The store owner says his security footage will have the whole thing on camera. It was confiscated by police.
Legally it would though. I agree though, I think the cop panicked when he heard gun and just started shooting. I didn't see the guy move at all before that. Both of these guys need to never be cops again and IMO should face some kind of charges over this. Louisiana cops are the worst I've ever had to deal with in my life.
As backwards and crooked as Louisiana is they still have a 'Indian' Governor I believe or was he just the Mayor of New Orleans?
Yes, I think so too. Not that it excuses him but I don't buy into the idea that he went out that day looking to kill someone. He panicked and shot the guy. A different angle would help, I wonder if it would be close enough to really see it though. Because at this point the only excuse the officers would have is if he was making some kind of move towards the gun on him...which I bet we'd see if they were wearing their cameras... Yes it is true, I hate bringing up old stuff (and old cases completely separate) but with Mike Brown that definitely was the case for me. The Media building up something and putting out the facts before they were facts. I think the truth got lost in that one. For this one...I mean the video is the video. We all see it. An officer always has the right to defend himself (or herself) and they were not on defense.
This is either exactly what it seems like, or totally different. And "Exactly what it seems like" depends 100% on one's preconceived notions. I'm 100% sick of seeing people die at the hands of crooked cops as well as savage criminals, but the surveillance footage needs to be seen before we all can fully understand what actually happened.
If only to show how the altercation started, I think that would be interesting to see how the cops got to the point where they were using their taser and tackling the guy. If it looks like the cops were just out to rough the guy up from the start it'll be interesting context.
Protection implies threat. If the man didn't have the gun in his hands then he there is no threat. Unless you're down with Cops popping rounds into legal gun owners too?
The article doesn't need to say that. The owner is saying (and could testify to) being able to see what happened. Forgive me for listening to the opinion of somebody who was there over that of someone reveling in the death of another person and seeking to validate their opinion by using Bing street view.
Not sure if I totally agree, and mainly because it appears that he is still fighting with the cops and they don't completely have him subdued. Could be bad technique by the police or could be that the guy was apparently quite large and strong. Just hypothetically, if you're unable to completely subdue a guy and get him in handcuffs, and it appears he is reaching for something in his pocket, and he has been reported by a 911 call to have been branding a gun, is there still no threat at this point? Do you risk it and keep trying to struggle to subdue him to keep him from reaching in his pocket until it's maybe too late? If it's hard to see what's he's reaching for, do you keep fighting and hope it's not a gun until you actually see it in his hands, at which point it might be too late for him to at least get off one shot? As much as everyone likes to simplify things, I don't think it's cut and dry as to when the threat begins when you have those other factors.
Just out of curiosity, why was Indian needed to be put in quotes? Is it because he was actually born in Louisiana (Baton Rouge, to be exact)?
Well, when cops decide that the best solution is to kill somebody, that's essentially simplifying/making things cut and dry to the max... with no other option possible.
One of the Windows is boarded up. Another is covered by signs. The third has a steel rack in front of it. The door windows are covered in stickers. The store owner said he did not see a confrontation, not that he watched him all night. Does it not stand to reason that it could take a short amount of time, say five seconds to threaten someone with a gun? Seriously, stop.
Exactly. That would be over-simplifying things too. Which is why I didn't say it. I was just commenting on RHEEKO seeming to say no gun in hand=no threat. I disagreed with that based on other factors I mentioned (which are hypothetical at this point, because there are really no facts).
Are you getting your information about what the storefront looks like from a Bing Street View picture from October 25, 2013?
I'm as pro-police as they come, but that appeared to me to be a cold blooded execution. Those officers better pray the convenience store video can exonerate them or they could be headed to death row.
Why would he let the guy loiter on his property if he was a problem? It was evidence, of course the police took it. It will come out eventually. Yep. As much as I love many things about it, southern LA is just about the most messed up place I've ever been in the US. A whole bunch of the cops are scum, a whole bunch of the people they have to deal with are scum, the entire public sector is amazingly corrupt, yet there's a whole bunch of wonderful happy people. Good to hear. It's ridiculous to make definitive statements like yours based on a 3 year old picture. I don't understand why you're so vehemently convinced you know exactly what happened here. Let some more facts and info come out.
