his waistband, and then all subsequent references to the weapon suggest it is still in the waistband. Since it is possible to pull on something and not actually remove it, it simply seems like a poor word choice, not a definitive drawing of the weapon.
When you lodge an official report (especially with some kind of public office), you don't just leave things to "poor word choice". So much of this story reeks of inconsistency and cover-up that it's just sad.
True.
thats what it is like to live in a police state
I find this case to be incredibly telling about American society for a number of reasons. Perfect example; so many people in the U.S. brag about us being "the land of the free", and yet we consistently get jokes from Europeans about being a police state.
I find this case to be incredibly telling about American society for a number of reasons. Perfect example; so many people in the U.S. brag about us being "the land of the free", and yet we consistently get jokes from Europeans about being a police state.
I'm going to be blunt here. People like that tend to say that, more out of jealousy than anything else. The U.S. has the most personal freedoms of any modern state, the least taxation, the most autonomy etc. Most people who are cynical of this point ( (in the U.S. and out of the U.S.) to random occurences that mean very little in the grand scheme of U.S. domestic affairs and say that the U.S. is a police state. I'm not going to say that our police system is perfect, it isn't, but we have some of the most transparency, least corruption, and general admiration of the justice system in the U.S. It is ironic because I see a lot of people say such things from countries that rank much lower than us on the Transparency int'l page for transparency; the same goes for all the other statistics they have that the U.S. generally ranks much higher than those critics would have you believe. Clicky. It other perpetuating stereotypes that make other people feel better more than something immensely telling about outside perceptions.
Secondly, I just wanted to chime in, it seems that a lot of the people in here are suffering from CSI syndrome. Asking for prints, DNA evidence, etc. is all way out there. That is not how most of this works. In general, the cop was against a known gang member, who was drunk. Since he was latino in LA, we can reasonably believe that drugs may have been involved (most latino gangs deal in drugs from other latino countries as distributors) and to top that off, he was armed and dangerous. The policeman made the reasonable decision that, when this guy who cannot be trusted to obey the law chose to disobey the orders of an officer, the situation needed to be terminated before it really escalated. We can argue about the execution shots, but to be honest here, this guy wasn't a stand up dude or even a guy who was innocent of breaking the law (he was already carrying a concealed weapon + public drunkenness/indecency) and the policeman cannot be expected to not act in a human manner to protect his own life. When this guy chose to disobey the officer in this situation, he chose to escalate the situation, not the officer.
Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
That is not how most of this works. In general, the cop was against a known gang member, who was drunk.
Cuevas's blood tested positive for meth and marijuana, but I don't see any mention of alcohol. Also, the only mention of anything gang-related is of Ernie Ray Campos flashing gang signs in the street. Campos later stated that he did not know Cuevas. Note that Cuevas was not the one who attracted Jove's attention in the first place.
Since he was latino in LA, we can reasonably believe that drugs may have been involved (most latino gangs deal in drugs from other latino countries as distributors) and to top that off, he was armed and dangerous.
This is not a reasonable conclusion at all. Racial profiling may have its uses in some circumstances, but it certainly shouldn't have played a role in Jove's decision to use lethal force.
We can argue about the execution shots, but to be honest here, this guy wasn't a stand up dude or even a guy who was innocent of breaking the law (he was already carrying a concealed weapon + public drunkenness/indecency) and the policeman cannot be expected to not act in a human manner to protect his own life.
Carrying a concealed weapon does not warrant capital punishment in USA. The first three shots fired by Deputy Jove might be justified as self defence, but the last three? While standing over an already fatally wounded Cuevas, bleeding out on the pavement?
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
You should really be careful with statements like this. The problem with people talking about "America" is that we are effectively 50 different little countries (plus one territory) all with our own idiosyncrasies. We have people who are more politically liberal and in line with actual world progress on civil issues, and we have people who are stuck ideologically in the 19th century. The beauty of the U.S. system is that change can happen from the ground up. If California legalizes something, the federal government won't mess it up unless it's considered unconstitutional.
And state politics arise from local and regional politics, where urban centers tend to have more political influence. The problems with American politics are the same as the problems with politics everywhere -- the power of power. Corruption for fiscal, influential, and other reasons are existent all over the world, and the U.S. is no different. But you can still find a reasonable person, provide a reasonable statement about why something should be done, and get it done, on the local level. Getting everyone else in the country to think the same way that you do is the hard part, and even if you do that you have to deal with inflated minorities based on who gives a damn about voting.
Very few people vote for the most significant political positions for them, their local offices. And then they complain when state politicians are supported by the local ones, who may not represent their district''s actual interests.
tl;dr There are intelligent people everywhere, and unintelligent people, too. The USA is an incredibly diverse country and one of the few on Earth where you can truly achieve greatness exclusively by your own hand, and influence those around you in a positive manner (if you so choose) while doing it. But mediocrity is not rewarded, and those in power will retain their power so long as nobody does anything about it Regardless of how much they do or do not deserve it.
AND:
Same-sex marriage in Vermont began on September 1, 2009. Vermont was the first state to introduce civil unions in July 2000, and the first state to introduce same-sex marriage by enacting a statute without being required to do so by a court decision.
On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in December 2005 and allows same-sex couples in England and Wales to register their partnership. The government stressed during the passage of the bill that it is not same-sex marriage, and some same-sex rights activists have criticized the act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation are exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. The press is widely referring to these unions as "gay marriage.".[32] A bill allowing same-sex marriage is currently before Parliament, having passed its second reading on 5 February 2013.
Straight from Wikipedia. I lived there when it happened. Take that, slow as hell UK legislators for taking so long to give gays the right to marry. You're about 4 years late. + Show Spoiler +
---------------------------------------
EDIT: on topic
I watched the video. Looks like a gangbanger getting shot because he ran, maybe he had a gun, if he did I understand the cop's actions. With one exception. The initial shots are perfectly logical, the shots over the man who is on the ground and unmoving are just execution shots. The officer probably has ties to someone who wanted a message sent or that gang shut down. LAPD is just a gang that happens to do good for the most part, though obviously there are many well-intentioned officers within the force.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
And our prison system is retarded because it forces people back into the system instead of rehabilitating them. But prison policy isn't gonna change for a long time. In the mean time, decriminalizing marijuana will stop a portion of the next generation of prison inmates from going down that road, and hopefully minor reforms will stack up until you don't have cases of people going to jail for a stupid decision and then becoming full on drug addicts and felons later on down the road because of the people they met and experiences they had.
But our prison system engendering bad stuff doesn't mean we're preventing people from moving around, doing what they want (within reason in a civilized world) and giving them the freedom to leave if they don't like it here.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
You have a fair point about the ridiculous incarceration rate for USA, but at the very least, can we just agree that the prison situation in America is not as bad as it is in North Korea? First, like you say, there aren't any exact numbers for their prisons. Not to mention concentration camps for political dissidents and their families. And no, you don't need a certain level of prosperity to put people in prison. You just need a certain level of prosperity to put people in prison and keep them alive, something that the North Koreans don't really put much effort into.
Still, returning to my initial point. Dismissing any criticism from Europeans about the US with "jealous of our freedoms. USA! USA! USA!" is pretty retarded, the United States is certainly a good country in many ways but it is certainly not the most free and there is certainly not any great jealousy towards it.
Hey now Kwark, we're 'free' from the tyranny of same sex marriage. Or at least that's what half of our government is telling us (until the rest of the old people die off.)
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Here is one article from 2009 that claims:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
You honestly think Kwark is comparing raw numbers and not percentages? If you know anything about how bad our country's prison problem is you would know he would HAVE to be talking about percentages. Plus Kwark usually puts together quality posts, even if people don't always agree with them.
Edit: We almost have as many kids in juvenile detention as they have inmates in prison.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Here is one article from 2009 that claims:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
You honestly think Kwark is comparing raw numbers and not percentages? If you know anything about how bad our country's prison problem is you would know he would HAVE to be talking about percentages. Plus Kwark usually puts together quality posts, even if people don't always agree with them.
Edit: We almost have as many kids in juvenile detention as they have inmates in prison.
Here is another interesting stat I found on per capita crime rates:
“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents)."
I also lol'd at how quickly you assume the infallibility of someone on the internet when so many assume guilt when law enforcement is involved.
One more: Total Crime Victims
U.K. = 26.4% (25% more than the United States) U.S. = 21.1%
People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
500% of what we do per capita obviously.
I mean jesus, do you think I'm not aware that the US has more people? Obviously I compared them per capita for the numbers to have meaning. Did you even check to see if it was per capita before you took the stupidest possible interpretation of my post and responded to it? If you'd checked the numbers yourself you'd have seen that you have 500% what we have (750ish per 100k vs 150ish per 100k) and therefore I couldn't possibly mean per capita. Do some research before you go "lol, but US has more people, dumbass". In pure numbers you imprison 25x what we do but that's a meaningless comparison unless you compensate for population which I already did for you so you wouldn't be so easily confused.
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Here is one article from 2009 that claims:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
You honestly think Kwark is comparing raw numbers and not percentages? If you know anything about how bad our country's prison problem is you would know he would HAVE to be talking about percentages. Plus Kwark usually puts together quality posts, even if people don't always agree with them.
Edit: We almost have as many kids in juvenile detention as they have inmates in prison.
Here is another interesting stat I found on per capita crime rates:
“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents)."
I also lol'd at how quickly you assume the infallibility of someone on the internet when so many assume guilt when law enforcement is involved.
He didn't say someone, he specifically named me as a quality poster who would not compare numbers without context. You should actually read the post you're responding to before you make random assertions that in no way relate to it.
Violent crimes are defined differently in different countries, it is the one of the stupidest mistakes imaginable to look at two numbers collected in completely different ways and attempt a direct comparison and then imagine you've proved a point. This is what you've done. "Violent crime" had a massive statistical jump under Labour when they broadened the definition of it, furthermore rates of reporting crime to the police have gone up while the people themselves report suffering less crime than at any time before. My comparison was of an absolute, number of incarcerated people, and was made per capita so it was theoretically idiotproof although somehow not youproof. Your number is meaningless because it was of a subjectively defined and differently counted statistic so you can write per capita as much as you like but it still doesn't mean shit.
You really need to learn to read and learn to numbers.
Some of the freedom assessments from multiple organization, although US scored quite high, but fails to achieve the level of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
However even as a NZ citizen, i always feel there are room for improvement. When some people criticise your country, don't blindy defend it, instead you should acknowledge some valid points, and push to improve it!
On February 18 2013 14:37 KwarK wrote: Er, no. The rest of the world doesn't think America has issues because we're all jealous of how much liberty you have. Your prison population is by far the highest in the world and you're the last and most reluctant to give any ground in civil liberties. Imperial Russia abolished serfdom before you guys got rid of slavery, the UK (probably your closest ideological neighbour) just legalised gay marriage before you guys even have civil partnerships on the table. Burying your head in the sand and just insisting everyone else is jealous of how awesome America is willful ignorance. Your people certainly aren't the most free, your government is one of the least transparent and no state has ever denied the freedom of more of its population than the US does.
I agree/am OK with everything except for the bolded stuff. Just because we have some problems and aren't up to the current standards does not make us the state that has denied the freedom of move of its population. WTF, North Korea at least. Complete overboard claim anyway.
NK's prison population is smaller than that of the United States. Sorry. Well, we don't have exact numbers because NK, but they couldn't afford to imprison as many people as you guys do. You need a certain level of prosperity before you can commit that amount of resources to denying the freedom of your people. You guys imprison 150% of what Russia does and 500% of what the UK does.
Pretty naive to compare plain numbers between the U.S (314million people according to the 2012 census). and the U.K. (64 million according to the World Bank in 2011). If you're going to take time out of your day to take a dump on how America does business, then you should at least use meaningful data. I'm curious what the violent crime rate per capita is between the two in addition to the incarceration rate per capita.
Here is one article from 2009 that claims:
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Thoughts? Sounds to me that, per capita, you're social experiments aren't as successful as you make them out to be.
You honestly think Kwark is comparing raw numbers and not percentages? If you know anything about how bad our country's prison problem is you would know he would HAVE to be talking about percentages. Plus Kwark usually puts together quality posts, even if people don't always agree with them.
Edit: We almost have as many kids in juvenile detention as they have inmates in prison.
Here is another interesting stat I found on per capita crime rates:
“In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents)."
I also lol'd at how quickly you assume the infallibility of someone on the internet when so many assume guilt when law enforcement is involved.
He didn't say someone, he specifically named me as a quality poster who would not compare numbers without context. You should actually read the post you're responding to before you make random assertions that in no way relate to it.
Violent crimes are defined differently in different countries, it is the one of the stupidest mistakes imaginable to look at two numbers collected in completely different ways and attempt a direct comparison and then imagine you've proved a point. This is what you've done. "Violent crime" had a massive statistical jump under Labour when they broadened the definition of it, furthermore rates of reporting crime to the police have gone up while the people themselves report suffering less crime than at any time before. My comparison was of an absolute, number of incarcerated people, and was made per capita so it was theoretically idiotproof although somehow not youproof. Your number is meaningless because it was of a subjectively defined and differently counted statistic so you can write per capita as much as you like but it still doesn't mean shit.
You really need to learn to read and learn to numbers.
The FBI's uniform Crime Report defines a violent crime as 1 of 4 offenses: Murder/Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault.
The British home office has a different definition of violent crime, obviously (good point btw). The definition includes all "crimes against a person," including simple assaults, robberies, and all 'sexual offenses.'
Comparing just those 4 areas (trying to do apples to apples here):
The U.S. had 403 incidents per 100,000 people. (2010)
The U.K. had 776 incidents per 100,000 people. (2010)
You're a smart guy Kwark, a lot smarter than I am for sure. Maybe the U.K. has a different definition for Murder/Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault? I'm just seeing a whole lot of numbers indicating that most of the stuff you say is only half the story.
Edit: Also, on the incarceration rate. I was under the impression that drug offenses account for a huge percentage of the incarcerated individuals. It was also my impression that the U.S. is a lot stricter on drugs than most countries. I mean, if this is the case then you could argue that the U.S. is less free because the put more people in jail for drug offenses. But, is it really fair to compare incarceration rates when the sides aren't playing by the same set of rules regarding such things?
Seems pretty obvious that the incarceration rate is directly related to the "war on drugs." I'm personally not willing to accept your story that we are somehow less free because of a stricter stance on drugs.
You're looking at this in a binary fashion rather than as a scale. You've turned it into "do you think there should be a legal consequence of drug use, if so then there is nothing wrong with the US stance". That's not how you measure whether it is justifiable to strip people of their liberty, there has to be proportionality involved for it to be just. Do you think the US response to soft drugs is proportional to the damage they do to society and if not then how can you define the response as anything other than an attack on the freedom to do what you want to your own body? A free society does not win when a kid is locked up for life for possession of a little weed while on probation.
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.veryfunnypics.eu/2012/10/funny-picture-and-i-was-like-pew-pew-merica-325x205.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/US_incarceration_rate_timeline.gif/300px-US_incarceration_rate_timeline.gif)
