|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 11:59:13 GMT -4
Riots in Calif. after Cop shoots and kills an unarmed homeless man in the back.....Fourty eight shots fired at a young man sitting in his car while visiting his grandparents in New Orleans. The young man is dead with twelve bullet holes in his back.......Ther's is something wrong with this picture.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jan 10, 2009 14:44:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 10, 2009 18:10:49 GMT -4
I don't think cops are too quick on the trigger. To answer your question. I think your two 'examples' of police shootings do not tell the WHOLE story. A police officer is trained that EVERY encounter with an individual is potentially an armed encounter. Whether the weapon in on the individual or it's the officers own weapon. There is still a weapon available. A perp could easily sucker punch the officer and grab his gun. That is why 'unarmed homeless men' end up shot sometimes. If the officer is in fear of becoming overpowered by strong arm force or maybe a wine bottle to the head then he has the right and duty to use deadly force to protect himself or others. As to officers susposedly firing 48 shots? In a life or death fire fight in which you are literally trying to save your own life you will follow fight or flight instincts. Police are trained to keep shooting until and ONLY until the threat is neutralized. That is not to be mistaken for 'killed' but either the suspect stops their aggression or stops moving. The officer also can't tell if he has hit a suspect or how many times he has hit a suspect. Maybe he's shooting into a car and 90% of the rounds are stopped by the body of the car. The suspect is still not complying with orders and so shooting continues until the threat is neutralized. Something to think about. Stop believing all you read in the liberal media. There is another side to the story here folks. How about reading www.officer.com for some more info. Lots of good reading to be had. -DG ps I hope MY link won't be censored like it has been before in other posts. I see funnel has posted a link in her message so surely it's OK.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 10, 2009 19:19:38 GMT -4
48 shots only sounds like alot if its one officer. For most police issue weapons, that is 3 or more magazines (48 shots + 2 reloads = at least 30 seconds start to finish...and thats only if he is proficient with his sidearm, which most aren't. It would take me around 20 seconds to do at full speed, and I'm a Master class shooter. 20 seconds is a long time for a gunfight between 2 people)
48 shots is NOT alot if there were around 4-8 officers on the scene. If they only fire 6-12 shots, even that can add up quick. I know I certainly wouldn't hold my fire and hope one of the other 6 officers does the job. No sir, I'll be using mine and doing the job for myself if I think my life is at stake.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 12, 2009 2:27:07 GMT -4
footfighter............I can't in my wildest dreams see how anyone can honestly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back twelve times. Sounds like the Police Academy needs to be investigated. NO, that's a bad idea. They'll just investigate themselves, and find in favor of themselves.....The Cops are the first line of defense for our freedom, and safety. The citizen should not be in fear of the Police. The good Cops need to stand up and be counted, but that takes B _lls.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 12, 2009 7:57:37 GMT -4
I wonder: Exactly what order is a suspect expected to comply with as he is hit with 48 bullets? "Die!" is about the only one that makes sense. Even "don't move" probably isn't possible as the bullets impact his corpse.
As bad as these cases are, they are definitely the exception rather than the rule. Every year there are one or two remarkable cases where the police really screw up. We'll have to wait and see how the courts handle these two.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 12, 2009 14:41:38 GMT -4
footfighter............I can't in my wildest dreams see how anyone can honestly justify shooting an unarmed man in the back twelve times. Sounds like the Police Academy needs to be investigated. NO, that's a bad idea. They'll just investigate themselves, and find in favor of themselves.....The Cops are the first line of defense for our freedom, and safety. The citizen should not be in fear of the Police. The good Cops need to stand up and be counted, but that takes B _lls. Does anyone have a link to the actual story or police report on this incident? How is that officer to have known that the man was unarmed? Even if he was unarmed he is still a threat. Sitting behind the wheel of a car? weapon! The police are not MY first line of defense, or my second or even the third. I take care of my family and don't rely on anyone else for my own safety. Maybe you can sleep well at night with the absent minded thought that if some thug kicks in your front door that the police will stop him before he reaches your master bedroom!?!?! Ignorance IS bliss. -DG
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 14, 2009 4:23:16 GMT -4
footfighter.........Many citizens are old, sickly, blind, crippled etc.. To these citizens the Police are their first line of defense against crime. Your freedom comes from the Constitution, and the Constitution was written to protect us from the Government. No other reason. If your rights are violated who would you go to for help? I say that your first step would be the Police.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 15, 2009 1:03:35 GMT -4
Calif. Cop was arrested and charged with murder.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 15, 2009 9:22:52 GMT -4
If they had cleared him, you'd be claiming injustice, old-boy's club type of "covering up"
Now that they've found reason to arrest him and charge him, you're willing to accept their judgement as proper?
I'm still waiting to hear some facts of the case from an actual source. When the word "Riots" come into the mix, I get a funny feeling this has something to do with race, and when that is involved you can be assured of political involvement clouding the water. The truth doesn't matter then, only perception.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 16, 2009 3:24:48 GMT -4
robmoore..............Apparently you haven't seen the video that's been plastered all over the news shows. It clearly shows the victim laying face down on the ground under the control of several cops when he was shot in the back.........The rioters were of all races, and sex.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 16, 2009 7:59:23 GMT -4
Nope, I haven't watched the "news shows". There is too much trash TV for me (paris hilton, ect) on every one of them. Actual NEWS stories are too few and far between.
Try posting an actual link to the story next time.
Edit to add: OK, now I finally googled the story. Which one are you talking about? You start off by mentioning a shooting with 48 shots being fired at a man in a car, now you're refering to a man on the gorund being shot (by the way, the video looks like one dumb officer firing an unintentional (negligent) discharge into a man. He was suprised when it happened. I can't see how that is murder. Its Involuntary Manslaughter.
My comments are all about the original story, to which you have yet to give any link to. You can't switch incidents mid-thread without any notice and expect comments to reflect properly.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 16, 2009 19:32:43 GMT -4
OK, if we're going to settle on discussing ONE incident, let's talk about the 'calif cop' shooting. Aka the BART officer in San Fransisco. There are many cell phone videos around the net. I finally found one that had a little bit of clarity. What I saw was about 7 police officers and about three to four dozen angry, loud and obnoxious passengers. The cops were struggling to maintain order and a safe environment. The one cop who was straddling the suspect was the only one on him. He was NOT handcuffed. The cop was trying to get him in cuffs. All of the other officers had their back turned to the suspect and were providing cover and protection to the suspect and the arresting officer. In a split second the suspect broke free from the officers attempt to restrain him and thrust both of his hands into his waistband (while laying on his stomach, with the officer still straddling his hind quarters) the officer realized a threatening move, likely thought the suspect was going for a gun, pulled his weapon and fired a shot into his back (the only option he had) , neutralizing the potential threat to the officer and all of the passengers there..
The truth will come out, the video will be analyzed and I hope he will be exonerated of the murder charge. If I was that cop, I would have done exactly the same thing. It is irrelevant as to whether the suspect ACTUALLY had a weapon. The officer rightfully suspected it and acted accordingly. -DG
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 16, 2009 22:13:35 GMT -4
I can't agree with you there foo. They had him down and should have had control. That officer had NO reason to draw his weapon. While they are transit cops, they still have to go through state certified law enforcement training, the same as any county or city policeman. They should have known better, and should have had better control over him. Thrusting hands into a waistband isn't cause for lethal force. If he pulls something out that you percieve to be a gun, that is, but that is not what happened. Looked to me like he was trying to lay on his hands to keep from getting cuffed. Its not the gun you draw at that time, its the baton to stroke his spine with. One solid rub from the butt-end of a metal stick on your spine and your hands will pop out like a wind-up toy.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 17, 2009 0:11:05 GMT -4
If his hands went into his waistband and came back out with a gun it would be too late for the officer to appropriately respond. Police have to react to save their own life, and that is what I saw on that video. I saw an officer fighting for HIS life. If you haven't been there I can't expect you to understand. -DG
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 17, 2009 8:31:52 GMT -4
Here are two decent angles that I was able to find.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 17, 2009 8:45:40 GMT -4
If his hands went into his waistband and came back out with a gun it would be too late for the officer to appropriately respond. The man was face down with another officer holding his head against the concrete, right? And many (all?) of the witnesses saw a white officer shoot an unarmed, subdued, black man in the back. They might argue that it is the black man who should fear for his life whenever he encounters a white officer. They may say, "if you haven't been there, I can't expect you to understand."
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 17, 2009 10:12:28 GMT -4
Yeah, foo, this guy wasn't yards away from them. They were on top of him. Two guys can't control his arms? He didn't look like superman, and he wasn't tweaking out from drugs.......and yeah, I HAVE been there.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 17, 2009 10:16:12 GMT -4
If his hands went into his waistband and came back out with a gun it would be too late for the officer to appropriately respond. The man was face down with another officer holding his head against the concrete, right? And many (all?) of the witnesses saw a white officer shoot an unarmed, subdued, black man in the back. They might argue that it is the black man who should fear for his life whenever he encounters a white officer. They may say, "if you haven't been there, I can't expect you to understand." Not that I saw, in the video I watched, besides you use your hands to shoot a gun, not your head And here it is, the race card is on the table ladies and gentlemen. . It is a fact that there are 'white' people and 'black' people on this planet, chances are that both 'colors' can turn out to be criminals OR cops. What's your point sparky? Never seen a black cop? As to the rest of your sentence, 'unarmed' I would not believe that to be true if my life depended on it. 'Subdued' wrong again, if his hands are free to move about and he can get to his waist band, that is NOT subdued. 'black man' your attempt to make this a race issue is invalid. Witness statements in officer involved shootings are notoriously inaccurate. Even statements from the other officers are not totally accurate. . The adrenaline and shock of the incident often obscures memories of the event. Even the shooting officer often recounts the encounter differently than what is captured on dash cam or cell phone cameras.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 17, 2009 11:33:18 GMT -4
The man was face down with another officer holding his head against the concrete, right? And many (all?) of the witnesses saw a white officer shoot an unarmed, subdued, black man in the back. They might argue that it is the black man who should fear for his life whenever he encounters a white officer. They may say, "if you haven't been there, I can't expect you to understand." Not that I saw, in the video I watched, besides you use your hands to shoot a gun, not your head And here it is, the race card is on the table ladies and gentlemen. . It is a fact that there are 'white' people and 'black' people on this planet, chances are that both 'colors' can turn out to be criminals OR cops. What's your point sparky? Never seen a black cop? As to the rest of your sentence, 'unarmed' I would not believe that to be true if my life depended on it. 'Subdued' wrong again, if his hands are free to move about and he can get to his waist band, that is NOT subdued. 'black man' your attempt to make this a race issue is invalid. Witness statements in officer involved shootings are notoriously inaccurate. Even statements from the other officers are not totally accurate. . The adrenaline and shock of the incident often obscures memories of the event. Even the shooting officer often recounts the encounter differently than what is captured on dash cam or cell phone cameras. I'm not going to get into an argument with you. It would be easy to say this is a glass-half-full issue were it not for the dead guy. I will agree that adrenaline and shock play a part, that is why we hope the officers are trained to overcome the adrenaline and make rational decisions in the face of dangerous circumstance, not shoot first and let God sort it out. And, I wonder (I honestly do) how many times the dash cams and cellphone cams have supported the officer's memories and how often they show slightly different events.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jan 17, 2009 15:16:48 GMT -4
Not that I saw, in the video I watched, besides you use your hands to shoot a gun, not your head And here it is, the race card is on the table ladies and gentlemen. . It is a fact that there are 'white' people and 'black' people on this planet, chances are that both 'colors' can turn out to be criminals OR cops. What's your point sparky? Never seen a black cop? As to the rest of your sentence, 'unarmed' I would not believe that to be true if my life depended on it. 'Subdued' wrong again, if his hands are free to move about and he can get to his waist band, that is NOT subdued. 'black man' your attempt to make this a race issue is invalid. Witness statements in officer involved shootings are notoriously inaccurate. Even statements from the other officers are not totally accurate. . The adrenaline and shock of the incident often obscures memories of the event. Even the shooting officer often recounts the encounter differently than what is captured on dash cam or cell phone cameras. I'm not going to get into an argument with you. It would be easy to say this is a glass-half-full issue were it not for the dead guy. I will agree that adrenaline and shock play a part, that is why we hope the officers are trained to overcome the adrenaline and make rational decisions in the face of dangerous circumstance, not shoot first and let God sort it out. And, I wonder (I honestly do) how many times the dash cams and cellphone cams have supported the officer's memories and how often they show slightly different events. LOL, well thank you sir for sparing my feelings and not 'arguing' with me. Guess I learned my lesson. Nice passive aggressive move there. -DG
|
|