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

Looks like the guys was trying to make a run for it and got his foot caught in the truck and was shot when he went to pull it out.

I have to side with the cops without knowing more. It could certainly look like he was reaching for a weapon. The cop said, don't move. The guy was moving. His hands were not up.

I mean, if a cop says don't move put your hands up. You freakin put your hands up and don't move. Probably this guy didn't think he'd shoot and was hoping to make a run for it.

 

So when in doubt. . . I should unload my clip?
Correct?

No matter what. . . when in doubt . . .unload my clip.
Is this correct?

Rocket River

 

Stop being a basso.

If there is threat of harm to yourself or others, you stop the threat by whatever means necessary. Maybe 11 bullets would have sufficed instead of 12, but that's just armchairing on Monday morning. Not that it matters anyway, because he was shooting to kill, as he should have and is instructed to do when threatened.

 

What if the 'perceived' threat is a cop?

Rocket River

 

If a cop pulls a gun on you without justification then he's going to get his ass fired.

 

I haven't watched the video and don't want to comment on the justification for the shooting. But, this made me think of what I was told by a cop a long long time ago. He said you shoudn't shoot for arms or legs because it might not stop your opponent and then you have to shoot him again. And, it's harder to survive multiple gun shot wounds than it is a single wound to the body. So, his training was to shoot for the body to incapacitate the person quickly, and then get him medical attention to maybe save his life.

So, that's something I've internalized from a long time ago, but I have no idea if it's bs or not. Does any of our gun nuts have any insight into the wisdom of this strategy? Note this is different from Kojiro's rationale of shooting to kill -- this is shoot to incapicitate and then revive, and a rebuttal of the idea that it's feasible to incapacitate someone with a gunshot to an extremity.

 

This shooting was covered by the local news in California back in JUNE 2011 when it first occurred. After the officer was cleared, a number of news outlets covered the release of the video.

As I mentioned in an earlier post which you did not respond to, did you see all of the 72 officer deaths due to shooting in 2011 on the news? I am assuming the answer is no, because every single one of those deaths was not covered nationally.

I am not sure what your argument is:

Does a police officer occasionally shoot an innocent person - yes, I agree.
Does a police officer occasionally over react - yes, I agree
Does a police officer occasionally empty his clip into a suspect - yes, I agree.
Is there justification in all instances of over reaction or emptying a clip - not sure, but I suspect no.

To say "this stuff never gets covered" is disingenuous, because, in this specific example, it did get covered 19 months ago when it occurred, and again, when it made the news due to the officer "getting off".

Now, your turn, please point me to the 1400+ innocent people you claim were shot by the police in 2011.

 

Yet . . . I will be dead
His firing would be Cold Comfort

Rocket River

 

You're going to fall over dead from somebody pointing a gun at you?

If he shoots you without justification, he's probably going to jail.

 

Well, the thing about your officer is that maybe "shoot to kill" isn't quite right. It's more "shoot to incapacitate and fully understand that there is a very good chance that you are going to kill the person in the process." Because shooting a guy in the chest, needless to say, is not exactly good for his health.

But yes, shooting for arms and legs is stupid, because while it may hurt a person eventually, a person all hyped on adrenaline and fear and sometimes drugs really won't be affected by it initially, which still lets him attack a cop. Not to mention that even for a trained professional, shooting the chest is a crap ton easier. Shooting for the chest is something which people can do and it will take people down. That's the key.

I know you're dense, but I'll repeat myself. You seem to think that there is a difference between a cop shooting a single bullet and an entire clip. Why?

 

So . . . shooting 1 bullet . . .. is the same as shooting 10~15?

Rocket River

 

If a police officer " SEE'S" a knife, and allows that person to take 7 paces and deliver deadly force within 1.5 seconds( which i doubt an average person can do) then he doesn't need to be a police office.

Bullets travel faster than 7 paces per second.

The man who raised me was an undercover narcotics agent, and one of the men who helped take down Escobar in South America. He was shot(not killed) when confronted by police one night. He never got an order to comply too, and when went to reach for his badge to pull rank on the officer.. he was shot 4 times out of the clear blue.

Police officers are toooo quick to pull that weapon when they have no idea if they are reaching for a weapon or merely ID.

That's why when I get pulled over, and asked for ID. I request the officer take me out of the car and physically get my ID himself. Cops can shoot without justification anytime they damn well please. And be cleared when they reach a wrong decision.

 

It's not legal for a police officer to shoot someone running from him, without seeing a weapon that will be used with deadly force against the officer/s.

So, cops can shoot anyone who doesn't put their hands up? There is no federal law stating that when A officer orders you to put your hands up, that you have to comply.

Cops can now shoot people that run from them?

 

From a legal perspective? Yes, there's no real difference. There is no scenario where firing just one bullet at a person is fine, but firing an entire clip isn't. Combine that with the fact that you can empty a clip in a few seconds, and yeah, it's fine. There was an incident last year where a bunch of cops all had their guns out with this dude with a knife. He made a sudden movement, they all unloaded. 60 bullets. And I have no problem with that.

Just curious. Did you know...watch the video which showed that yes, people can do that easily? Especially if they're all jacked up with adrenaline? Because that's evidence against your credulity. I say evidence wins.

 

I'll put it this way...

When you guys tell me to stop being annoying, irritating, an a-hole, etc., etc., I somewhat sort of kind of listen... if you guys had GUNS and told me to stop doing something, sort of kind of somewhat like the police told the guy who didn't... I'd stop doing what I'm doing and listen to you guys.

The guy should have listened.

OK, more than 10 shots, I don't know... because I am not so sure the guy wasn't armed or had an extra weapon or I don't know if the guy was going for another weapon.

If he had his seat belt tangled on his foot, he should have just put his arms up and said "I have my belt tangled on my foot!" or something to the likes of that.

Sad stuff to lose your life because you want to run away and don't listen to authority.

 

I doubt that's true. If I was a juror listening to a homicide case, whether the killer fired once or 15 times colors the complexion of the case. Fire once (or maybe 2 or 3 times), and it looks like you're in control and made a judicious decision to use a measured amount of force to stop a threat. Empty your clip and you look afraid or angry, completely out of control, and used force out of proportion to the severity of the threat. As a juror, I wouldn't look as kindly upon a defendant who emptied his clip. So, legally, the bullet count is going to matter (if the case goes to trial instead of being swept under the rug).

 

You have an officer already in fear for his own life, knows you by name and is hyped up on adrenaline, with a gun pointed at you, and yelling repeatedly at you to stop what you are doing or he will shoot, so you just keep on with the frantic/aggressive/flailing movements, which includes reaching back into the vehicle, while trying to flee? And you're black, too!?

Funny, but Chris Rock was making a point about both sides of these incidents:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

By this point in history, we know with what we are contending. Behave appropriately.

 

One only shoots with the intent to kill if they are a murderer or delivering capital punishment. Otherwise, you shoot with the intent to incapacitate. Sometimes, that will require shooting someone in a manner that will likely kill them (so I agree that aiming for the extremities could be a poor decision if one is threatened by an attacker), but their death should not be the goal.

 

This i why people fight gun control so much
because
He who has the guns . . .has control
and if you don't listen . .
Our mentality is you are a fool, idiot, and get what you deserve

because. . . you should have listened to the gun toting person whether he is right or not . . he has the gun and you don't . . .

When cops are the only ones with guns . . . . it is a policestate

Rocket River