[Graphic Footage] Cops Kill Man Cold Blooded Or Was It Justified?

WOW, you have great eyes. At the :42 mark, you can see a small pointed object in the suspect's right hand. It's clearly visible when he places his hand on top of the car.

Here's a screen cap. Focus your eyes and look for the shadow of a small narrow object that appears at the :42 mark. It's easier to spot when the video is playing, because you see it moving.

 

No, he didn't. He became a cop that was confronted by non-compliant, violent criminal wielding a weapon.

 

It seems the generic answer is . . . . Cops can REALLY do no wrong

Rocket River

 

Nobody here believes that RR - we're talking about in this specific instance we believe the cop was in the right.

 

How is that? Plenty of cops have been convicted. For example, that cop in Houston that was convicted of rape (while on duty) a few months ago and sentenced to life in prison. We are discussing this specific incident and try

 

Every Cop shooting. . . he same things are said . . .
Those ardent defenders here. . . will never admit that some cops are wrong
and
even if they wrong they fall on the . . WELL HE WAS SCARED
IF I WERE HIM . .
blah blah blah

Rocket River

 

Whether it is a knife or not, we have to place the officer's actions in context. While we have the luxury of replaying the scene and even pause it, the officer had to make a split second decision. That was a very tense situation for both sides and having something on your hand that can be construed as a weapon was not a good decision for the suspect.

 

For your reading pleasure, this is the full report from the DA's office...

http://www.sjgov.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=15621

 

The suspect may have had a weapon, and he was not putting his hands up.

I can see the justification in shooting him at that point.

Here's my question. In NY - you have officiers confront these situation - with a visible knife. And they take their time before shooting.

So why with a knife did he fire? There was enough distance for him to fire if he made a sudden movement.

Secondly....why did the officer confront a "dangerous" criminal without back-up. Why not wait for back-up to arrive at the same time he does? If he's worried about his safety.

So yes, I can see why he was let off, but there are still some questions here that I think deserve scrutiny.

 

Like others have said, I have conceded that "shoot to kill" is slightly incorrect terminology. It is more "shoot to incapacitate and fully realize that there is a good chance that you will end up killing him in the process, because that is what guns DO." And as far as anyone using a gun should be concerned, they have to understand that if they fire it at a person, it will likely kill him. If you can't understand it and you can't accept that, don't fire the gun..

To put it quite simply, truerox, if you're in a situation where you can think "Oh, I'll just aim a bullet in his leg to slow him down," you have no business using the gun in the first place.

 

That incident? 46 divided by 13 is about 3.5. That's not a lot of shots fired by each police officer. Knife guy does something suspicious, everyone unloads. That's how it works.

And RR, for every person who understands how guns work, the danger of knives, and the difficulty and importance of keeping the police safe, there's people like you who are revolutionary "eff the po-po, fight the power" types.

 

I just posted right above you. I think that might answer some of your questions. There seems to be a lot of history before the officer approached the suspect.

 

Honestly . . . in my community . . .see more cops do more
.. uhm .. . unsavory things. . . that I would care to see.

The Police are suppose to keep the people safe
and yes .. . than includes the alleged criminals. . . that is their jobs
Their job entails going above and beyond to protect ALL human life
Don't tell me you putting your life on the line . . when everytime you are startled you start blasting.

Evidently my understanding of their job maybe skewed
Maybe their job is to protect the people NOT suspected of anything . .. at that time.
The moment you are a suspect .. . .all your rights go out the window
and you can be shot . .. if you 'frighten' them

Rocket River

 

You're being obtuse and trolling now that it is clear this particular officer was in the right.

There are plenty of instances of police breaking protocol, and we have no problem criticizing them readily.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ibSwITK4jjQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ibSwITK4jjQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Thanks for posting, again.

3 of the 12 shots fired, at point blank range to the suspect's torso, missed.

This does not speak well to the chances of a taser being an effective choice in such situations.

 

lol

how is that in any way justifiable?

cold blooded murder! I can't stand 99% of cops here in the US

 

You have met every single cop in the U.S.?

 

I'm not saying cops should have the authority to shoot and kill everyone they deem dangerous. However, if something like this happens the criminal should get no benefit of the doubt. Society has given him enough chances.