Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Skip8282 on February 18, 2015, 01:20:06 PM
-
MSNBC asking if this is the next Ferguson. :P
You can watch the grainy video at the link below. He was definitely running away after throwing the rocks and appeared to maybe be surrendering, but it's hard to tell.
Tough call for the cops involved.
________________________ ________________________ _______
Hundreds protest against police after orchard worker was shot dead while 'running away' from cops he threw stones at
·Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, shot dead by police on Tuesday evening
·Officers say he refused to stop throwing rocks and a Taser did not work
·But multiple witnesses claim he was running away when he was killed
·Now, county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order inquest into shooting in bid to defuse rising community tensions
·Fourth fatal shooting involving Tri-City officer in Pasco in last 6 months
·Officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in all three previous cases
Hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against the police after officers shot a man dead because he threw stones at them.
Residents marched and staged 'die-ins' throughout Pasco, Washington, days after Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an orchard worker who was born in Mexico, was caught on a witness's cellphone being gunned down by officers at a busy intersection.
The 35-year-old's death last Tuesday has sparked outrage across the United States and Mexico with many claiming he was moving away from cops when he was shot multiple times.
It is the fourth fatal shooting by police in the city in the last six months and has caused heightened tensions within the community.
According to police, he had refused to stop hurling rocks - one of which was 'softball-sized' - at officers, despite having struck two of them. An attempt to Taser the man had apparently failed.
However, multiple witnesses have argued that Zambrano-Montes - who was not armed with either a gun or a knife - was running away from officers and had his back to them when he was killed at 5pm.
On Friday, the man's family filed a $25 million claim with the city of Pasco. It came as the president of Mexico reiterated his country's condemnation of the violence against a Mexican citizen.
Now, a county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order an inquest into the shooting in a bid to defuse friction within the community.
Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel said his decision to proceed with an inquest - which will be open to the public - is intended to calm 'some of the fears and outrage of the community'.
On Wednesday, around 100 protesters marched outside Pasco City Hall, with some chanting 'It was only a rock,' according to KEPR. Later that day, more demonstrators gathered at the intersection.
'It's a stressful time for anybody who wears a badge,' said Sgt. Ken Lattin of Kennewick Police, spokesman for a group of outside police agencies investigating the shooting on Tuesday.
More at:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954492/Hundreds-protest-against-police-orchard-worker-shot-dead-running-away-threw-stones-cop.html#ixzz3S8J7f0Fo
-
I say yes, if he (and it will almost certainly be a knucklehead dude) is throwing softball sized rocks.
-
Yes.
I personally don't want to live in a society where people are running around doing stupid shit like that.
-
Who is stupid enough to throw rocks at cops? Honestly - if it wasn't this - this type of idiot
-
Who is stupid enough to throw rocks at cops? Honestly - if it wasn't this - this type of idiot
Probably the same kind of person who gets high, robs a store, assaults a cop, tries to take a cop's gun, then charges a cop.
-
I say yes, if he (and it will almost certainly be a knucklehead dude) is throwing softball sized rocks.
I'm trying to reason it out. If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?
If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.
I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.
And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out. So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.
-
In the name of full disclosure, the man had been recently released from jail for threatening cops with a gun.
-
If only he was offered a job, health care, a free phone, and his balls washed courtesy of the USa taxpayer . . . . . .
-
I'm trying to reason it out. If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?
If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.
I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.
And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out. So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.
or would you be allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself
I assume the answer is yes in certain states like FL where apparently all you have to do is feel your life is in danger to use deadly force
anyway, pretty fucking stupid to throw rocks at people with guns, especially cops
-
Fortunately, no one of any value to the human race died.
-
I'm trying to reason it out. If some jackass was throwing stones at me would a cop use deadly force to protect me?
If the guy had lived, would the charge be attempted murder or along the lines of aggravated assault.
I think we can all agree that even smaller rocks could be lethal if you get it upside the head.
And, from the video, once he turns around, his arms go out. So the cops only got a fraction of a second to make a decision.
I think the standard pretty much everywhere is you can use deadly force if there is a reasonable belief that you're about to suffer death or serious bodily injury. Rocks qualify in my book.
At a minimum, I'd shoot him in the kneecap just for being an idiot. (They aren't trained to shoot to wound.)
-
I think the standard pretty much everywhere is you can use deadly force if there is a reasonable belief that you're about to suffer death or serious bodily injury. Rocks qualify in my book.
At a minimum, I'd shoot him in the kneecap just for being an idiot. (They aren't trained to shoot to wound.)
So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives? I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit. It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill. But, they shoot at center body mass. The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit. Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.
Straw:
Yes, good point. If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?
-
If you watch the video -
It seems like a case of "okay, we're justified, shoot the fccker!" as opposed to "he's out of rocks, but I feel he's still a threat to life".
If you or me shot this dude, we're going to jail. Period. Toss in the fact this man was out of rocks lol, turning back and/or surrendering...
They felt they had put up with enough, and they used bullets as PUNISHMENT, not as a means of keeping people safe. They knew what they were doing. Anyone here that truly believes "yeah, they were scared the unarmed man who was running after throwing rocks was a lethal danger...", well, one day reality will kick you in the fccking teeth lol.
There are 2 kinds of shoots... those where the cops really have to do it (most of them) and some where the cops figure the bad guy has passed a threshold where they can legally shoot him as punishment. This feels like that.
-
So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives? I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit. It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill. But, they shoot at center body mass. The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit. Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.
Straw:
Yes, good point. If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?
They don't have to be afraid for their lives. It's death or seriously bodily injury. That said, no I don't think they had a reasonable belief they were going to suffer serious bodily injury if the guy was running away while he was shot.
I don't really have a problem with how law enforcement (and the military) are trained to use deadly force. I don't think it's reasonable to try and train rank and file to shoot people in the leg, or anywhere other than center mass. And your brother is right that they are trained to aim for center mass, and to shoot until the threat is disabled. Pretty standard. Makes sense to me.
-
They don't have to be afraid for their lives. It's death or seriously bodily injury. That said, no I don't think they had a reasonable belief they were going to suffer serious bodily injury if the guy was running away while he was shot.
I don't really have a problem with how law enforcement (and the military) are trained to use deadly force. I don't think it's reasonable to try and train rank and file to shoot people in the leg, or anywhere other than center mass. And your brother is right that they are trained to aim for center mass, and to shoot until the threat is disabled. Pretty standard. Makes sense to me.
He has threatened cops with a gun before. Whether the police new that or not I don't know.
-
Look at the money we saved on film since he won't be needing mug shot.
-
He has threatened cops with a gun before. Whether the police new that or not I don't know.
If they did it would certainly play a factor in their use of force IMO.
-
If they did it would certainly play a factor in their use of force IMO.
I don't know if they did or not. He was released from jail a few days prior to the shooting. I don't have an opinion either way. I'm waiting for more info.
-
Yeah, if they had shot him WHILE he had a softball-sized rock in his hand, I'd say it's a good shoot.
BUT the videos clearly show he threw the rocks, and ran, and was half-surrendering, half-trotting away, with zero rocks in his hands.
He was shot as PUNISHMENT for hurling rocks at them earlier. He was not shot to stop him from killing/injuring someone. He was shot because they felt they had crossed line and were legal to do it. They wanted to shoot him.
-
I don't know if they did or not. He was released from jail a few days prior to the shooting. I don't have an opinion either way. I'm waiting for more info.
I don't really have an opinion about this particular situation either because I haven't read or seen anything, except that in general if a person is throwing rocks at a cop, I think the cop has the right to use deadly force.
-
I don't really have an opinion about this particular situation either because I haven't read or seen anything, except that in general if a person is throwing rocks at a cop, I think the cop has the right to use deadly force.
Watch the video, it's at that link.
He did throw rocks at the cop. Shooting him then would have been legal.
But then he ran. He had empty hands when they shot him. Running from them. unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him. BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.
This is the problem - police connect things. Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present.
-
Tough call for the cops involved.
Nope. When he has a rock in his hand, it might be a tough call. They pretty much know they might get a cut, but the chance of this twink killing/injuring them with a rock ain't all that great, and they have him tased already, just not behaving yet. So *maybe* that's a tough call.. do we waste a guy holding a rock?
Now, once he throws this rock, he's just an unarmed crazy idiot making a run for it. No need to shoot him. No judtification to shoot him. The THREAT that he showed with the rock is no longer present... he's just some punk trying to get away now, he's not raising another lethal rock at them.
This is an EASY call, actually. They shot him because they were in "shoot this motherfvcker" mode, and didn't turn it off when the "armed assailant" suddenly became an "unarmed assailant attempting to flee". You can't shoot the latter ;) And we all know it. They had ego, emotion, anger and groupthink going on there.
Sure, people here will defend it, because they could be sodomized with a fcking nightstick and they'd thank the cop for spitting on it first. But seriously folks, he threw his rock, he was no longer a deadly threat.
-
Watch the video, it's at that link.
He did throw rocks at the cop. Shooting him then would have been legal.
But then he ran. He had empty hands when they shot him. Running from them. unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him. BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.
This is the problem - police connect things. Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present.
I watched the clip. They shot him within about a second or two after he threw rocks. I don't care if he turned to run, because he was already resisting arrest, had assaulted the cops, and it doesn't look like they knew whether or not he had more rocks to throw.
Hard to form a solid opinion based on 40 seconds of that clip, but at first blush looks ok to me.
-
Watch the video, it's at that link.
He did throw rocks at the cop. Shooting him then would have been legal.
But then he ran. He had empty hands when they shot him. Running from them. unarmed and fleeing and they emptied magazines into him. BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HE DID EARLIER.
This is the problem - police connect things. Suppose they chased him 30 feet, or 300 feet, or 3000 feet... they continue the "our life is in danger" shooting, even though the weapon (in this case a rock) is no longer present.
the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
-
the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
If that's the case then this qualifies, because that's what the clip shows.
-
If that's the case then this qualifies, because that's what the clip shows.
I agree
-
I agree
:o
:D
-
:o
:D
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJYJOB_7jR5-IvrWVuXgPtAgT2eKEmfhGf5R1rNgo7Hj0pWjKb)
-
In the name of full disclosure, the man had been recently released from jail for threatening cops with a gun.
doesn't matter if it's adolf hiter, or mister freakin rogers.
he's raising a rock, he can be wasted
he's running away unarmed, he cannot be wasted.
Simple as that. The minute we start applying new standard for shooting people on their past? lol yikes...
-
doesn't matter if it's adolf hiter, or mister freakin rogers.
he's raising a rock, he can be wasted
he's running away unarmed, he cannot be wasted.
Simple as that. The minute we start applying new standard for shooting people on their past? lol yikes...
Oh boy. His history and whether the police were aware of it matters. You used Zimmermans past against him.
-
I watched the clip. They shot him within about a second or two after he threw rocks. I don't care if he turned to run, because he was already resisting arrest, had assaulted the cops, and it doesn't look like they knew whether or not he had more rocks to throw.
see, this is total bullshit. you're bending over for a police state.
There is a BIG fcking problem if we live in a society where it's okay to shoot people who are fleeing unarmed.
the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
NO THEY CANNOT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
They can only shoot if they think he's going to fuck someone else up.
-
doesn't matter if it's adolf hiter, or mister freakin rogers.
he's raising a rock, he can be wasted
he's running away unarmed, he cannot be wasted.
Simple as that. The minute we start applying new standard for shooting people on their past? lol yikes...
the police can shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping, if the officer has probable cause and thinks the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
-
If you watch the video -
It seems like a case of "okay, we're justified, shoot the fccker!" as opposed to "he's out of rocks, but I feel he's still a threat to life".
If you or me shot this dude, we're going to jail. Period. Toss in the fact this man was out of rocks lol, turning back and/or surrendering...
They felt they had put up with enough, and they used bullets as PUNISHMENT, not as a means of keeping people safe. They knew what they were doing. Anyone here that truly believes "yeah, they were scared the unarmed man who was running after throwing rocks was a lethal danger...", well, one day reality will kick you in the fccking teeth lol.
There are 2 kinds of shoots... those where the cops really have to do it (most of them) and some where the cops figure the bad guy has passed a threshold where they can legally shoot him as punishment. This feels like that.
It's not like they handcuffed him and put a couple .40 calibers in the back of his head while he begged for his life.
The man already used potentially deadly force against the police. Who knows what he is capable of after being cornered?
-
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJYJOB_7jR5-IvrWVuXgPtAgT2eKEmfhGf5R1rNgo7Hj0pWjKb)
lol ;D
-
NO THEY CANNOT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
They can only shoot if they think he's going to fuck someone else up.
[/quote]
sorry but your wrong
Two Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s, Tennessee vs. Garner and Graham v. Connor, set the legal framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," David Klinger, a University of Missouri-St. Louis professor who studies law enforcement officers' use of force, said in August. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — referred to as the "defense-of-life" standard by police departments. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
The logic behind the second circumstance, Klinger explained, comes from Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger said, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."
sorry can't find the link now
-
see, this is total bullshit. you're bending over for a police state.
There is a BIG fcking problem if we live in a society where it's okay to shoot people who are fleeing unarmed.
NO THEY CANNOT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
They can only shoot if they think he's going to fuck someone else up.
It's a big problem if we allow idiots to throw softball sized rocks at police.
Sounds like you support anarchy.
-
lol ;D
I've actually agreed with blacken quite a bit here lately which leads me to believe....
(http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii285/wmspins/futurama-fry-meme-generator-not-sure-if-serious-or-just-trolling-104db8.jpg)
-
I've actually agreed with blacken quite a bit here lately which leads me to believe....
(http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii285/wmspins/futurama-fry-meme-generator-not-sure-if-serious-or-just-trolling-104db8.jpg)
Me too. Blacken thinks about issues. I give him credit for not regurgitating stuff he reads.
-
Me too. Blacken thinks about issues. I give him credit for not regurgitating stuff he reads.
hey lets not get carried away :D
-
I've actually agreed with blacken quite a bit here lately which leads me to believe....
(http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii285/wmspins/futurama-fry-meme-generator-not-sure-if-serious-or-just-trolling-104db8.jpg)
lol He has been right about these use of force cases.
-
hey lets not get carried away :D
You're not a god damn doctrinaire. I hate that shit.
-
I'm all for wasting him while he's raising a rock to cops.
once again, we disagree on the "it's okay for police to waste someone when they're no longer a threat.
yall can keep on sucking LEO dick. They wanted to shoot this fck, and you're cool with it, I get it.
UNTIL IT IS YOU. Until a cop loses his shit on you for stepping on his toe at Walmart, and shoots you while you're trying to get out of there. Then, when you're bleeding out, i hope your "it's cool for cops to shoot someone not posing a deadly threat" mentality keeps you warm as you slip away.
I follow the law, constantly. I don't even speed. But I dont think cops should be able to shoot people who aren't a threat anymore.
-
Nope. When he has a rock in his hand, it might be a tough call. They pretty much know they might get a cut, but the chance of this twink killing/injuring them with a rock ain't all that great, and they have him tased already, just not behaving yet. So *maybe* that's a tough call.. do we waste a guy holding a rock?
Now, once he throws this rock, he's just an unarmed crazy idiot making a run for it. No need to shoot him. No judtification to shoot him. The THREAT that he showed with the rock is no longer present... he's just some punk trying to get away now, he's not raising another lethal rock at them.
This is an EASY call, actually. They shot him because they were in "shoot this motherfvcker" mode, and didn't turn it off when the "armed assailant" suddenly became an "unarmed assailant attempting to flee". You can't shoot the latter ;) And we all know it. They had ego, emotion, anger and groupthink going on there.
Sure, people here will defend it, because they could be sodomized with a fcking nightstick and they'd thank the cop for spitting on it first. But seriously folks, he threw his rock, he was no longer a deadly threat.
That's not true though. We can't tell from the video if he had rocks in his hand. Also, the cop had about .05 sec to discern if there was actually a rock in his hand. I'm kinda leaning towards the cops on this one, but you're right, it doesn't sit well. Seems like they might have killed him for punishment, rather than a fear of their lives or somebody's else's life.
-
That's not true though. We can't tell from the video if he had rocks in his hand. Also, the cop had about .05 sec to discern if there was actually a rock in his hand. I'm kinda leaning towards the cops on this one, but you're right, it doesn't sit well. Seems like they might have killed him for punishment, rather than a fear of their lives or somebody's else's life.
he ran 15 or so feet to the street, crossed it, and then ran another ten feet AFTER THROWING his rock. they shot at him already lol... if he would have "reloaded", we could have seen him crouch down for more rocks lol.
They wanted to kill him, he was a dick who thought he could throw rocks at them, they wanted to punish him.
It's a big problem if we allow idiots to throw softball sized rocks at police.
Sounds like you support anarchy.
re-read what I said.
I support shooting this a-hole when he had the rock in his hands.
not after he dropped it.
-
I'm all for wasting him while he's raising a rock to cops.
once again, we disagree on the "it's okay for police to waste someone when they're no longer a threat.
yall can keep on sucking LEO dick. They wanted to shoot this fck, and you're cool with it, I get it.
UNTIL IT IS YOU. Until a cop loses his shit on you for stepping on his toe at Walmart, and shoots you while you're trying to get out of there. Then, when you're bleeding out, i hope your "it's cool for cops to shoot someone not posing a deadly threat" mentality keeps you warm as you slip away.
I follow the law, constantly. I don't even speed. But I dont think cops should be able to shoot people who aren't a threat anymore.
Sometimes I think you would need 5 different 1080i HD definition cameras showing the red beam coming from the criminal's laser guided weapon on the forehead of a police officer for Rob to come out and actually defend Law Enforcement. :D
-
he ran 15 or so feet to the street, crossed it, and then ran another ten feet AFTER THROWING his rock. they shot at him already lol... if he would have "reloaded", we could have seen him crouch down for more rocks lol.
They wanted to kill him, he was a dick who thought he could throw rocks at them, they wanted to punish him.
re-read what I said.
I support shooting this a-hole when he had the rock in his hands.
not after he dropped it.
Reloaded? We don't know how many he had to begin with. Like I said, we can't discern at this point if he had rocks in his hand. But, the video makes it look like they shot him for punishment.
On the fence with this one. >:(
-
Sometimes I think you would need 5 different 1080i HD definition cameras showing the red beam coming from the criminal's laser guided weapon on the forehead of a police officer for Rob to come out and actually defend Law Enforcement. :D
As opposed to the people on here that require an open admission from a cop claiming they were trying to murder the person. They blind cop lust around here is equally nuts.
-
As opposed to the people on here that require an open admission from a cop claiming they were trying to murder the person. They blind cop lust around here is equally nuts.
THIS.
People on getbig assume nobody they know or love will ever get into a "misunderstanding" with a member of law enforcement. Those are the people I worry about. I don't worry about the mike browns of the world, they'll be dead eventually because they are bad bad guys.
I worry about the college kid that has 3 beers and gets into a shoving match with an undercover cop in the bar. The cop decides to take it to the next level and pull a gun to settle things down. The college kid sees a gun and RUNS. And since getbiggers have declared "anyone that assaults a cop deserves to be executed while running away unarmed", the college kid gets mowed down trying to escape.
I guess they never realize it won't always be a mike brown or this rock-hurling idiot that "assaults" a cop then flees. Cops outright MAKE UP assault charges all the time. How many of us have seen a cop exaggerate a charge? Now, the MOMENT we declare it's acceptable for cops to shoot someone fleeing after an assault, is the MOMENT that a cop can fudge an assault charge and just start wasting anyone.
Won't matter to some people... until it's someone they know or love. As long as it's some idiot in the ghetto, they laugh about it. But grow older, and you start to grow up a bit.
-
he ran 15 or so feet to the street, crossed it, and then ran another ten feet AFTER THROWING his rock. they shot at him already lol... if he would have "reloaded", we could have seen him crouch down for more rocks lol.
They wanted to kill him, he was a dick who thought he could throw rocks at them, they wanted to punish him.
re-read what I said.
I support shooting this a-hole when he had the rock in his hands.
not after he dropped it.
You have no idea whether he had more rocks in his hands based on that clip. You have no idea whether he was trying to get better footing to throw additional rocks.
What you do know is he threw a softball sized rock at cop who was pointing a gun at him.
-
As opposed to the people on here that require an open admission from a cop claiming they were trying to murder the person. They blind cop lust around here is equally nuts.
Evidence against these supposed "renegade cops" executing people cold blooded in the street has been a little bit weak here lately, imo.
-
Evidence against these supposed "renegade cops" executing people cold blooded in the street has been a little bit weak here lately, imo.
Truth. Hasn't stopped people from nationwide campaigns. It's alarming how these movements are grounded on demonstrably false evidence/claims.
-
Truth. Hasn't stopped people from nationwide campaigns. It's alarming how these movements are grounded on demonstrably false evidence/claims.
Watch out Dos Equis, you accidentally might bump into some undercover police officer at the DVD section in your local Target only to have him bust out his concealed Desert Eagle and blow you away in response!!!
Aren't you scared!?!? ???
-
yall are making up reasons why the cops were cool to shoot this guy.
yes, the rock would have technically qualified.
But running away after throwing a rock - that's what the video shows. All this "the cops didn't know if he reloaded with more rocks" - they were 4 feet from him, they saw he was out of rocks.
shit man, you just want to bend over and get rammed by LEO, you really do. some kind of guilt for your pot smoking younger days, people? I dont get it.
333386, please chime in with common sense here
-
yall are making up reasons why the cops were cool to shoot this guy.
yes, the rock would have technically qualified.
But running away after throwing a rock - that's what the video shows. All this "the cops didn't know if he reloaded with more rocks" - they were 4 feet from him, they saw he was out of rocks.
shit man, you just want to bend over and get rammed by LEO, you really do. some kind of guilt for your pot smoking younger days, people? I dont get it.
333386, please chime in with common sense here
And as usual you are making up outrageous story lines and claiming to know the minds of the officers.
-
Watch out Dos Equis, you accidentally might bump into some undercover police officer at the DVD section in your local Target only to have him bust out his concealed Desert Eagle and blow you away in response!!!
Aren't you scared!?!? ???
Terrified. Cops are always shooting young men who are on their knees with their hands up.
-
yall are making up reasons why the cops were cool to shoot this guy.
yes, the rock would have technically qualified.
But running away after throwing a rock - that's what the video shows. All this "the cops didn't know if he reloaded with more rocks" - they were 4 feet from him, they saw he was out of rocks.
shit man, you just want to bend over and get rammed by LEO, you really do. some kind of guilt for your pot smoking younger days, people? I dont get it.
333386, please chime in with common sense here
If it was 1962 and we had Sheriff Andy Taylor on the call maybe he could have given the criminal the benefit of the doubt... Talked him into trying him some of Aunt Bea's apple pie left over in the patrol car....Had a good Christian honest, positive 15 minute chat and they both left the situation better men without anyone having to go to jail or so much a ticket being written up.
-
Evidence against these supposed "renegade cops" executing people cold blooded in the street has been a little bit weak here lately, imo.
Exactly, because it's a child's view of the discussion.
Nobody, and you can't point to even one thread, where the issue has revolved around a cop executing somebody in cold blood, on their knees, etc.
-
yall are making up reasons why the cops were cool to shoot this guy.
yes, the rock would have technically qualified.
But running away after throwing a rock - that's what the video shows. All this "the cops didn't know if he reloaded with more rocks" - they were 4 feet from him, they saw he was out of rocks.
shit man, you just want to bend over and get rammed by LEO, you really do. some kind of guilt for your pot smoking younger days, people? I dont get it.
333386, please chime in with common sense here
Yep, right off the bat it's about how this guy was trash.
-
Watch out Dos Equis, you accidentally might bump into some undercover police officer at the DVD section in your local Target only to have him bust out his concealed Desert Eagle and blow you away in response!!!
Aren't you scared!?!? ???
the point is - this COULD happen.
IF a cop didn't like beach for whatever reason (surely a possibility)
IF we lived in a world where anyone who assaults a cop could be shot while running away (getbiggers want it)
IF we lived in a world where cops sometimes make up assault charges (oh yes, already there)
I don't like a world where the cop you mentioned could waste beach bum and get away with it. Once you allow #2 from above to be allowed (as #1 and #3 are already in place), you allow cops to become one man execution squads.
I GUESS we could just reverse it... Bearded man wearing a "dont tread on me" shirt is executed by 5 African cops wearing UN hats on the streets of America, because he threw a rock and ran. I have to wonder if the Repub wing of getbig would support that shooting as easily ;)
-
the point is - this COULD happen.
IF a cop didn't like beach for whatever reason (surely a possibility)
IF we lived in a world where anyone who assaults a cop could be shot while running away (getbiggers want it)
IF we lived in a world where cops sometimes make up assault charges (oh yes, already there)
I don't like a world where the cop you mentioned could waste beach bum and get away with it. Once you allow #2 from above to be allowed (as #1 and #3 are already in place), you allow cops to become one man execution squads.
I GUESS we could just reverse it... Bearded man wearing a "dont tread on me" shirt is executed by 5 African cops wearing UN hats on the streets of America, because he threw a rock and ran. I have to wonder if the Repub wing of getbig would support that shooting as easily ;)
Nah dude, all these cops are innocent, lol.
I know when I'm in Wal-Mart it's my first instinct to want to kill some kid playing with a toy gun. ::)
-
the point is - this COULD happen.
IF a cop didn't like beach for whatever reason (surely a possibility)
IF we lived in a world where anyone who assaults a cop could be shot while running away (getbiggers want it)
IF we lived in a world where cops sometimes make up assault charges (oh yes, already there)
I don't like a world where the cop you mentioned could waste beach bum and get away with it. Once you allow #2 from above to be allowed (as #1 and #3 are already in place), you allow cops to become one man execution squads.
I GUESS we could just reverse it... Bearded man wearing a "dont tread on me" shirt is executed by 5 African cops wearing UN hats on the streets of America, because he threw a rock and ran. I have to wonder if the Repub wing of getbig would support that shooting as easily ;)
Ah, when you're argument has absolutely zero substance to it...
(http://clearlycaneda.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/lunatic-progressives-losing-debate-use-race-card.jpg)
-
Exactly, because it's a child's view of the discussion.
Nobody, and you can't point to even one thread, where the issue has revolved around a cop executing somebody in cold blood, on their knees, etc.
That's exactly what people claimed happened in Ferguson. "Hands up don't shoot"!
-
And as usual you are making up outrageous story lines and claiming to know the minds of the officers.
Yep.
-
That's exactly what people claimed happened in Ferguson. "Hands up don't shoot"!
First, people in Ferguson have nothing to do with posters on this site...not even sure how the hell you made that leap.
Second, that was a couple of witnesses that made that claim with others saying vastly different.
As I said, he's got a child's argument. We're not going to see cops putting people on their knees and executing them. ::)
It's not even an issue.
-
First, people in Ferguson have nothing to do with posters on this site...not even sure how the hell you made that leap.
Second, that was a couple of witnesses that made that claim with others saying vastly different.
As I said, he's got a child's argument. We're not going to see cops putting people on their knees and executing them. ::)
It's not even an issue.
I'm not sure exactly what posters said on the board, and if your comments were confined solely to what a handful of people said on the board, then I stand corrected.
What you're not correct about is that a "couple of witnesses" made a claim about Brown being executed. There have been thousands of people nationwide making the same false claim about Michael Brown being executed. Members of the St. Louis Rams came out doing a "hands up don't shoot" gesture during pre game. It was/is all over the county. All based on a blatant falsehood.
-
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/report-atlanta-cop-wanted-on-murder-charge/nhBGj/
Here's an example of a cop that met a chick on a dating website, killed her, burnt her body, and tried to flee to MEX.
Don't tell me cops don't do evil and fcked up things. They're people just like everyone else, and some will be messed up or evil.
I don't like the idea of Cops having the ability to shoot unarmed people in back for crimes that the cop's word is enough to establish. Period.
-
Ah, when you're argument has absolutely zero substance to it...
(http://clearlycaneda.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/lunatic-progressives-losing-debate-use-race-card.jpg)
my point is that the cops would be from another continent, brought in by obama/UN to subdue american protesters.
how fast would these little suck-ups support UN "peacekeepers" from Africa or Asia mowing down americans for running away after 'throwing a rock'?
I have to think suddenly, they'd be against it. But hey, today they think police should be able to waste people who are running away empty-handed. Gotcha.
-
my point is that the cops would be from another continent, brought in by obama/UN to subdue american protesters.
how fast would these little suck-ups support UN "peacekeepers" from Africa or Asia mowing down americans for running away after 'throwing a rock'?
I have to think suddenly, they'd be against it. But hey, today they think police should be able to waste people who are running away empty-handed. Gotcha.
To massive amounts of United State citizens that would be treason and you would have more to worry about them some Lone Wolf Tea Party Weirdo showing up and causing trouble.
In fact, I think the UN "peacekeepers" would be the ones pissing their pants in such a scenario.
-
I'm not sure exactly what posters said on the board, and if your comments were confined solely to what a handful of people said on the board, then I stand corrected.
What you're not correct about is that a "couple of witnesses" made a claim about Brown being executed. There have been thousands of people nationwide making the same false claim about Michael Brown being executed. Members of the St. Louis Rams came out doing a "hands up don't shoot" gesture during pre game. It was/is all over the county. All based on a blatant falsehood.
Eh, splitting hairs. A couple of people made the claim, a larger group unfortunately parroted a bunch of nonsense.
In any event, we're trying to discuss a use of force where the rules aren't so clear.
The cops should be held to the same or higher standards that we are. If they shot him for punishment, they've got to be prosecuted and put in a tiny cell for a long time. If they shot because they thought they were about to get pelted again, I'm thinking it's justified self defense. Problem is....do we really have any way to tell in this case? I'm thinking, no.
-
my point is that the cops would be from another continent, brought in by obama/UN to subdue american protesters.
how fast would these little suck-ups support UN "peacekeepers" from Africa or Asia mowing down americans for running away after 'throwing a rock'?
I have to think suddenly, they'd be against it. But hey, today they think police should be able to waste people who are running away empty-handed. Gotcha.
It would be the same thing. Everybody knows that 'UN Peacekeepers' = Americans.
-
Eh, splitting hairs. A couple of people made the claim, a larger group unfortunately parroted a bunch of nonsense.
In any event, we're trying to discuss a use of force where the rules aren't so clear.
The cops should be held to the same or higher standards that we are. If they shot him for punishment, they've got to be prosecuted and put in a tiny cell for a long time. If they shot because they thought they were about to get pelted again, I'm thinking it's justified self defense. Problem is....do we really have any way to tell in this case? I'm thinking, no.
If you're making the broader statement that people in general do not accuse the cops of executing people, then no it's not splitting hairs.
Is there any evidence that this guy was shot as a form of punishment?
-
The cops should be held to the same or higher standards that we are. If they shot him for punishment, they've got to be prosecuted and put in a tiny cell for a long time. If they shot because they thought they were about to get pelted again, I'm thinking it's justified self defense. Problem is....do we really have any way to tell in this case? I'm thinking, no.
They have 2 viewpoints of the video.
The guy picks up a rock, throws, and they shoot/taze him.
He runs, crosses a street, freezes with hands up, then runs again.
I don't see any scenario where they think a rock magically reappears in his hands.
Rather, more likely, they were already in "shoot this motherfvvker" mode (because he had a rock up), and just like in many other cases, when they finally did cross the street to him, his hands were empty, his hands were up, and he was shot because of "some shit that happened earlier".
He was shot because he threw a rock at them. Then he ran, crossed street, ran, froze, put hands up, and was shot by a few of them. THIS is what I hate - the "continuation" where person can do something, run, surrender, then be executed, and these pussy idiot wimp suckups say "well, he shouldn't have thrown a rock".
Sickening that some people are that soft. He was no longer a "deadly threat" and his hands were up. Just arrest him, you murderous fucks.
-
If you're making the broader statement that people in general do not accuse the cops of executing people, then no it's not splitting hairs.
Is there any evidence that this guy was shot as a form of punishment?
I'm right there Gung-Ho and saying "lock up the corrupt sonovabitch and throw away the key" with Skip and 240 as soon as we see this evidence.
But like the rest of these non stories I simply do not see it.
-
I'm right there Gung-Ho and saying "lock up the corrupt sonovabitch and throw away the key" with Skip and 240 as soon as we see this evidence.
But like the rest of these non stories I simply do not see it.
Agree.
-
If you're making the broader statement that people in general do not accuse the cops of executing people, then no it's not splitting hairs.
Is there any evidence that this guy was shot as a form of punishment?
As far as I know (understanding that it's still under investigation), only the video that seems to indicate he was surrendering, but could also indicate he was about to throw again.
If somebody was throwing rocks at you, would you be justified in using lethal force? Do you think a prosecutor would put you away?
-
They have 2 viewpoints of the video.
The guy picks up a rock, throws, and they shoot/taze him.
He runs, crosses a street, freezes with hands up, then runs again.
I don't see any scenario where they think a rock magically reappears in his hands.
Rather, more likely, they were already in "shoot this motherfvvker" mode (because he had a rock up), and just like in many other cases, when they finally did cross the street to him, his hands were empty, his hands were up, and he was shot because of "some shit that happened earlier".
He was shot because he threw a rock at them. Then he ran, crossed street, ran, froze, put hands up, and was shot by a few of them. THIS is what I hate - the "continuation" where person can do something, run, surrender, then be executed, and these pussy idiot wimp suckups say "well, he shouldn't have thrown a rock".
Sickening that some people are that soft. He was no longer a "deadly threat" and his hands were up. Just arrest him, you murderous fucks.
He could've picked up 4 rocks and only thrown 3 with one still in his hand. We just can't tell at this point.
-
As far as I know (understanding that it's still under investigation), only the video that seems to indicate he was surrendering, but could also indicate he was about to throw again.
If somebody was throwing rocks at you, would you be justified in using lethal force? Do you think a prosecutor would put you away?
The video looked like he was shot right after he threw a rock, not after he ran away. Or am I missing something?
Depends. If someone was throwing softball sized rocks at me then absolutely. I doubt a grand jury would indict me. If they did, I doubt a jury would convict me. No reasonable person is going to require me to sit there and get pummeled by softball sized rocks. Unless I'm living under Sharia law. :)
-
The video looked like he was shot right after he threw a rock, not after he ran away. Or am I missing something?
Depends. If someone was throwing softball sized rocks at me then absolutely. I doubt a grand jury would indict me. If they did, I doubt a jury would convict me. No reasonable person is going to require me to sit there and get pummeled by softball sized rocks. Unless I'm living under Sharia law. :)
No, they shoot him when they chase him along the building, not right when he was throwing the rocks. They chase, he turns, they shoot.
I might be conflating the issue when asking your opinion.
You and I would probably not be in a completely comparable situation. We would not have to pursue him. The cops HAD to pursue him. So, the issue is:
Should they have shot him when he - at least appears - trying to surrender
or
Given they had a fraction of a second to decide and it - at least appears - he might be getting ready to throw again.
I can't tell from the video.
-
No, they shoot him when they chase him along the building, not right when he was throwing the rocks. They chase, he turns, they shoot.
I might be conflating the issue when asking your opinion.
You and I would probably not be in a completely comparable situation. We would not have to pursue him. The cops HAD to pursue him. So, the issue is:
Should they have shot him when he - at least appears - trying to surrender
or
Given they had a fraction of a second to decide and it - at least appears - he might be getting ready to throw again.
I can't tell from the video.
Just to clarify, he was shot when he was out of view on the clip, right? Not after he appeared on the other side of the car? That's the way it looks to me.
-
Just to clarify, he was shot when he was out of view on the clip, right? Not after he appeared on the other side of the car? That's the way it looks to me.
This seems to be a better video and you can hear the gunshots right when he stops running. He's shot right along the wall.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/feb/12/pasco-washington-fatal-police-shooting-antonio-zambrano-montes-video
-
This video is real clear...doesn't cut out at all and you can see the whole thing. Wow...now I'm really not sure this was justified.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/us/killing-in-washington-state-offers-ferguson-moment-for-hispanics.html?_r=0
-
This seems to be a better video and you can hear the gunshots right when he stops running. He's shot right along the wall.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/feb/12/pasco-washington-fatal-police-shooting-antonio-zambrano-montes-video
Thanks. There are two separate rounds of shots. The first happens at about the 5 second point, about 1 second after he threw a rock. The second happens at about the 20 second point, right as it looks as though he stopped running, turns back towards the police, and is about to throw something. It freezes at that point, but it does not look like he was shot while he was running away.
-
As far as I know (understanding that it's still under investigation), only the video that seems to indicate he was surrendering, but could also indicate he was about to throw again.
If somebody was throwing rocks at you, would you be justified in using lethal force? Do you think a prosecutor would put you away?
unless he had some magical reload - where would another fcking rock come from/??
-
This video is real clear...doesn't cut out at all and you can see the whole thing. Wow...now I'm really not sure this was justified.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/us/killing-in-washington-state-offers-ferguson-moment-for-hispanics.html?_r=0
That's the best clip yet. Doesn't change my opinion. It looks like he might be trying to throw rocks again right when they shot him.
The thing I hate about these types of situations, both with law enforcement and the military, is we're sitting at a computer looking at this frame-by-frame (which is what I just did). Classic MMQB. That's a far cry from making decisions in real time. Not saying it's justified solely because of that, but just that it isn't entirely fair to the people making decisions in real time to have their judgment questioned by someone sitting behind a slow motion computer screen in an air conditioned office.
-
Just to clarify, he was shot when he was out of view on the clip, right? Not after he appeared on the other side of the car? That's the way it looks to me.
no, we clearly see him as his life ends. there are 2 videos, 2 people filming it.
-
no, we clearly see him as his life ends. there are 2 videos, 2 people filming it.
I obviously asked that question before Skip posted the clips showing the entire shooting. ::)
-
That's the best clip yet. Doesn't change my opinion. It looks like he might be trying to throw rocks again right when they shot him.
The thing I hate about these types of situations, both with law enforcement and the military, is we're sitting at a computer looking at this frame-by-frame (which is what I just did). Classic MMQB. That's a far cry from making decisions in real time. Not saying it's justified solely because of that, but just that it isn't entirely fair to the people making decisions in real time to have their judgment questioned by someone sitting behind a slow motion computer screen in an air conditioned office.
cops are trained, for months and years, to be able to look at a man's hands and quickly decide if they should shoot him or not.
he threw his rock. He never leaves their sight. Unless he has magic video-game reload, I'd love ot see where they get any idea "he must have gotten more rocks" lol.
They shot him BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED SHOOTING HIM. And that' disturbing. Bad guy creates space and goes from being an armed attacker to a possibly wounded, already tazed, fleeing unarmed idiot. Can't shoot those, no matter how easy the shot.
-
I obviously asked that question before Skip posted the clips showing the entire shooting. ::)
ah gotcha. I saw the video a few days back, i thought they were justified when they fired early shots at the car, when rock was overhead.
I thought the later part of the shoot - when he's fleeing and unarmed - was just punishment, cops finishing the job.
-
That's the best clip yet. Doesn't change my opinion. It looks like he might be trying to throw rocks again right when they shot him.
The thing I hate about these types of situations, both with law enforcement and the military, is we're sitting at a computer looking at this frame-by-frame (which is what I just did). Classic MMQB. That's a far cry from making decisions in real time. Not saying it's justified solely because of that, but just that it isn't entirely fair to the people making decisions in real time to have their judgment questioned by someone sitting behind a slow motion computer screen in an air conditioned office.
X1000
-
cops are trained, for months and years, to be able to look at a man's hands and quickly decide if they should shoot him or not.
he threw his rock. He never leaves their sight. Unless he has magic video-game reload, I'd love ot see where they get any idea "he must have gotten more rocks" lol.
They shot him BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED SHOOTING HIM. And that' disturbing. Bad guy creates space and goes from being an armed attacker to a possibly wounded, already tazed, fleeing unarmed idiot. Can't shoot those, no matter how easy the shot.
You don't have the first clue how cops are trained. That much is clear.
You constantly invent facts. That is also clear.
You are pretty much always wrong about these stories, because you repeatedly make up facts to suit whatever twisted narrative you want to spout. That is abundantly clear as well.
-
You don't have the first clue how cops are trained. That much is clear.
You constantly invent facts. That is also clear.
You are pretty much always wrong about these stories, because you repeatedly make up facts to suit whatever twisted narrative you want to spout. That is abundantly clear as well.
you attacked me about 7 times there.
how about attacking the statement I made?
-
That's the best clip yet. Doesn't change my opinion. It looks like he might be trying to throw rocks again right when they shot him.
The thing I hate about these types of situations, both with law enforcement and the military, is we're sitting at a computer looking at this frame-by-frame (which is what I just did). Classic MMQB. That's a far cry from making decisions in real time. Not saying it's justified solely because of that, but just that it isn't entirely fair to the people making decisions in real time to have their judgment questioned by someone sitting behind a slow motion computer screen in an air conditioned office.
That's not just cops and military, it's true for just about any trial where split second decisions were made. The judges and juries have the luxury of hindsight and the 'real time' issue is just another consideration that has to be taken in with everything else.
-
cops are trained, for months and years, to be able to look at a man's hands and quickly decide if they should shoot him or not.
beach bum, is this true or false?
-
That's not just cops and military, it's true for just about any trial where split second decisions were made. The judges and juries have the luxury of hindsight and the 'real time' issue is just another consideration that has to be taken in with everything else.
but when you remember there were a handful of cops, and one bad guy armed with a rock...
and the bad guy was running away after being shot/tazed...
They were not in immanent fear for their life, sorry, but I don't see it at all. He's trying to get away. This isn't trayvon on top of zimmerman punching him... this is bad guy wearing a bullet and/or taze, trying to run, getting shot with hands empty and up.
Tough to blame "heat of the moment" when dude is fleeing wounded unarmed. I have higher expectations of LEO - you know why? because if you, or me, or any other civilian shot a guy legally - then CHASED HIM DOWN and killed him unarmed with hands in air acter crossiing the street - it's be prison time ;) and we're not trained as well as police.
-
but when you remember there were a handful of cops, and one bad guy armed with a rock...
and the bad guy was running away after being shot/tazed...
They were not in immanent fear for their life, sorry, but I don't see it at all. He's trying to get away. This isn't trayvon on top of zimmerman punching him... this is bad guy wearing a bullet and/or taze, trying to run, getting shot with hands empty and up.
Tough to blame "heat of the moment" when dude is fleeing wounded unarmed. I have higher expectations of LEO - you know why? because if you, or me, or any other civilian shot a guy legally - then CHASED HIM DOWN and killed him unarmed with hands in air acter crossiing the street - it's be prison time ;) and we're not trained as well as police.
Oh cops use the frame by frame shit to when it suits them. I still remember watching the Rodney King trial where the cops went down frame by frame claiming that the tiniest of movement justified yet another blow.
I suspect Beach might just be a little bit uncomfortable after seeing that clear video just as I am. We'll need to wait for all the facts, of course.
The problem I see with your argument is that we don't have to chase somebody down. They do. So we can't really compare it in that sense, more of a reasonable person sense.
-
you attacked me about 7 times there.
how about attacking the statement I made?
I did.
-
That's not just cops and military, it's true for just about any trial where split second decisions were made. The judges and juries have the luxury of hindsight and the 'real time' issue is just another consideration that has to be taken in with everything else.
True. It's not entirely fair in any situation where split decisions are made, but I'm talking more about use of deadly force.
-
beach bum, is this true or false?
Give me a link. As I have repeatedly told you, I accept nothing you say at face value.
-
Give me a link. As I have repeatedly told you, I accept nothing you say at face value.
??? You actually want to debate whether police are trained to look in a person's hand when deciding whether or not to use force?
(http://i.imgur.com/M1iQ2.gif)
-
Oh cops use the frame by frame shit to when it suits them. I still remember watching the Rodney King trial where the cops went down frame by frame claiming that the tiniest of movement justified yet another blow.
I suspect Beach might just be a little bit uncomfortable after seeing that clear video just as I am. We'll need to wait for all the facts, of course.
The problem I see with your argument is that we don't have to chase somebody down. They do. So we can't really compare it in that sense, more of a reasonable person sense.
Yeah. That Rodney King slow mo showed a guy getting the crap beat out of him verrrry slowly. Total police brutality.
I agree with the rest of your comments too for the most part. I don't know what happened before the clip started, what was said, whether anyone was hit, whether kids were around, drugs, etc.
-
??? You actually want to debate whether police are trained to look in a person's hand when deciding whether or not to use force?
(http://i.imgur.com/M1iQ2.gif)
No. I'm telling you that you don't know what the heck you're talking about (in general), make stuff up (all the time), and that if you want me to address what you claim is law enforcement training, give me a link.
-
Oh cops use the frame by frame shit to when it suits them. I still remember watching the Rodney King trial where the cops went down frame by frame claiming that the tiniest of movement justified yet another blow.
I suspect Beach might just be a little bit uncomfortable after seeing that clear video just as I am. We'll need to wait for all the facts, of course.
The problem I see with your argument is that we don't have to chase somebody down. They do. So we can't really compare it in that sense, more of a reasonable person sense.
Long hanging fruit.
Happened almost a quarter century ago and almost everyone will tell you the police were totally in the wrong on that one.
-
So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives? I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit. It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill. But, they shoot at center body mass. The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit. Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.
Straw:
Yes, good point. If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
-
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
Now, imagine if the man threw a rock at you - and you fired a few rounds at him (as the police did).
Then, he shits his pants, makes a 180 degree turn, and RUNS.
He runs across a road and starts down that sidewalk before YOU CATCH UP WITH HIM.
At this point, he raises his empty hands and stops, but you decide you'd better just keep shooting anyway.
Now... which prison would you prefer? Cause your ass ain't beating that rap lol. When you realize the cops actually crossed a road to catch him, never losing sight, and he'd already thrown the rock he had.
They just CANT keep pointing at the rock he threw. He was no longer such a terrible threat lol. They pursued.
-
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
False equivalence. Appeal to probability. Logical fallacy
-
So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives? I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think you, me, and everyone else with a brain knows the guy with a rock wasn't going to kill them. They knew it because they got out a tazer and hit him with it. For whatever reason, it failed.
They felt he was so little of a threat that they used a tazer. They didn't go for a second tazer. They didn't go for mace or beanbags or just whipping out clubs and taking out his knee from behind for an instant KO.
No, the rock magically moved from non-deadly (hence the tazer) to deadly (hench the 4 of them shooting at once).
That's troubling. As most would see it, dude with a rock isn't going to kill them lol. Yes, LEGALLY, they can exaplain and justify it, but morally... and realistically... and practically... they didn't think dude was about to kill them. If they had, then they wouldn't have taken time to get out taser initally.
IMO, they were pissed off at this little prick. They zapped him, and it didnt dorp him. They could have zapped him more, or used other means... but when he threw a rock, they probably reinforced each other with "hey, we can shoot, that's deadly potentially..."
Looking fwd to their reports where all 4-5 of them shed tears and whine about "i feared the rock in his hand was about to end my life" LOL and "As I chased him across the street, all I could think of was, I must shoot him in case he finds another rock..."
It's weak shit all around. And everyone sees it. Some people would literally bend over if they saw a cop with blueballs. but most people know those cops didn't fear for their lives, rather, they realized legally he'd just given then the justification to cap his punk ass. And they tossed restraint out the window and went for it!
-
False equivalence. Appeal to probability. Logical fallacy
fine
please point out the appeal to probability you're referring to and then the part of my post that demonstrates that
you can easily do that since there is no way to pretend to not know what post we are talking about
-
fine
please point out the appeal to probability you're referring to and then the part of my post that demonstrates that
you can easily do that since there is no way to pretend to not know what post we are talking about
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
First sentence is both a false equivalency and an appeal to probability. It's also a framing fallacy. You leave out the previous incident of threatening a cop with a gun. Also, cops chasing someone for throwing rocks, particularly one with a criminal history, is a completely different scenario than a civilian chasing a random guy throwing rocks. Cops are suppose to chase the person, civilians aren't The police might have access to information such as prior criminal history that a civilian didn't and that will impact how the police perceive the situation.
The second sentence is a false equivalency. The circumstances in your scenario and the shooting we are discussing are not the same. Isn't that obvious. The only similarity is that rocks were thrown.
-
First sentence is both a false equivalency and an appeal to probability. It's also a framing fallacy. You leave out the previous incident of threatening a cop with a gun. Also, cops chasing someone for throwing rocks, particularly one with a criminal history, is a completely different scenario than a civilian chasing a random guy throwing rocks. Cops are suppose to chase the person, civilians aren't The police might have access to information such as prior criminal history that a civilian didn't and that will impact how the police perceive the situation.
The second sentence is a false equivalency. The circumstances in your scenario and the shooting we are discussing are not the same. Isn't that obvious. The only similarity is that rocks were thrown.
so if something can go wrong it will go wrong ?
that's what you think I was saying in respect to "appeal to probability" when I wrote "if the situation was exactly the same"?
-
so if something can go wrong it will go wrong ?
that's what you think I was saying in respect to "appeal to probability" when I wrote "if the situation was exactly the same"?
it's not the same hence the framing fallacy and false equivalency
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.
-
it's not the same hence the framing fallacy and false equivalency
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductiveso validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.
I asked you a specific question
so your answer is no?
did you notice the post I was responding to?
-
I asked you a specific question
so your answer is no?
did you notice the post I was responding to?
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.
You're taking your outcomes for granted based on a false equivalency and a framing fallacy. Specifically you're taking for granted that a cop who shot someone throwing rocks will receive a different punish than a civilian shooting someone throwing rocks. This is true on it's face but completely ignores extenuating circumstances. In this case, it's a false equivalence for the reasons I've already stated.
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
-
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.
You're taking your outcomes for granted based on a false equivalency and a framing fallacy. Specifically you're taking for granted that a cop who shot someone throwing rocks will receive a different punish than a civilian shooting someone throwing rocks. This is true on it's face but completely ignores extenuating circumstances. In this case, it's a false equivalence for the reasons I've already stated.
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
I am ?
so you're saying I can't respond to Skips question without committing a false equivalency?
-
I am ?
so you're saying I can't respond to Skips question without committing a false equivalency?
This is a fallacy called a false dilemma. It's also a loaded question. To simplify you're putting words in my mouth.
-
This is a fallacy called a false dilemma. It's also a loaded question. To simplify you're putting words in my mouth.
please state the words you think I am putting in your mouth
-
please state the words you think I am putting in your mouth
the comment I responded to.. The question is also irrelevant because I never stated or implied what you suggested at all. Oh, it also may qualify as a complex question fallacy. Oh and the original comments you made that I replied to are also false analogies.
-
Fortunately, no one of any value to the human race died.
I'm guessing you're a devout Christian.
-
MSNBC asking if this is the next Ferguson. :P
You can watch the grainy video at the link below. He was definitely running away after throwing the rocks and appeared to maybe be surrendering, but it's hard to tell.
Tough call for the cops involved.
________________________ ________________________ _______
Hundreds protest against police after orchard worker was shot dead while 'running away' from cops he threw stones at
·Antonio Zambrano-Montes, 35, shot dead by police on Tuesday evening
·Officers say he refused to stop throwing rocks and a Taser did not work
·But multiple witnesses claim he was running away when he was killed
·Now, county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order inquest into shooting in bid to defuse rising community tensions
·Fourth fatal shooting involving Tri-City officer in Pasco in last 6 months
·Officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in all three previous cases
Hundreds of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against the police after officers shot a man dead because he threw stones at them.
Residents marched and staged 'die-ins' throughout Pasco, Washington, days after Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an orchard worker who was born in Mexico, was caught on a witness's cellphone being gunned down by officers at a busy intersection.
The 35-year-old's death last Tuesday has sparked outrage across the United States and Mexico with many claiming he was moving away from cops when he was shot multiple times.
It is the fourth fatal shooting by police in the city in the last six months and has caused heightened tensions within the community.
According to police, he had refused to stop hurling rocks - one of which was 'softball-sized' - at officers, despite having struck two of them. An attempt to Taser the man had apparently failed.
However, multiple witnesses have argued that Zambrano-Montes - who was not armed with either a gun or a knife - was running away from officers and had his back to them when he was killed at 5pm.
On Friday, the man's family filed a $25 million claim with the city of Pasco. It came as the president of Mexico reiterated his country's condemnation of the violence against a Mexican citizen.
Now, a county coroner in southeastern Washington has declared he will order an inquest into the shooting in a bid to defuse friction within the community.
Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel said his decision to proceed with an inquest - which will be open to the public - is intended to calm 'some of the fears and outrage of the community'.
On Wednesday, around 100 protesters marched outside Pasco City Hall, with some chanting 'It was only a rock,' according to KEPR. Later that day, more demonstrators gathered at the intersection.
'It's a stressful time for anybody who wears a badge,' said Sgt. Ken Lattin of Kennewick Police, spokesman for a group of outside police agencies investigating the shooting on Tuesday.
More at:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954492/Hundreds-protest-against-police-orchard-worker-shot-dead-running-away-threw-stones-cop.html#ixzz3S8J7f0Fo
I don't think the police should have shot him. Based on what i could see from the video there were enough police there to subdue him without endangering the lives of the police.
It looks likes a wrongful death.
-
I don't think the police should have shot him. Based on what i could see from the video there were enough police there to subdue him without endangering the lives of the police.
It looks likes a wrongful death.
they watched him throw the rock. His hands were empty. There is no "reload" button.
They opened fire on him when he was a potentially deadly threat (rock in his hand).
When he ran with empty hands, he was no longer a deadly threat (no rock in hand).
They lacked that ability to "turn off" kill mode. They decided once they started shooting, they were legally able to keep shooting until he was on the ground. none of them realized their justification ends when the threat changes. And they had a few seconds as he crossed the road and took off, to make this realization.
It's terrifying that some people justify cops being unable to "turn off" the kill mode when the threat changes. I'd like to hear what distance these supporters would choose, as "no longer able to shoot the man for throwing a rock". Looks like he traveled what, 30 or 40 feet? (to the road, across the road, halfway down a storefront on other side of road). How many feet is it cool to shoot someone for throwing a rock? If he ran 200 feet, can you still shoot him for it? 400 feet? 1000 feet?
IMO, this police force is a scary thing. Dude is TRYING to surrender. They are trying to finish their "legal" shoot. Video shows it.
-
they watched him throw the rock. His hands were empty. There is no "reload" button.
They opened fire on him when he was a potentially deadly threat (rock in his hand).
When he ran with empty hands, he was no longer a deadly threat (no rock in hand).
They lacked that ability to "turn off" kill mode. They decided once they started shooting, they were legally able to keep shooting until he was on the ground. none of them realized their justification ends when the threat changes. And they had a few seconds as he crossed the road and took off, to make this realization.
It's terrifying that some people justify cops being unable to "turn off" the kill mode when the threat changes.
The instance after he threw the rock he was no longer a deadly threat. If he had a gun in hand, no matter how far he was away he could have been considered a deadly threat. If he had a knife in hand and was close enough he could have been considered a deadly threat.
The man is only guilty of assaulting a police officer.
It doesn't matter if they were in "kill" mode or not. They weren't justifiably in any situation where their lives were in danger. They were in danger of injury only. Additionally, the man was running away.
This is a wrongful death plain and simple.
-
The instance after he threw the rock he was no longer a deadly threat. If he had a gun in hand, no matter how far he was away he could have been considered a deadly threat. If he had a knife in hand and was close enough he could have been considered a deadly threat.
The man is only guilty of assaulting a police officer.
It doesn't matter if they were in "kill" mode or not. They weren't justifiably in any situation where their lives were in danger. They were in danger of injury only. Additionally, the man was running away.
This is a wrongful death plain and simple.
yeah, there are some blue sack riders who are begging for a reason to make this shoot legal, but wow, it looks bad.
"We don't have all the info..."
"Well, he did have a record..."
"They might not have realized his rock was gone..."
These cops wanted to finish the shooting. This man wanted to escape then surrender. There was no rock when they shot him, and cops knew it. This was one thing... cops finishing the shooting they started. They believed once they have right to open fire, that right remains until dude is on the ground. I'd love to see details of the other 3 recent fatal shootings they made.
-
hindsight is 20 20 ,let's remember this is a guy who is a known methamphetamine user and has threatened with a gun in the past,you have a split second to make that decision.moral of the story ,no good comes of thowing rocks at cops :o
-
hindsight is 20 20 ,let's remember this is a guy who is a known methamphetamine user and has threatened with a gun in the past,you have a split second to make that decision.moral of the story ,no good comes of thowing rocks at cops :o
If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.
"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.
The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.
-
If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.
"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.
The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.
past is used all the time in police work, if he's known to carry a gun that will come up on their computer,police have to know this information before they confront these thugs.please you really don't know what the fuck your talking about
-
If he was a free man, then he had paid his debt to society or was in the process of doing so.
"In the past" is a slipper slope... Presidents used to abuse illegal felony drugs lol.
The MINUTE you allow police to shoot unarmed people because of "their past", everything collapses dude.
A recorded history of meth use + prior threat with a gun + use of potentially deadly force = the guy basically signing his own death certificate
Put all those 3 factors together...This guy was a VERY dangerous individual.
A far cry from "stepping on a police officer's foot" at WalMart and then running away
-
A recorded history of meth use + prior threat with a gun + use of potentially deadly force = the guy basically signing his own death certificate
Put all those 3 factors together...This guy was a VERY dangerous individual.
A far cry from "stepping on a police officer's foot" at WalMart and then running away
240 is a guy who for some reason likes to make up his own facts :D
-
240 is a guy who for some reason likes to make up his own facts :D
Defending a loose cannon meth head who runs around threatening people with a gun!
Only on getbig!!! ;D
-
hindsight is 20 20 ,let's remember this is a guy who is a known methamphetamine user and has threatened with a gun in the past,you have a split second to make that decision.moral of the story ,no good comes of thowing rocks at cops :o
If he doesn't have a gun then the shooting with deadly force isn't justified. Also his past doesn't matter. The man didn't brandish a firearm. He threw a rock and was shot afterwards.
If the law protects these officers, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
-
I'm guessing you're a devout Christian.
No. I'm a devout Atheist. I'm not stupid enough to believe that everyone is a gift from the non-existent god, or that there is no such thing as a bad boy. The perp was a POS, good riddance. I don't care how criminals die. As long as they die, I'm happy that they're gone. The cops should shoot to kill more often, because taking prisoners just costs the taxpayers too much money!
-
If he doesn't have a gun then the shooting with deadly force isn't justified. Also his past doesn't matter. The man didn't brandish a firearm. He threw a rock and was shot afterwards.
If the law protects these officers, then the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
again you have the luxury of hindsite,they have to make that decision in a split second.and his past does matter,sorry your wrong.
-
Also his past doesn't matter.
::)
-
::)
only in the land of make believe ;)
-
again you have the luxury of hindsite,they have to make that decision in a split second.and his past does matter,sorry your wrong.
Not looking at hindsight at all. Here's a couple of possible assumptions you are running under:
- The police officers were aware of the man's meth history
- The police officers knew of him making threats with a gun
Here's what we do know:
- A man threw a rock or rocks at 3 police officers
- They chased him and shot him
- The man was not a threat without a rock in his hand
- Its debatable that he was a deadly threat with a rock in hand
- The police had the reasonable means to subdue him
This is wrongful death, plain and simple
-
::)
It can matter when it comes to his conviction. But not heat of the moment unless he was a convicted cop killer or maybe a murderer. Still, you have to account for whether or not the police were aware of his past at all.
He's guilty of assaulting a police officer that's all.
It can be argued that he assaulted with a deadly weapon but i think that in court it might be easy for the defense to beat that
-
A recorded history of meth use + prior threat with a gun + use of potentially deadly force = the guy basically signing his own death certificate
Put all those 3 factors together...This guy was a VERY dangerous individual.
A far cry from "stepping on a police officer's foot" at WalMart and then running away
When the rock was in the air, yes, he was a deadly threat.
Running away, he's some idiot, already tazed already been shot at close range (was he wounded already? We heard shots fired initially)
His hands are empty and he's hurt. Cops wanted to waste him, and people with blood lust support dudes getting wasted because, well, it makes them feel good.
There are times when police have to empty 4 guns into a bad guy. This ain't one of them.
-
Not looking at hindsight at all. Here's a couple of possible assumptions you are running under:
- The police officers were aware of the man's meth history
- The police officers knew of him making threats with a gun
Here's what we do know:
- A man threw a rock or rocks at 3 police officers
- They chased him and shot him
- The man was not a threat without a rock in his hand
- Its debatable that he was a deadly threat with a rock in hand
- The police had the reasonable means to subdue him
This is wrongful death, plain and simple
let me ask you this did the police know for sure he did not have a gun on him,I'll answer for you no,did the police know he's a meth user,yes.did they know he has threaten with a gun before yes.so when this guy is running from them and all of a sudden turns around and and faces them can they fear for their life, yes.and that's how this is going to end
-
let me ask you this did the police know for sure he did not have a gun on him,I'll answer for you no,did the police know he's a meth user,yes.did they know he has threaten with a gun before yes.so when this guy is running from them and all of a sudden turns around and and faces them can they fear for their life, yes.and that's how this is going to end
You don't shot a person for what they can do until you have reason to believe they will do it. Such as brandishing a gun.
Additionally where does it say they knew of the guys past? Maybe i missed it? Did they know him personally? Did they run his name through a data based right before this all happened?
-
let me ask you this did the police know for sure he did not have a gun on him,I'll answer for you no,did the police know he's a meth user,yes.did they know he has threaten with a gun before yes.so when this guy is running from them and all of a sudden turns around and and faces them can they fear for their life, yes.and that's how this is going to end
in ANY situation, police "dont know he doesn't have a gun on him".
You can't shoot him to prove a negative lol.
At this point, you're delivering these stretch hypotheticals as to why it was cool to shoot an unarmed man trying to get away, then putting hands in air.
If they could do it over again - they wouldn't shoot him. That speaks volumes.
-
When the rock was in the air, yes, he was a deadly threat.
Running away, he's some idiot, already tazed already been shot at close range (was he wounded already? We heard shots fired initially)
His hands are empty and he's hurt. Cops wanted to waste him, and people with blood lust support dudes getting wasted because, well, it makes them feel good.
There are times when police have to empty 4 guns into a bad guy. This ain't one of them.
A violent meth head who has a history of making death threats, who already has used deadly force AND STILL is very capable of pulling out a concealed strap. Like blacken said this is a split second decision the police had to make.
Sorry bro, can't Monday Morning Quarterback with you on this one.
In a situation like that it's mutually understood that everyone drains their clips and insures themselves the ability to make it home for Wifey's pot roast at 6 pm and the ability to see little juniors t-ball game next Saturday. And rightfully so.
-
;D
(https://i.imgflip.com/et0pz.jpg)
-
A violent meth head who has a history of making death threats, who already has used deadly force AND STILL is very capable of pulling out a concealed strap. Like blacken said this is a split second decision the police had to make.
Sorry bro, can't Monday Morning Quarterback with you on this one.
In a situation like that it's mutually understood that everyone drains their clips and insure themselves the ability to make it home for Wifey's pot roast at 6 pm and the ability to see little juniors t-ball game next Saturday. And rightfully so.
You are assuming those police officers knew that at the time of incident.
Even if they did, he was throwing rocks. That doesn't justify the use of deadly force.
-
;D
(https://i.imgflip.com/et0pz.jpg)
Not saying that at all.
not even a good try lol
1. They already had their weapons drawn
2. He was throwing rocks
3. He didn't have a gun or suggest he had a gun
-
A violent meth head who has a history of making death threats, who already has used deadly force AND STILL is very capable of pulling out a concealed strap. Like blacken said this is a split second decision the police had to make.
Sorry bro, can't Monday Morning Quarterback with you on this one.
In a situation like that it's mutually understood that everyone drains their clips and insures themselves the ability to make it home for Wifey's pot roast at 6 pm and the ability to see little juniors t-ball game next Saturday. And rightfully so.
Drains their clips because the man threw his rock and was trying to run?
Look, to me it really sounds like you are trying like crazy to justify this shoot. I get it. the guy was a bag of shit. But at the time they "drained their clips", he was a wounded idiot with empty hands in air.
I go further than Oz... I think cops are fine to shoot the dude with rock in the air. Even though he's probably not going to do shit with it, he's given them leash to kill them.
BUT empty hands, running away, no more rocks... that's about finishing the fcker off, not getting home safely lol
-
Not saying that at all.
not even a good try lol
1. They already had their weapons drawn
2. He was throwing rocks
3. He didn't have a gun or suggest he had a gun
lol yeah we know that now Tom Brady of Monday morning
-
Not saying that at all.
not even a good try lol
1. They already had their weapons drawn
2. He was throwing rocks
3. He didn't have a gun or suggest he had a gun
when they killed him, he was out of rocks. He had walked a few feet, crossed a street, walked the length of a storefront and hand empty hands up.
This bullshit about "he was throwing rocks" justtified the shoot initially, but the cirumstances had changed and they were no longer justified to fire. They just did it because they had already started, and there was too much ego/testosterone to turn that shit off once they realized they just had an unarmed fleeing dude.
They wanted to waste his ass, period. They didn't turn off their deadly force when the "threat of a rock" had passed by a few seconds. Plenty of time to start shooting, not start a 2nd shoot.
-
Here's what we do know:
- The man was not a threat without a rock in his hand
Any person who has assaulted a cop and is resisting arrest is a threat. They shouldn't have to try and wrestle with someone like that and risk having the perp take their gun during a struggle.
-
I did hear an interview with a local Hispanic community leader and I must give him credit for his civility. He mostly talked about the how person shot had mental issues and the most important issue was making sure people with mental problems weren't thrown out on the street. He was very rational and as about as far from a Sharpton as you can get.
-
240 is a guy who for some reason likes to make up his own facts :D
Tell me about it.
-
I did hear an interview with a local Hispanic community leader and I must give him credit for his civility. He mostly talked about the how person shot had mental issues and the most important issue was making sure people with mental problems weren't thrown out on the street. He was very rational and as about as far from a Sharpton as you can get.
Makes sense. Looked like he might have been either on drugs or crazy.
-
when they killed him, he was out of rocks. He had walked a few feet, crossed a street, walked the length of a storefront and hand empty hands up.
This bullshit about "he was throwing rocks" justtified the shoot initially, but the cirumstances had changed and they were no longer justified to fire. They just did it because they had already started, and there was too much ego/testosterone to turn that shit off once they realized they just had an unarmed fleeing dude.
They wanted to waste his ass, period. They didn't turn off their deadly force when the "threat of a rock" had passed by a few seconds. Plenty of time to start shooting, not start a 2nd shoot.
WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN he put his hands forward then pulled them back towards his belt or where his belt should be,never up in the air,stop with making up your own facts
-
Makes sense. Looked like he might have been either on drugs or crazy.
I don't know the details but he may have had something like schizophrenia. This would explain his erratic behavior. I'm not a huge fan of government spending but in the cases of people with mental disorders I'm willing to pay to keep them off the streets. It's safer for them and us.
-
when they killed him, he was out of rocks. He had walked a few feet, crossed a street, walked the length of a storefront and hand empty hands up.
This bullshit about "he was throwing rocks" justtified the shoot initially, but the cirumstances had changed and they were no longer justified to fire. They just did it because they had already started, and there was too much ego/testosterone to turn that shit off once they realized they just had an unarmed fleeing dude.
They wanted to waste his ass, period. They didn't turn off their deadly force when the "threat of a rock" had passed by a few seconds. Plenty of time to start shooting, not start a 2nd shoot.
Look at the leap you have to take to justify this piece of shit being able to keep his life.
So far this is what we know about him and the incident.
1. Meth use (we all have heard stories about those types. They are typically known as the most dangerous of all drug users)
2. Mental issues
3. History of threatening people with a firearm in his past.
4. Current history of attacking a police officer with deadly force.
5. His hands moving dangerously close to his own midsection when the police took him out.
6. It's a split second decision once he starts moving his hands around.
How you can go to bat for a scumbag like this and all those facts being known is beyond me.
-
Any person who has assaulted a cop and is resisting arrest is a threat. They shouldn't have to try and wrestle with someone like that and risk having the perp take their gun during a struggle.
The question is, is that person at the time of the shooting a deadly threat.
If he didn't have a rock in his hand then absolutely NO
If he did have a rock in his hand it then is arguable in court.
There were 3 cops. Cops wrestle perps down all the time. They are trained to do that.
-
Look at the leap you have to take to justify this piece of shit being able to keep his life.
So far this is what we know about him and the incident.
1. Meth use (we all have heard stories about those types. They are typically known as the most dangerous of all drug users)
2. Mental issues
3. History of threatening people with a firearm in his past.
4. Current history of attacking a police officer with deadly force.
5. His hands moving dangerously close to his own midsection when the police took him out.
6. It's a split second decision once he starts moving his hands around.
How you can go to bat for a scumbag like this and all those facts being known is beyond me.
because they live in some kind of fantasy land
-
I don't know the details but he may have had something like schizophrenia. This would explain his erratic behavior. I'm not a huge fan of government spending but in the cases of people with mental disorders I'm willing to pay to keep them off the streets. It's safer for them and us.
I agree, although we already have county and state hospitals and I believe there are taxpayer funded mental health facilities. The real problem is getting patients in the door. I doubt people with mental problems routinely check themselves into a psyche ward.
-
The question is, is that person at the time of the shooting a deadly threat.
If he didn't have a rock in his hand then absolutely NO
If he did have a rock in his hand it then is arguable in court.
There were 3 cops. Cops wrestle perps down all the time. They are trained to do that.
again watch the video,and watch it close, watch where his hands go just before they shoot him
-
The question is, is that person at the time of the shooting a deadly threat.
If he didn't have a rock in his hand then absolutely NO
If he did have a rock in his hand it then is arguable in court.
There were 3 cops. Cops wrestle perps down all the time. They are trained to do that.
An unarmed person is a threat to take an officer's gun and can cover about 20 feet in about 2 seconds.
I agree cops wrestle perps down all time. I don't think they wrestle perps down who have assaulted them with a weapon.
It's hard to say with certainty, but it looks like the officers did exactly what they were trained to do, especially if they ordered the guy to stop, get on the ground, etc.
It would be a different story if the guy did not assault the cops beforehand. That changes everything.
-
An unarmed person is a threat to take an officer's gun and can cover about 20 feet in about 2 seconds.
I agree cops wrestle perps down all time. I don't think they wrestle perps down who have assaulted them with a weapon.
It's hard to say with certainty, but it looks like the officers did exactly what they were trained to do, especially if they ordered the guy to stop, get on the ground, etc.
It would be a different story if the guy did not assault the cops beforehand. That changes everything.
this case will go nowhere,did you see the family is suing for 20 million :D now that's a lot of apple picking
-
i'm not going to bat for the scumbag. I would prefer he get life in prison for the rock, or better, capped while holding up the rock.
it's the shooting the guy when hands are empty that irks me.
-
again watch the video,and watch it close, watch where his hands go just before they shoot him
Until a gun is pulled, its a wrongful death.
-
Until a gun is pulled, its a wrongful death.
"but he didn't prove he didn't have a gun, therefore they can shoot him".
Dude, the people arguing it... they want the guy guy dead, and they'd excuse a lot of behavior in order to see it. They see police shooting as execution as okay, if the person is bad. I see police using deadly force only as allowable when life in immanent danger... as so most sensible people.
-
An unarmed person is a threat to take an officer's gun and can cover about 20 feet in about 2 seconds.
I agree cops wrestle perps down all time. I don't think they wrestle perps down who have assaulted them with a weapon.
It's hard to say with certainty, but it looks like the officers did exactly what they were trained to do, especially if they ordered the guy to stop, get on the ground, etc.
It would be a different story if the guy did not assault the cops beforehand. That changes everything.
And it takes a 1/10 of second to pull the trigger of the guns they already had out and aimed. Also was he charging the cops? NO.
The weapon he assaulted the cops with was on the ground about 20 yards away.
That's the question, is that what they are are trained to do in that particular situation? Just like the Ferguson case. Is there enough evidence to show they acted outside of the training/procedure in these instances?
-
officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
-
officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.
They are not waiting until the last instance.
He may have or may have not been reaching into his pocket. Either way until a threat is visible there isnt a justification for the use of deadly force.
So here's what we have of your argument so far:
1. "The police knew his history" You haven't shown where those police officers knew his history at the time of the incident. until you do your argument = FAIL
2. "Officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized" Are officers trained to shoot before the threat is realized at all? argument = FAIL
Just so you know.... I might rethink my opinion if the Police involved knew this guys history. It still would depend on other issues.
-
They are not waiting until the last instance.
He may have or may have not been reaching into his pocket. Either way until a threat is visible there isnt a justification for the use of deadly force.
So here's what we have of your argument so far:
1. "The police knew his history" You haven't shown where those police officers knew his history at the time of the incident. until you do your argument = FAIL
2. "Officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized" Are officers trained to shoot before the threat is realized at all? argument = FAIL
sorry but you don't have a clue,you just keep on living in your MR. ROGERS NEIBORHOOD and let the police deal with the trash
-
sorry but you don't have a clue,you just keep on living in your MR. ROGERS NEIBORHOOD and let the police deal with the trash
Yeah, i will keep living in Mr. Rogers Neiborhood of FACTS and you keep living in fantasy land using things that aren't true to argue your points.
::) Dumbass.
-
Yeah, i will keep living in Mr. Rogers Neiborhood of FACTS and you keep living in fantasy land using things that aren't true to argue your points.
::) Dumbass.
lol when this case is over and the police are back on the job than I guess we'll know who's facts are right,MR. ROGERS :D :D :D
(https://i.imgflip.com/huoo9.jpg)
-
Until a gun is pulled, its a wrongful death.
Really? So a cop cannot use deadly force if someone has a knife? Or a bat? Or softball sized rock?
Good thing that isn't how use of force guidelines work. Would result a lot more injured and dead cops.
-
And it takes a 1/10 of second to pull the trigger of the guns they already had out and aimed. Also was he charging the cops? NO.
The weapon he assaulted the cops with was on the ground about 20 yards away.
That's the question, is that what they are are trained to do in that particular situation? Just like the Ferguson case. Is there enough evidence to show they acted outside of the training/procedure in these instances?
Looks like they did what they were trained to do, but there is no audio of what they said to the guy.
-
lol when this case is over and the police are back on the job than I guess we'll know who's facts are right,MR. ROGERS :D :D :D
(https://i.imgflip.com/huoo9.jpg)
Regardless of the outcome of the case, your argument at this time that the police on site knew of his history will be based on ZERO facts which will show how stupid you are.
But you got one thing going for you in that when you look like fool you can always post up a meme to distract from that sobering fact you have to face.
-
Really? So a cop cannot use deadly force if someone has a knife? Or a bat? Or softball sized rock?
Good thing that isn't how use of force guidelines work. Would result a lot more injured and dead cops.
Nah, just saying if it was a gun. If it was a knife, i would side with the police.
Softball sized rock in his pocket? He might just be glad to you, Beach.
-
this case will go nowhere,did you see the family is suing for 20 million :D now that's a lot of apple picking
Did not see that. I cannot say whether it will go anywhere because there are still a lot of unanswered questions, but based solely on the clip I don't have a problem with what the cops did, assuming the guy had been throwing softball sized rocks.
-
Nah, just saying if it was a gun. If it was a knife, i would side with the police.
Softball sized rock in his pocket? He might just be glad to you, Beach.
Didn't have to be in his pocket. It's hard to tell, but it looked like he had something in his hands when he turned back towards the officers right before the second round of shots.
-
Looks like they did what they were trained to do, but there is no audio of what they said to the guy.
I'd like to see the exact procedure in writing.
It just doesn't seem logical in that instance that they would be trained to assume they are in deadly danger. Had this been a knife or gun or bat, sure. Softball sized rock sitting on the ground 20 yards away? NO.
Softball sized rock in his hand in the act of throwing? Maybe. Just about anyone could and would dodge that.
-
Until a gun is pulled, its a wrongful death.
If it was a knife, i would side with the police.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57585785.jpg)
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/57585785.jpg)
Lame, you just took it out of context. ::)
At least be intelligent enough not to come across like fat 13 year moron. ;)
-
Didn't have to be in his pocket. It's hard to tell, but it looked like he had something in his hands when he turned back towards the officers right before the second round of shots.
We don't know if had a rock in his hand or not. Even if its a rock I still don't think deadly force is warranted.
-
Regardless of the outcome of the case, your argument at this time that the police on site knew of his history will be based on ZERO facts which will show how stupid you are.
But you got one thing going for you in that when you look like fool you can always post up a meme to distract from that sobering fact you have to face.
lol funny your already covering the fact you know your wrong,got to hand it to you mr. rogers hahaha
-
I'd like to see the exact procedure in writing.
It just doesn't seem logical in that instance that they would be trained to assume they are in deadly danger. Had this been a knife or gun or bat, sure. Softball sized rock sitting on the ground 20 yards away? NO.
Softball sized rock in his hand in the act of throwing? Maybe. Just about anyone could and would dodge that.
Deadly danger isn't the standard anywhere, for either police or civilians. It's death or serious bodily injury.
It's out of context to say this was just about a rock sitting 20 yards away. The guy had already thrown rocks, was running away, then turned back towards the officers and looked like he was going to do it again. With a split second to make a decision, they pulled the trigger. I wouldn't except them to wait until the guy throws another softball sized rock.
-
We don't know if had a rock in his hand or not. Even if its a rock I still don't think deadly force is warranted.
I agree we don't know and the cops probably didn't know for certain either.
You don't think a softball sized rock is a deadly weapon, or at least a weapon that can cause seriously bodily injury?
-
Lame, you just took it out of context. ::)
At least be intelligent enough not to come across like fat 13 year moron. ;)
Do you even lift? :D
-
lol funny your already covering the fact you know your wrong,got to hand it to you mr. rogers hahaha
::)
until you can prove the police on the scene knew his history you got nothing. If you can i might change my opinion. But event then, you have proven only how stupid you are, because what the police on the scene know hasn't been established yet.
Go ahead and post another meme to hide how dumb of a person you are.
-
Deadly danger isn't the standard anywhere, for either police or civilians. It's death or serious bodily injury.
It's out of context to say this was just about a rock sitting 20 yards away. The guy had already thrown rocks, was running away, then turned back towards the officers and looked like he was going to do it again. With a split second to make a decision, they pulled the trigger. I wouldn't except them to wait until the guy throws another softball sized rock.
come on they could just shoot the rock in the air and make it into pebbles.
-
I agree we don't know and the cops probably didn't know for certain either.
You don't think a softball sized rock is a deadly weapon, or at least a weapon that can cause seriously bodily injury?
It could if thrown at a person who was unaware or didn't have the ability to dodge it.
Deadly danger isn't the standard anywhere, for either police or civilians. It's death or serious bodily injury.
It's out of context to say this was just about a rock sitting 20 yards away. The guy had already thrown rocks, was running away, then turned back towards the officers and looked like he was going to do it again. With a split second to make a decision, they pulled the trigger. I wouldn't except them to wait until the guy throws another softball sized rock.
Its a rock, its not that dangerous if you know its coming.
-
::)
until you can prove the police on the scene knew his history you got nothing. If you can i might change my opinion. But event then, you have proven only how stupid you are, because what the police on the scene know hasn't been established yet.
Go ahead and post another meme to hide how dumb of a person you are.
oh someone getting mad lol just admitt your wrong
-
Do you even lift? :D
Do you?
Or do you just spend your time making stupid arguments that show how ignorant you are?
Or are you just a good little parrot?
-
oh someone getting mad lol just admitt your wrong
No, I am pretty right about you. You have demonstrated yourself very well here.
YOU = take an unproven fact, pass it off as fact, then jump into ad-hom when called on it.
Pretty what you do all the time.
com on now, you know you want to post another meme. DO IT!!!
-
It could if thrown at a person who was unaware or didn't have the ability to dodge it.
Its a rock, its not that dangerous if you know its coming.
:o
-
No, I am pretty right about you. You have demonstrated yourself very well here.
YOU = take an unproven fact, pass it off as fact, then jump into ad-hom when called on it.
Pretty what you do all the time.
com on now, you know you want to post another meme. DO IT!!!
you mad bro hahaha anger is no way to live life
would you be my neighbo. lol
-
you mad bro hahaha anger is no way to live life
would you be my neighbo. lol
ad-hom and ridicule. That's what you do when your dumb arguments are exposed.
At least your lack of substance is consistent
-
Here is a proven fact: The perp was a worthless POS! The world is better off without him here stinking it up any more. He was exactly the type of person to kill, to create a better world for real human beings.
His death prevents all the future harm to society, that he would have done, if he were still alive.
-
the comment I responded to.. The question is also irrelevant because I never stated or implied what you suggested at all. Oh, it also may qualify as a complex question fallacy. Oh and the original comments you made that I replied to are also false analogies.
I don't know which comment you are referring too
just state the words you think I'm putting in your mouth
also, as I've pointed out I was responding to a specific scenario proposed by Skip so I didn't "frame" anything or make a false equivalency. I responded to specific question
How about you go back to the Palin thread and do the exact same thing are you trying to do here
That's what I asked you to do there multiple times while you played dumb
-
Here is a proven fact: The perp was a worthless POS! The world is better off without him here stinking it up any more. He was exactly the type of person to kill, to create a better world for real human beings.
His death prevents all the future harm to society, that he would have done, if he were still alive.
I disagree. Everyone's life has value. He didn't deserve to die just because he might have been a thug, or a crackhead, or just crazy. He did create the circumstances that led to his own death, but he was a part of society, which includes people from all income, education, mental health, etc. levels.
Maybe he would have spent his life in and out of jail. Or maybe he would have become a productive member of society. Who knows?
-
I disagree. Everyone's life has value. He didn't deserve to die just because he might have been a thug, or a crackhead, or just crazy. He did create the circumstances that led to his own death, but he was a part of society, which includes people from all income, education, mental health, etc. levels.
Maybe he would have spent his life in and out of jail. Or maybe he would have become a productive member of society. Who knows?
Yeah Right. If they hadn't killed the worthless piece of shit, he was going to take up medical research and cure diseases. Grow a brain. The problem with society is that we don't kill off more of the shit people who are polluting society with their criminal presence.
-
Yeah Right. If they hadn't killed the worthless piece of shit, he was going to take up medical research and cure diseases. Grow a brain. The problem with society is that we don't kill off more of the shit people who are polluting society with their criminal presence.
I have no idea what he would have done or become and you don't either. I haven't read anything about the guy.
Plus I'm not into that whole Nazi kill off the undesirables thing.
-
I have no idea what he would have done or become and you don't either. I haven't read anything about the guy.
Plus I'm not into that whole Nazi kill off the undesirables thing.
So you find violent criminals to be what, desirable in society? What, they're just doing their part to make the world a better place, and we should all care about them? Really? Seek professional help.
-
So you find violent criminals to be what, desirable in society? What, they're just doing their part to make the world a better place, and we should all care about them? Really? Seek professional help.
No I don't think violent criminals are a desirable part of society. They should be locked up or executed, depending on the crime. What I'm not in favor of is killing people who make mistakes. I believe in rehabilitation. It works for some. I believe in second chances. I believe people can change. That doesn't mean we have to condone criminal behavior or give people a pass when they break the law. We shouldn't. But it doesn't mean we should go round up people you don't believe are productive members of society and start killing them.
You should read about Hitler and Nazi Germany. That is precisely what those folks did. They systematically targeted and killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race, including mentally disabled people and homosexuals. Twisted.
-
ad-hom and ridicule. That's what you do when your dumb arguments are exposed.
At least your lack of substance is consistent
lol would you like to bet on who ends up right,and has the dumb arguments.come on mr rogers
-
No I don't think violent criminals are a desirable part of society. They should be locked up or executed, depending on the crime. What I'm not in favor of is killing people who make mistakes. I believe in rehabilitation. It works for some. I believe in second chances. I believe people can change. That doesn't mean we have to condone criminal behavior or give people a pass when they break the law. We shouldn't. But it doesn't mean we should go round up people you don't believe are productive members of society and start killing them.
You should read about Hitler and Nazi Germany. That is precisely what those folks did. They systematically targeted and killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race, including mentally disabled people and homosexuals. Twisted.
Rehabilitation has been a dismal failure. It isn't the answer. Neither is education, because the vast majority of violent criminals, are too stupid to be practically educated. Homosexuals and other mentally disabled people should be put in institutions, but violent criminals should be killed just for drill, because they can't be cured, regardless of what conservative "do gooders" and liberal "bleeding hearts," erroneously believe.
-
lol would you like to bet on who ends up right,and has the dumb arguments.come on mr rogers
Maybe, but first you need to cop to your mis-representation of facts.
-
Maybe, but first you need to cop to your mis-representation of facts.
they had justification in shooting him and you say they didn't, pretty simple
-
Rehabilitation has been a dismal failure. It isn't the answer. Neither is education, because the vast majority of violent criminals, are too stupid to be practically educated. Homosexuals and other mentally disabled people should be put in institutions, but violent criminals should be killed just for drill, because they can't be cured, regardless of what conservative "do gooders" and liberal "bleeding hearts," erroneously believe.
I agree rehabilitation is often a failure. I disagree that education is not the answer. Not a whole lot of college educated violent criminals out there. If we reach them early enough, education can absolutely make a tremendous difference with the course of someone's life. But most of that starts at home with good parenting.
You have some Radical Islamic-like views about homosexuality and mentally disabled people. Sounds like Sharia law is right up your alley.
-
they had justification in shooting him and you say they didn't, pretty simple
::)
I am not going to back and quote your mistakes. I pointed them out right after you made them. If you can't cop to them, go back to ad-hom nd ridicule combined with meme's its seems that's all you are good at.
-
::)
I am not going to back and quote your mistakes. I pointed them out right after you made them. If you can't cop to them, go back to ad-hom nd ridicule combined with meme's its seems that's all you are good at.
brhahaha just say you don't want to bet because you know you'll wrong, again very simple bet but I guess your not willing to take it,that's okk
-
I agree rehabilitation is often a failure. I disagree that education is not the answer. Not a whole lot of college educated violent criminals out there. If we reach them early enough, education can absolutely make a tremendous difference with the course of someone's life. But most of that starts at home with good parenting.
You have some Radical Islamic-like views about homosexuality and mentally disabled people. Sounds like Sharia law is right up your alley.
First you wrongly compared me to the Nazis, saying what I want, is what the Nazis did. When in fact, I want violent criminals killed off by any means possible, while the Nazis didn't kill off the violent criminals, they recruited them into the Nazi Party (as the Democrats in the USA are doing today). Now you are comparing me, wrongly, to islamic scum, when I'm really a pragmatic Atheist, who can deal with the reality, that a significant percentage of the world population are violent subhuman criminals, and only one thing can cure that, something you are to weak to admit will work beautifully, that is killing off the violent criminal population, as soon as possible.
-
brhahaha just say you don't want to bet because you know you'll wrong, again very simple bet but I guess your not willing to take it,that's okk
NO, I'm open to it. But i am not going to bet with a guy who can't cop to his own BS. No point.
-
NO, I open to it. But i am not going to bet with a guy who can't cop to his own BS. No point.
yeaaaaaah ooookkkkk :D :D well when the cops go back to work i'll make sure to let you know you were wrong :D :D
-
yeaaaaaah ooookkkkk :D :D well when the cops go back to work i'll make sure to let you know you were wrong :D :D
::)
-
First you wrongly compared be to the Nazis, saying what I want, is what the Nazis did. When in fact I want violent criminals killed off by any means possible, while the Nazis didn't kill off the violent criminals, they recruited them into the Nazi Party (as the Democrats in the USA are doing today). Now you are comparing me, wrongly, to islamic scum, when I'm really a pragmatic Atheist, who can deal with the reality, that a significant percentage of the world population are violent subhuman criminals, and only one thing can cure that, something you are to weak to admit will work beautifully, that is killing off the violent criminal population, as soon as possible.
Nazis killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race. They even took measurements of facial structures to try and create some kind of desirable race of people. They killed those who didn't fit the profile. They killed mentally disabled kids. They murdered millions of Jews (and other Europeans). That is similar to the things you are saying about killing violent criminals by any means possible. Not every crime warrants the death penalty. You are literally dehumanizing people, even calling them "subhuman." That's exactly what the Nazis did.
Regarding Radical Islam, they execute homosexuals, including recently throwing some of them off of a building to their deaths. You believe homosexuals should be locked up in a mental institution. Not much of a leap (so to speak) between your ideology and Radical Islamists.
-
Nazis killed people who didn't fit their idea of a master race. They even took measurements of facial structures to try and create some kind of desirable race of people. They killed those who didn't fit the profile. They killed mentally disabled kids. They murdered millions of Jews (and other Europeans). That is similar to the things you are saying about killing violent criminals by any means possible. Not every crime warrants the death penalty. You are literally dehumanizing people, even calling them "subhuman." That's exactly what the Nazis did.
Regarding Radical Islam, they execute homosexuals, including recently throwing some of them off of a building to their deaths. You believe homosexuals should be locked up in a mental institution. Not much of a leap (so to speak) between your ideology and Radical Islamists.
The Nazis didn't do what I'm suggesting. I pointed that out. You can't deal with reality, because you can't get over your emotions. Homosexuals have always been, correctly, considered to be sexual deviants and perverts, are mentally ill, and should be confined to institutions for the mentally ill, to protect themselves, and others, from their perverted deathstyle that they "live."
-
The Nazis didn't do what I'm suggesting. I pointed that out. You can't deal with reality, because you can't get over your emotions. Homosexuals have always been, correctly, considered to be sexual deviants and perverts, are mentally ill, and should be confined to institutions for the mentally ill, to protect themselves, and others, from their perverted deathstyle that they "live."
Yes, the Nazis dehumanized people, which it made it easier to kill them. You call people "subhuman."
Regarding homosexuals, you might feel more comfortable living in the Middle East. Many of them have the same mindset. At least publicly.
-
Yes, the Nazis dehumanized people, which it made it easier to kill them. You call people "subhuman."
Regarding homosexuals, you might feel more comfortable living in the Middle East. Many of them have the same mindset. At least publicly.
Violent criminals dehumanized themselves. It's their fault that they are criminals. It's the choice they made. Homosexuals like wise chose to do what they do. They made the choice to be perverts. No one else can be blamed for their bad behavior. It's not society's fault that some people chose to be violent criminals and perverts.
Atheists can never be "comfortable" living in the middle east, a hot bed of ignorant superstitions.
-
A Gastonia police officer shot and killed a woman after responding to a domestic disturbance call late Tuesday morning. The shooting happened at a home on Union Road, near Tryon Place.
http://www.myfoxcarolinas.com/story/28129409/officer-involved-shooting-in-gastonia
A woman at the home called 911 and asked for help getting her ex-boyfriend and his friend out of her house. The unidentified woman who placed the 911 call told a dispatcher that there were weapons in the home, but no one was using a weapon at the time.
Officer LaDoniqua Neely shot Betty Diane Sexton, 43, in the chest. Sexton was taken to the hospital, but was later pronounced dead.
The State Bureau of Investigation is doing its own investigation into the shooting, which is standard for officer involved shootings.
“The investigation is in very early stages, and at this point this is all the information we have,” Chief Robert Helton said. Neely has been with the Gastonia Police Department since January 2012. She has been placed on administrative leave, which is also standard procedure.
This is the second incident this month in which a Gastonia police officer shot and killed someone while responding to a call. Earlier this month, an officer killed a 74-year-old man after responding to his home for a welfare check.
-
This is the second incident this month in which a Gastonia police officer shot and killed someone while responding to a call. Earlier this month, an officer killed a 74-year-old man after responding to his home for a welfare check.
Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc.
After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
-
Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc.
After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
-
Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
I cannot believe you included that word.
Police should shoot a person if their actions at the moment - pointing a deadly weapon at people - dictate the use of such force.
If they're *thinking* about a person's criminal record, then they aren't evaluating, they're DECIDING based upon factors outside of the weapon/crime happening, it's no longer police work, it's murder.
and that's total horseshit. Link to ANY place in writing where it says police should shoot/not shoot based upon (even partly) a dude's RECORD... ?
-
Don't worry... police kiss-asses on getbig will determine that the 74-year old man was a suspect in a thousand unsolved killings in Pyongyang in 1950, and thus the shooting was probably justified no matter if his hands were empty, if he was surrendering, etc.
After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
It's the word you used idiot
-
Name one person who said someone's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
I'm reading up on factors - including cognitive/evaluative factors - that influence cops when deciding to empty their gun into someone:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/policeshooting.html
Nope, nothing about their record. Just current factors in the current situation. To insinuate they'd shoot a guy with a record but let a dude with a lean record live.... total piece of shit police right there (although I am sure it happens all the time).
-
After all, a person's background should totally influence whether or not its cool for police to kill him in cold blood.
I'll ask again. Name one person who said the above?
-
It's the word you used idiot
a person's criminal record should have ZERO influence on whether or not police put a hole in his belly.
shit man. it should be based on if he has a weapon, and those factors, period.
The thought that you'd let an 18 year old college kid with a rock live, but a 35 year old ex-con die...ANY influence with that is as stupid as is it fucking evil.
-
a person's criminal record should have ZERO influence on whether or not police put a hole in his belly.
shit man. it should be based on if he has a weapon, and those factors, period.
The thought that you'd let an 18 year old college kid with a rock live, but a 35 year old ex-con die...ANY influence with that is as stupid as is it fucking evil.
I'm asking you to name the person who said that. As for background, you harped on and on about Zimmerman's background. You created one of your typical fantasy scenarios based entirely on your character profile of zimmerman.
-
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
That's along the lines that I'm thinking, but it's certainly a middle ground. Rocks can be lethal, but I don't think a prosecutor or jury would let me off if I killed someone over it.
-
I think you, me, and everyone else with a brain knows the guy with a rock wasn't going to kill them. They knew it because they got out a tazer and hit him with it. For whatever reason, it failed.
They felt he was so little of a threat that they used a tazer. They didn't go for a second tazer. They didn't go for mace or beanbags or just whipping out clubs and taking out his knee from behind for an instant KO.
No, the rock magically moved from non-deadly (hence the tazer) to deadly (hench the 4 of them shooting at once).
That's troubling. As most would see it, dude with a rock isn't going to kill them lol. Yes, LEGALLY, they can exaplain and justify it, but morally... and realistically... and practically... they didn't think dude was about to kill them. If they had, then they wouldn't have taken time to get out taser initally.
IMO, they were pissed off at this little prick. They zapped him, and it didnt dorp him. They could have zapped him more, or used other means... but when he threw a rock, they probably reinforced each other with "hey, we can shoot, that's deadly potentially..."
Looking fwd to their reports where all 4-5 of them shed tears and whine about "i feared the rock in his hand was about to end my life" LOL and "As I chased him across the street, all I could think of was, I must shoot him in case he finds another rock..."
It's weak shit all around. And everyone sees it. Some people would literally bend over if they saw a cop with blueballs. but most people know those cops didn't fear for their lives, rather, they realized legally he'd just given then the justification to cap his punk ass. And they tossed restraint out the window and went for it!
I'm not saying you're wrong. Just at this point we don't know what he had in his hands at the moment he was shot.
-
You don't shot a person for what they can do until you have reason to believe they will do it. Such as brandishing a gun.
Additionally where does it say they knew of the guys past? Maybe i missed it? Did they know him personally? Did they run his name through a data based right before this all happened?
In some cases I think that's reasonable. If you have a guy say shooting at cops, then decides to turn and run, I have no problem with them shooting him in the back. He would just as easily kill any civilians and he's certainly a threat, regardless of the fact that at that moment, he's running away.
-
Seems to be a lot of talk about how the guy was trash, but no talk about how one of the officers involved had previously lost a 100k federal civil rights law suit, lol.
Guess shit only counts when it's the bad guy who's trash. You really gotta wonder about this blind devotion to cops.
-
Seems to be a lot of talk about how the guy was trash, but no talk about how one of the officers involved had previously lost a 100k federal civil rights law suit, lol.
Guess shit only counts when it's the bad guy who's trash. You really gotta wonder about this blind devotion to cops.
How does losing a civil rights lawsuit make the cop trash? We know why the perp was trash.
-
How does losing a civil rights lawsuit make the cop trash? We know why the perp was trash.
As a gimmick, you should never directly address me.
For your level of stupidity, you need to address whork, who will address necrosis, who will address blacken, who will send me a PM requesting permission to address me.
Much appreciated.
-
As a gimmick, you should never directly address me.
For your level of stupidity, you need to address whork, who will address necrosis, who will address blacken, who will send me a PM requesting permission to address me.
Much appreciated.
;D
-
As a gimmick, you should never directly address me.
For your level of stupidity, you need to address whork, who will address necrosis, who will address blacken, who will send me a PM requesting permission to address me.
Much appreciated.
Yes, I knew you couldn't answer a simple question.
Stop posting horse shit, and no one will address you.
-
at the moment of the shooting, any *history* of the person getting shot shouldn't weigh into it.
Now, AFTER the shoot, the motive of the attack might be evalulated based upon the history of that person. But at the moment, any cop that says "eh, this person is a good kid, don't fire, but this dirtbag, waste him..." that cop is a bag of shit and deserves the worst.
and yes, the bloodwork, BAC, drug use, and past shootings of all parties are relevant in post-shooting investigation. They never told us what zimm's blood was, but we get trayvon's blood? crap. we should have BOTH.
-
I posted the link to the other incident to make a point. Nobody cares when a white lady is killed by a black officer. Hell, the usual gaggle of whiny homeboys on getbig haven't even bothered to comment on the dead Hispanic. It also demonstrates that dumb cops don't just come in the color white. The process of training cops needs to be better. I don't trust Holder to do it.
at the moment of the shooting, any *history* of the person getting shot shouldn't weigh into it.
Now, AFTER the shoot, the motive of the attack might be evalulated based upon the history of that person. But at the moment, any cop that says "eh, this person is a good kid, don't fire, but this dirtbag, waste him..." that cop is a bag of shit and deserves the worst.
and yes, the bloodwork, BAC, drug use, and past shootings of all parties are relevant in post-shooting investigation. They never told us what zimm's blood was, but we get trayvon's blood? crap. we should have BOTH.
This is a bunch of nonsense. You can't assume to know the minds of the cops. They aren'y deciding to shoot based on your little fucked up scenario. You are so full of shit. Your the type of idiot that should never be on a jury. You are to prone to fantasy.
-
they had justification in shooting him and you say they didn't, pretty simple
at the point of the initial shoot, yes.
But after he crossed the street? with hands up, fleeing then stopping? Eh, I missed the spot where he "reloaded" that deadly rock lol.
Look dude, they wanted to cap his ass. The minute he crossed the textbook threshold, they decided on death sentence, and even when they missed and he ran unarmed to escape, they kept firing because the death sentence was to be admin'd, no matter what surrendering he did.
they're murderous cops, they're pieces of shit and one day, they may have to answer for it - would love to see their faces/smirks/silly lies of "the way he threw that rock, I fear for our lives, and I knew if I didn't put 9 rounds in his torso, he might bend down and pick up another rock..."
Justification for a shoot is only real as long as that threat is present. When he ran outta rocks and fled, that threat was no longer present. period.
-
at the point of the initial shoot, yes.
But after he crossed the street? with hands up, fleeing then stopping? Eh, I missed the spot where he "reloaded" that deadly rock lol.
Look dude, they wanted to cap his ass. The minute he crossed the textbook threshold, they decided on death sentence, and even when they missed and he ran unarmed to escape, they kept firing because the death sentence was to be admin'd, no matter what surrendering he did.
they're murderous cops, they're pieces of shit and one day, they may have to answer for it - would love to see their faces/smirks/silly lies of "the way he threw that rock, I fear for our lives, and I knew if I didn't put 9 rounds in his torso, he might bend down and pick up another rock..."
Justification for a shoot is only real as long as that threat is present. When he ran outta rocks and fled, that threat was no longer present. period.
stop making up your own facts his hand were never up and if you watch the video again you'll see his hands went forward than towards his belt that when the shot him dead
-
at the point of the initial shoot, yes.
But after he crossed the street? with hands up, fleeing then stopping? Eh, I missed the spot where he "reloaded" that deadly rock lol.
Look dude, they wanted to cap his ass. The minute he crossed the textbook threshold, they decided on death sentence, and even when they missed and he ran unarmed to escape, they kept firing because the death sentence was to be admin'd, no matter what surrendering he did.
they're murderous cops, they're pieces of shit and one day, they may have to answer for it - would love to see their faces/smirks/silly lies of "the way he threw that rock, I fear for our lives, and I knew if I didn't put 9 rounds in his torso, he might bend down and pick up another rock..."
Justification for a shoot is only real as long as that threat is present. When he ran outta rocks and fled, that threat was no longer present. period.
Yes, I agree. I think we just need to wait to see if there was another rock in his hand. It really looks like he was trying to surrender, but his hands were moving fast and it's difficult to tell from the video.
-
stop making up your own facts his hand were never up and if you watch the video again you'll see his hands went forward than towards his belt that when the shot him dead
Right! His hands were never up. He wasn't surrendering. Seems all three cops shot as soon as his hand went to his belt. It's obvious they all thought that he was going for a gun.
-
I posted the link to the other incident to make a point. Nobody cares when a white lady is killed by a black officer. Hell, the usual gaggle of whiny homeboys on getbig haven't even bothered to comment on the dead Hispanic.
ah, this is about race for you? I see no need to bring race into this. I have no idea the race of the cops, and I don't care.
Cops had justification to shoot when the bad guy (BG) had arock overhead. It was thin, but tazer failed and they decided to go the hard route and end a man's life because he had a rock overhead. many of us would have said he can't throw that brick very far, let's scoot back 20 feet, let him throw it, then taze more, maybe use beanbags or just stick to his knee.
no, they went VERY aggressive with guns to kill him, I get it, and I support it, even though I feel excessive. cool.
BUT this wasn't enough. He threw rock/dropped rock when they started shooting him, and he ran like crazy. You have 4-5 cops with guns trained on this wounded man, his rock is gone and if he scoops one, they'll see it. At this point, common sense, training, and moral code say you DO NOT have to kill this person anymore - he's wounded but unarmed, and going to jail shorty.
But these cops didn't have the OFF switch. Once they fired the gun, they only had one goal - catch and shoot the man more. Period. The thin justification for the initial shoot - twink with a rock - had evaporated, and we all see it.
For some getbiggers, and this is important, they let that blanket continue. They say even if a guy attacks a cop and runs 170 feet, he can be executed for it when caught. They believe a twink throwing a rock can be killed later, when cops finally catch up with him. That kind of dangerous thinking opens the door to a lot of ugly things we've seen in history. But it's the same minds that are often in denial on many other historical things, that feel this way. So I get it.
-
Yes, I agree. I think we just need to wait to see if there was another rock in his hand. It really looks like he was trying to surrender, but his hands were moving fast and it's difficult to tell from the video.
The cops had already fired a volley of bullets at him. He was putting his hands up as fast as freakin possible lol.
If he had put up hands "slower", then getbiggers would be saying he should have listened to police faster.
Once they opened fire, he was doomed. Anything he did, they were going to kill him.
-
at the point of the initial shoot, yes.
But after he crossed the street? with hands up, fleeing then stopping? Eh, I missed the spot where he "reloaded" that deadly rock lol.
Look dude, they wanted to cap his ass. The minute he crossed the textbook threshold, they decided on death sentence, and even when they missed and he ran unarmed to escape, they kept firing because the death sentence was to be admin'd, no matter what surrendering he did.
they're murderous cops, they're pieces of shit and one day, they may have to answer for it - would love to see their faces/smirks/silly lies of "the way he threw that rock, I fear for our lives, and I knew if I didn't put 9 rounds in his torso, he might bend down and pick up another rock..."
Justification for a shoot is only real as long as that threat is present. When he ran outta rocks and fled, that threat was no longer present. period.
Every last one of those police officers will be found clean as a whistle in this ordeal and rightfully so.
So basically you are allowed to assault a police officer with deadly force and if they don't have the stamina to catch up with you in a foot race that's the end of it?
The fuck out of here.
That whole scene was complete chaos. An extremely dangerous individual that was not giving up...Definitely not the cold blooded execution your are trying to make it out to be.
-
stop making up your own facts his hand were never up and if you watch the video again you'll see his hands went forward than towards his belt that when the shot him dead
were there rocks hanging from his belt for a fast reload?
Are police justified to shoot/kill any human that reaches for his belt too quickly?
Toss in the fact they probably didn't believe he had a gun there, or he might have chosen gun over, say, the rock he used.
There are a LOT of things we have to overlook in order to say "this was a clean shoot, they had to do it, they didn't fck anything up".
-
ah, this is about race for you? I see no need to bring race into this. I have no idea the race of the cops, and I don't care.
Cops had justification to shoot when the bad guy (BG) had arock overhead. It was thin, but tazer failed and they decided to go the hard route and end a man's life because he had a rock overhead. many of us would have said he can't throw that brick very far, let's scoot back 20 feet, let him throw it, then taze more, maybe use beanbags or just stick to his knee.
no, they went VERY aggressive with guns to kill him, I get it, and I support it, even though I feel excessive. cool.
BUT this wasn't enough. He threw rock/dropped rock when they started shooting him, and he ran like crazy. You have 4-5 cops with guns trained on this wounded man, his rock is gone and if he scoops one, they'll see it. At this point, common sense, training, and moral code say you DO NOT have to kill this person anymore - he's wounded but unarmed, and going to jail shorty.
But these cops didn't have the OFF switch. Once they fired the gun, they only had one goal - catch and shoot the man more. Period. The thin justification for the initial shoot - twink with a rock - had evaporated, and we all see it.
For some getbiggers, and this is important, they let that blanket continue. They say even if a guy attacks a cop and runs 170 feet, he can be executed for it when caught. They believe a twink throwing a rock can be killed later, when cops finally catch up with him. That kind of dangerous thinking opens the door to a lot of ugly things we've seen in history. But it's the same minds that are often in denial on many other historical things, that feel this way. So I get it.
It's about race for the people in Seattle. Hispanics and blacks only care about supposed police injustice when it's one of their own. You need to reign in your imagination . As usual your vivid imagination just ends up skewing your perception.
-
So basically you are allowed to assault a police officer with deadly force and if they don't have the stamina to catch up with you in a foot race that's the end of it?
Correct. He was torn up from tazer and initial volley of bullets. He wasn't getting away. And yes, if the cops cannot catch him, that's why they have radios. They were all over his ass. nobody there fired because they were scared he would escape. Look at his feet when they capped him. Turned around, facing them, either putting hands up or "reaching for another rock in his waistband" lol...
-
Correct. He was torn up from tazer and initial volley of bullets. He wasn't getting away. And yes, if the cops cannot catch him, that's why they have radios. They were all over his ass. nobody there fired because they were scared he would escape. Look at his feet when they capped him. Turned around, facing them, either putting hands up or "reaching for another rock in his waistband" lol...
He wasn't torn up from the taser. His hands never went above waist level.
-
It's about race for the people in Seattle. Hispanics and blacks only care about supposed police injustice when it's one of their own. You need to reign in your imagination . As usual your vivid imagination just ends up skewing your perception.
lol the rioters/protesters? I give no fcks about them. Firehose the whole lot of them, I'll laugh at them getting sprawled. I would love to see their limp hippie bodies tossed around under some nice water pressure.
I'd also like to see those cops answer a grand jury why they feared the injured man with no weapon was a threat worthy of death.
-
Correct. He was torn up from tazer and initial volley of bullets. He wasn't getting away. And yes, if the cops cannot catch him, that's why they have radios. They were all over his ass. nobody there fired because they were scared he would escape. Look at his feet when they capped him. Turned around, facing them, either putting hands up or "reaching for another rock in his waistband" lol...
How would they know WHAT he had in his waistband?
You're getting on that Monday Morning QB tip again.
-
I posted the link to the other incident to make a point. Nobody cares when a white lady is killed by a black officer. Hell, the usual gaggle of whiny homeboys on getbig haven't even bothered to comment on the dead Hispanic. It also demonstrates that dumb cops don't just come in the color white. The process of training cops needs to be better. I don't trust Holder to do it.
This is a bunch of nonsense. You can't assume to know the minds of the cops. They aren'y deciding to shoot based on your little fucked up scenario. You are so full of shit. Your the type of idiot that should never be on a jury. You are to prone to fantasy.
Or own a gun, be a cop, etc.
-
He wasn't torn up from the taser. His hands never went above waist level.
they tazed him. they fired a few bullets inside of ten feet too, woudl be shocked if he wasn't hit in that initial confrontation.
Was there blood on the ground in the initial shoot zone?
ya ever been tazed? lol I'd reckon he was just a little torn up from that. Cables still hanging out of him?
-
lol the rioters/protesters? I give no fcks about them. Firehose the whole lot of them, I'll laugh at them getting sprawled. I would love to see their limp hippie bodies tossed around under some nice water pressure.
I'd also like to see those cops answer a grand jury why they feared the injured man with no weapon was a threat worthy of death.
Rioters/protesters? what the fuck are you talking about?
they tazed him. they fired a few bullets inside of ten feet too, woudl be shocked if he wasn't hit in that initial confrontation.
Was there blood on the ground in the initial shoot zone?
ya ever been tazed? lol I'd reckon he was just a little torn up from that. Cables still hanging out of him?
I have been tazed more than once as part of a training program. I saw other people tazed and not all people react the same way.
-
were there rocks hanging from his belt for a fast reload?
Are police justified to shoot/kill any human that reaches for his belt too quickly?
Toss in the fact they probably didn't believe he had a gun there, or he might have chosen gun over, say, the rock he used.
There are a LOT of things we have to overlook in order to say "this was a clean shoot, they had to do it, they didn't fck anything up".
don't have time to explane to getbigs resident Pinocchio that you have to take into consideration the whole scenario not just him reaching toward his belt
-
How would they know WHAT he had in his waistband?
You're getting on that Monday Morning QB tip again.
you can't shoot a man for reaching for his waistband. You can't. Let me try that shit, just open fire on any random d-bag i see who was "reaching for his waistband".
shit, man. You have 5 guns trained on him at this point. he's been hit already and everyone is screaming. You take the second to see what comes from the waistband, you clearly have the drop already.
They never stopped firing, get that... as soon as he was lined up in sights, they lit him up again. It was just finishing the job.
-
don't have time to explane to getbigs resident Pinocchio that you have to take into consideration the whole scenario not just him reaching toward his belt
no, you don't. he threw a rock and they lit him up. Then a foot chase ensued.
You can't kill him when you catch him because "oh, he threw a rock earlier".
it's a separate incident, and the shooting justification due to a weapon present isn't there anymore. He's a lesser threat now.
-
Or own a gun, be a cop, etc.
I love 240 but he'd be in a fucking pinebox within a year as a result of "overthinking" situations concerning violent, methed out mental cases who want him dead just because he carries a badge.
-
you can't shoot a man for reaching for his waistband. You can't. Let me try that shit, just open fire on any random d-bag i see who was "reaching for his waistband".
shit, man. You have 5 guns trained on him at this point. he's been hit already and everyone is screaming. You take the second to see what comes from the waistband, you clearly have the drop already.
They never stopped firing, get that... as soon as he was lined up in sights, they lit him up again. It was just finishing the job.
Bullshit.
Already attempted deadly force + reaching for the waistband + appears to be on tweaked out on speed = drain the clip and be back home by sunset for Wednesday's meatloaf and the Season Premier of The Walking Dead.
-
I love 240 but he'd be in a fucking pinebox within a year as a result of "overthinking" situations concerning violent, methed out mental cases who want him dead just because he carries a badge.
Nope. But I would know when to stop shooting. I'd follow that textbook, just as I do in real life. Shoot to stop the threat, then return to arrest mode. If you put a bullet in a bad guy, you don't chase him down and put more bullets in him. It becomes a foot chase and the same rules apply.
SO many people don't get that. That was my beef with ferguson. I was all for wilson capping his punk ass in the car. But not after jogging 150 feet to "finish the job". I was all for the cops capping this fool with rock overhead... but not after chasing his unarmed ass across a street then capping him with empty hands.
Way too much "finish him off" bullshit.
-
no, you don't. he threw a rock and they lit him up. Then a foot chase ensued.
You can't kill him when you catch him because "oh, he threw a rock earlier".
it's a separate incident, and the shooting justification due to a weapon present isn't there anymore. He's a lesser threat now.
And that's somewhat I've my question from earlier with Straw.
I can't remember as an adult anyone ever throwing rocks at me, but it could be lethal. Of course, kids doing it on the playground wouldn't warrant deadly force.
I think if you and I shot somebody for throwing rocks at us, we'd be in a little tiny cell. No question about it.
-
Bullshit.
Already attempted deadly force + reaching for the waistband + appears to be on tweaked out on speed = drain the clip and be back home by sunset for Wednesday's meatloaf and the Season Premier of The Walking Dead.
that kind of macho bullshit attitude lands people in prison.
When you carry a gun, you have to be SO careful not to use it when not needed. This dude was surrounded, tazed, already hit from initial bullets (?), and he'd stopped running. Unless a gun appears, you bring him to ground and arrest/EMS.
They never had anything in eyes except shooting him, tape shows it, we all know it.
Yes, that "we get home" bullshit is nice, but this man had no weapon when they shot him.
-
no, you don't. he threw a rock and they lit him up. Then a foot chase ensued.
You can't kill him when you catch him because "oh, he threw a rock earlier".
it's a separate incident, and the shooting justification due to a weapon present isn't there anymore. He's a lesser threat now.
are you this fucking dumb or just playing watch the video again just before he's shot his hands go forward than to his belt,they probably thought he was going for a gun.here,s a hint Pinocchio if you ever assault a cop do not reach in your pockets in your jacket or at your belt because your going to get shot
-
And that's somewhat I've my question from earlier with Straw.
I can't remember as an adult anyone ever throwing rocks at me, but it could be lethal. Of course, kids doing it on the playground wouldn't warrant deadly force.
I think if you and I shot somebody for throwing rocks at us, we'd be in a little tiny cell. No question about it.
Yes, we would have a VERY hard time convincing the jury we were convinced the man with a rock would kill us.
Toss in the training & non-lethal tools at their disposal? very bad.
I didn't even want to get into the argument on getbig "was the rock enough to kill the man" - obviously, it's weak soup, but I was just conceding that part to the little badge bunnies here.
-
that kind of macho bullshit attitude lands people in prison.
When you carry a gun, you have to be SO careful not to use it when not needed. This dude was surrounded, tazed, already hit from initial bullets (?), and he'd stopped running. Unless a gun appears, you bring him to ground and arrest/EMS.
They never had anything in eyes except shooting him, tape shows it, we all know it.
Yes, that "we get home" bullshit is nice, but this man had no weapon when they shot him.
"Macho attitude"
It's a fucking violent dopehead reaching for his waistband.
Out of ALL these type situations that have been hashed out on this board THIS piece of shit should get the LEAST amount of sympathy!
At what point do you actually pull the trigger? When the culprit brandishes the weapon from his pants and the .380 bullet literally becomes .75 seconds away from entering your skull?
-
"Macho attitude"
It's a fucking violent dopehead reaching for his waistband.
Out of ALL these type situations that have been hashed out on this board THIS piece of shit should get the LEAST amount of sympathy!
At what point do you actually pull the trigger? When the culprit brandishes the weapon from his pants and the .380 bullet literally becomes .75 seconds away from entering your skull?
these guys have no fucking clue :o
-
Out of ALL these type situations that have been hashed out on this board THIS piece of shit should get the LEAST amount of sympathy!
I have zero sympathy for this scumbag. I am not upset he's not alive. That's not my beef.
My beef is the cops who open fire so easily, who keep shooting so easily, who just keep creating these situations.
-
I have zero sympathy for this scumbag. I am not upset he's not alive. That's not my beef.
My beef is the cops who open fire so easily, who keep shooting so easily, who just keep creating these situations.
Didn't look like "an easy" situation to me in the least bit.
Like I stated early it looked like complete chaos.
Adrenaline rushing through the veins. Elevated levels of testosterone.
You as a police officer in that situation wouldn't know if the guy was strapped or not.
You do NOW...living in a comfortable, secure Florida neighborhood...but those guys certainly didn't.
-
Didn't look like "an easy" situation to me in the least bit.
Like I stated early it looked like complete chaos.
Adrenaline rushing through the veins. Elevated levels of testosterone.
You as a police officer in that situation wouldn't know if the guy was strapped or not.
You do NOW...living in a comfortable, secure Florida neighborhood...but those guys certainly didn't.
sounds like you're making excuses for these cops. They're professionals. They are trained not to lose their shit in situations like this. There are 4+ of them against an unarmed man, and they can't get him on the floor?
Sickening. They're shitty cops. Would love to see video of the 1st 3 shoots they were cleared on lol.
-
Didn't look like "an easy" situation to me in the least bit.
Like I stated early it looked like complete chaos.
Adrenaline rushing through the veins. Elevated levels of testosterone.
You as a police officer in that situation wouldn't know if the guy was strapped or not.
You do NOW...living in a comfortable, secure Florida neighborhood...but those guys certainly didn't.
And if you shot somebody throwing rocks at you, do you think those cops would be your cheerleaders (not in the smart ass sense, but you get my meaning)?
Or do you think they would have you in handcuffs?
I think a double standard is a legit concern here for the use of deadly force.
-
sounds like you're making excuses for these cops. They're professionals. They are trained not to lose their shit in situations like this. There are 4+ of them against an unarmed man, and they can't get him on the floor?
Sickening. They're shitty cops. Would love to see video of the 1st 3 shoots they were cleared on lol.
If you want to be known as the guy who supported the violent meth head with a past of threatening peoples lives with guns and who reached for his waistband during a violent confrontation with the police, that's on you.
-
And if you shot somebody throwing rocks at you, do you think those cops would be your cheerleaders (not in the smart ass sense, but you get my meaning)?
Or do you think they would have you in handcuffs?
I think a double standard is a legit concern here for the use of deadly force.
Well take that issue up with your congressman, what the fuck do you want from me??
-
Well take that issue up with your congressman, what the fuck do you want from me??
Reason, logic.
If it wouldn't rise to the level of you using lethal force to defend yourself, how can you argue that it rises to that level for the cop?
-
Ahh...it's been another interesting discussion on GB.
But now it's bed time for job and all that.
You all have a goodnight!
-
The more I watch the video, of what this idiot did in provoking the cops, the more it looks like a case of suicide by cop. The POS just wanted to die, and didn't have the balls to do it himself.
-
"Macho attitude"
It's a fucking violent dopehead reaching for his waistband.
Out of ALL these type situations that have been hashed out on this board THIS piece of shit should get the LEAST amount of sympathy!
At what point do you actually pull the trigger? When the culprit brandishes the weapon from his pants and the .380 bullet literally becomes .75 seconds away from entering your skull?
He just makes shit up. He writes don't use the guys past but he's more than comfortable totally creating imaginary scenarios and describing in detail the motivations of individuals. He pulled this nonsense with Zimmerman. He not only used Zimmerman's past but he was able to read Zimmerman's mind in order to describe exactly what Zim was feeling before, during and after shooting Martin. He's a joke who poisons the well.
-
He just makes shit up. He writes don't use the guys past but he's more than comfortable totally creating imaginary scenarios and describing in detail the motivations of individuals. He pulled this nonsense with Zimmerman. He not only used Zimmerman's past but he was able to read Zimmerman's mind in order to describe exactly what Zim was feeling before, during and after shooting Martin. He's a joke who poisons the well.
All the time.
-
Viral video of Pasco police shooting doesn’t count as evidence, police say
PASCO, Washington– Police in Pasco, Washington, say they don’t know who filmed the viral video that showed three officers fatally shooting an unarmed Mexican man last week, nor the device the person used, so they can’t use it as evidence.
“It’s not enough for us to take [it] from YouTube,” said Ken Lattin, a spokesperson for the Kennewick Police Department. “It has to be preserved forensically in order to be admitted as evidence.”
Lattin urged the person who shot the video to come forward.
Other footage may prove more useful. The three officers involved in the death of Antonio Zambrano-Montes were wearing microphones at the time, Lattin said, and there is dashcam video of the incident.
http://fusion.net/story/51683/police-say-they-cant-use-viral-video-of-pasco-shooting-as-evidence/
-
\Lattin urged the person who shot the video to come forward.
LOL... sounds like a recipe for the video donor being stopped/ searched/ beaten/ wasted in about 2 weeks.
I'd be using a lawyer to turn that shit in. Reaching anywhere near the waist, even for a phone, those cops might get all bullety.
-
LOL... sounds like a recipe for the video donor being stopped/ searched/ beaten/ wasted in about 2 weeks.
I'd be using a lawyer to turn that shit in. Reaching anywhere near the waist, even for a phone, those cops might get all bullety.
240's fate within a few months of being a police officer. :D
-
240's fate within a few months of being a police officer. :D
just what i said earlier 240 does't have a clue on this subject
-
you gotta know when to shoot... know when to hold em.... know when to walk away... know when to run
-
you gotta know when to shoot... know when to hold em.... know when to walk away... know when to run
You gotta know when to stop making shit up and jumping to wild conclusions.
-
You gotta know when to stop making shit up and jumping to wild conclusions.
the entire nation is watching a video of a guy tossnig a rock, running, and getting mowed down by 4 cops.
Any conclusion of "they wasted an unarmed man" is not all that wild, ya know.
-
the entire nation is watching a video of a guy tossnig a rock, running, and getting mowed down by 4 cops.
Any conclusion of "they wasted an unarmed man" is not all that wild, ya know.
I'm not talking about conclusions. It's about you creating fanciful tales based on wild speculation. You have a tendency toward allowing your imagination to run away unchecked.
-
I'm not talking about conclusions. It's about you creating fanciful tales based on wild speculation. You have a tendency toward allowing your imagination to run away unchecked.
it is police admin of justice which will to wild and crazy, once we give them the power to shoot someone who is no longer a threat.
don't you get that?
i dont care about this idiot they wasted. I care that ANY american is blind enough to say it's cool for police to press pause on a gun battle, then re-engage the now-unarmed idiot with the same deadly force. that is the CORE of everything i argue here. Once the threat isn't deadly - once you see him drop that fcking rock and run away winged - you turn off the mentality of "center mass bullets until he's on ground".
they didn't do that. And once it's okay with 35 feet (something like that in this case?) then it's okay with 3 fcking miles, ya know? that's what youre not seeing. When deadly threat is gone, they need to 'turn off' the switch that says "waste this motherfccker". They didn't do that. see what I'm saying?
it was fine to cap him with rock overhead, he might have hurt them. but unarmed, when they watched him drop the rock - you don't need bullets anymore. They didn't have that off switch.
-
Viral video of Pasco police shooting doesn’t count as evidence, police say
PASCO, Washington– Police in Pasco, Washington, say they don’t know who filmed the viral video that showed three officers fatally shooting an unarmed Mexican man last week, nor the device the person used, so they can’t use it as evidence.
“It’s not enough for us to take [it] from YouTube,” said Ken Lattin, a spokesperson for the Kennewick Police Department. “It has to be preserved forensically in order to be admitted as evidence.”
Lattin urged the person who shot the video to come forward.
Other footage may prove more useful. The three officers involved in the death of Antonio Zambrano-Montes were wearing microphones at the time, Lattin said, and there is dashcam video of the incident.
http://fusion.net/story/51683/police-say-they-cant-use-viral-video-of-pasco-shooting-as-evidence/
I think it unlikely they can't track that person down. Also, they've put out a call asking for more videos.
-
it is police admin of justice which will to wild and crazy, once we give them the power to shoot someone who is no longer a threat.
don't you get that?
i dont care about this idiot they wasted. I care that ANY american is blind enough to say it's cool for police to press pause on a gun battle, then re-engage the now-unarmed idiot with the same deadly force. that is the CORE of everything i argue here. Once the threat isn't deadly - once you see him drop that fcking rock and run away winged - you turn off the mentality of "center mass bullets until he's on ground".
they didn't do that. And once it's okay with 35 feet (something like that in this case?) then it's okay with 3 fcking miles, ya know? that's what youre not seeing. When deadly threat is gone, they need to 'turn off' the switch that says "waste this motherfccker". They didn't do that. see what I'm saying?
it was fine to cap him with rock overhead, he might have hurt them. but unarmed, when they watched him drop the rock - you don't need bullets anymore. They didn't have that off switch.
So is there a standard?
-
So is there a standard?
Yes. Absolutely. Police have to halt the use of deadly force once they determine the deadly threat is no longer present.
let's say the dude had a gun, and they fired on him. He DROPS THE GUN, in plain site of them, we're talking 5 feet from them. Drops the gun. Turns and runs. They can NO LONGER shoot at him, because they can see he's no longer a deadly threat - he's just a wounded unarmed dude with 4-5 angry cops about five feet behind him lol.
They lacked ability to just knock his wounded ass down once he stopped running and held up empty hands. He had no gun, no rock, just empty hands. Four or five cops emptying their guns into a man 5-10 feet from them, with empty hands. That's highly troubling.
-
Yes. Absolutely. Police have to halt the use of deadly force once they determine the deadly threat is no longer present.
let's say the dude had a gun, and they fired on him. He DROPS THE GUN, in plain site of them, we're talking 5 feet from them. Drops the gun. Turns and runs. They can NO LONGER shoot at him, because they can see he's no longer a deadly threat - he's just a wounded unarmed dude with 4-5 angry cops about five feet behind him lol.
They lacked ability to just knock his wounded ass down once he stopped running and held up empty hands. He had no gun, no rock, just empty hands. Four or five cops emptying their guns into a man 5-10 feet from them, with empty hands. That's highly troubling.
How could you possibly know he's unarmed?
-
How could you possibly know he's unarmed?
because we have video of this. He has a rock in his hands, which he throws. They taze and fire rounds. He runs, and they're a few feet behind him. They yell freeze, and he stops. his hands are empty.
Yes, he's unarmed. Period. Tape shows it, cops knew it.
Now, if you have some theory about "well, he COULD have pulled a bazooka from his shorts...", well that could apply to anyone at any time. But his hands are empty from the moment he throws rocks until they shoot him dead. He's unarmed. Cops saw it, we see it on video too.
-
because we have video of this. He has a rock in his hands, which he throws. They taze and fire rounds. He runs, and they're a few feet behind him. They yell freeze, and he stops. his hands are empty.
Yes, he's unarmed. Period. Tape shows it, cops knew it.
Now, if you have some theory about "well, he COULD have pulled a bazooka from his shorts...", well that could apply to anyone at any time. But his hands are empty from the moment he throws rocks until they shoot him dead. He's unarmed. Cops saw it, we see it on video too.
Proof?
-
Proof?
??? They're in the camera shot. they have guns and eyes trained on him. They shoot him while his shiny empty hands are held up above waist level.
As far as proof goes lol, that's some of the greatest proof you'll ever get - digital video footage of 4 cops yelling at a man holding up empty hands in front of them, then wasting him.
If you demand a higher standard of proof, I dont know what to say :) This is as good as it gets - clear video of them wasting a man holding up empty hands.
-
??? They're in the camera shot. they have guns and eyes trained on him. They shoot him while his shiny empty hands are held up above waist level.
As far as proof goes lol, that's some of the greatest proof you'll ever get - digital video footage of 4 cops yelling at a man holding up empty hands in front of them, then wasting him.
If you demand a higher standard of proof, I dont know what to say :) This is as good as it gets - clear video of them wasting a man holding up empty hands.
You said they KNEW he was unarmed.
Proof?
-
You said they KNEW he was unarmed.
Proof?
they watched his hands become empty. They saw no other weapon.
LOL @ imagine wasting someone, and telling the judge he can't prove you didn't now the bad guy was unarmed... despite video showing you staring at the guy from 5 feet away holding up empty hands.
his empty hand were in clear view. that's an unarmed man. They knew because they were staring at him, directly facing him.
-
You said they KNEW he was unarmed.
Proof?
didn't you know if your hands are empty you have no weapon lol
-
they watched his hands become empty. They saw no other weapon.
LOL @ imagine wasting someone, and telling the judge he can't prove you didn't now the bad guy was unarmed... despite video showing you staring at the guy from 5 feet away holding up empty hands.
his empty hand were in clear view. that's an unarmed man. They knew because they were staring at him, directly facing him.
We both know your are obviously being disingenuous.
How did the police KNOW he was unarmed?
Below is the definition to help you out with this question.
armed
adjective
1.
equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons.
-
didn't you know if your hands are empty you have no weapon lol
Let's kick back and enjoy watching Rob try to dance around that fact. :D 8)
-
Let's kick back and enjoy watching Rob try to dance around that fact. :D 8)
we know he'll just make ip his own facts as he usually does lol
-
If O-fag threw rocks at the cops he would look like . . . . .
-
???
Sorry, not sure why we should even debate this one, dude. his hands were empty and they shot him.
it's their job to decide when to use deadly force, it's their responsibility to look at hands before you, say, end a life.
nothing to argue man, sorry.
-
???
Sorry, not sure why we should even debate this one, dude. his hands were empty and they shot him.
it's their job to decide when to use deadly force, it's their responsibility to look at hands before you, say, end a life.
nothing to argue man, sorry.
he was reaching toward his body and not up as your lying eyes saw lol
-
???
Sorry, not sure why we should even debate this one, dude. his hands were empty and they shot him.
it's their job to decide when to use deadly force, it's their responsibility to look at hands before you, say, end a life.
nothing to argue man, sorry.
What is there to debate?
You said the police KNEW he was unarmed and you still have not proven it.
-
So you think with 3-4 of them chasing him down, that they were truly afraid for their lives? I'm hesitant, but want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I forget exactly what my bro told me, but I think they play games with the 'shoot to wound' shit. It was something along the lines of they shoot to injure or maim or neutralize, not kill. But, they shoot at center body mass. The fact that all the vital organs are at center body mass is just tough shit. Typical 4 yr old stuff, IMO.
Straw:
Yes, good point. If I shot and killed somebody for throwing rocks at me, would a jury put me away for life?
Ask your bro sometimes how hard it is to hit a moving target.. We are trained to shoot center mass for a couple reasons. One is if we are shooting the person, it's probably because they pose an immanent threat to us and we want to make them stop their behavior as soon as possible. Hitting in the center of the body has a good chance of doing that. Two is it is hard enough to hit a target that is perfectly still in an adrenaline rush situation so if you aim for the center of the target it increases your chance of hitting said target.
-
Yes. Absolutely. Police have to halt the use of deadly force once they determine the deadly threat is no longer present.
let's say the dude had a gun, and they fired on him. He DROPS THE GUN, in plain site of them, we're talking 5 feet from them. Drops the gun. Turns and runs. They can NO LONGER shoot at him, because they can see he's no longer a deadly threat - he's just a wounded unarmed dude with 4-5 angry cops about five feet behind him lol.
They lacked ability to just knock his wounded ass down once he stopped running and held up empty hands. He had no gun, no rock, just empty hands. Four or five cops emptying their guns into a man 5-10 feet from them, with empty hands. That's highly troubling.
I think ur gonna be right if it comes out that he had no rocks in his hand. His hands did drop to his waist fairly quick though and that may have spooked the cop. But if it turns out that only one cop shot, then we should question just how truly scared they were.
-
Ask your bro sometimes how hard it is to hit a moving target.. We are trained to shoot center mass for a couple reasons. One is if we are shooting the person, it's probably because they pose an immanent threat to us and we want to make them stop their behavior as soon as possible. Hitting in the center of the body has a good chance of doing that. Two is it is hard enough to hit a target that is perfectly still in an adrenaline rush situation so if you aim for the center of the target it increases your chance of hitting said target.
Ok...not sure what that has to do with anything I said.
-
Ok...not sure what that has to do with anything I said.
Maybe I misunderstood your post
-
If you watch the video -
It seems like a case of "okay, we're justified, shoot the fccker!" as opposed to "he's out of rocks, but I feel he's still a threat to life".
If you or me shot this dude, we're going to jail. Period. Toss in the fact this man was out of rocks lol, turning back and/or surrendering...
They felt they had put up with enough, and they used bullets as PUNISHMENT, not as a means of keeping people safe. They knew what they were doing. Anyone here that truly believes "yeah, they were scared the unarmed man who was running after throwing rocks was a lethal danger...", well, one day reality will kick you in the fccking teeth lol.
There are 2 kinds of shoots... those where the cops really have to do it (most of them) and some where the cops figure the bad guy has passed a threshold where they can legally shoot him as punishment. This feels like that.
Wish we could use you for all our video analysis, you seem to have extraordinary abilities
-
he was reaching toward his body and not up as your lying eyes saw lol
was there a magic invisible gun on his body? I didn't notice it.
-
if the situation were exactly the same (i.e. you were on the street and this guy was throwing rocks at you) and you shot him I think it's highly unlikely you'd get off scot free
Also, cops face people throwing rocks at them (or worse) in riot situations and they usually don't respond with deadly force
Cops in a riot typically have riot gear. And let me say, if I were NOT in riot gear, if I could accurately shoot someone as they were throwing a brick at my head from a crowd without endangering anyone else, It would certainly be an option for me. Bricks and large rocks can kill.
Ive watched the video a couple times. From the one viewpoint we have which is the view point of the person filming, it appears that shooting at the guy after the rock hit the ground and he had turned to run was a violation of my departments rules. But I also have to acknowledge he was out of camera frame and I have no idea what was going on. Once he leaves the screen I don't know if he had an opportunity to pick up another rock or pull a knife. While it appears his hands are empty it is a grainy video and it is from some distance. The other eye witnesses and hopefully security cameras from businesses will help establish the facts. I got zero sense from the body language the guy had an intention of surrendering when he turned. Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get that vibe. If his hands were in fact empty, this is a bad shooting.
-
Cops in a riot typically have riot gear. And let me say, if I were NOT in riot gear, if I could accurately shoot someone as they were throwing a brick at my head from a crowd without endangering anyone else, It would certainly be an option for me. Bricks and large rocks can kill.
Ive watched the video a couple times. From the one viewpoint we have which is the view point of the person filming, it appears that shooting at the guy after the rock hit the ground and he had turned to run was a violation of my departments rules. But I also have to acknowledge he was out of camera frame and I have no idea what was going on. Once he leaves the screen I don't know if he had an opportunity to pick up another rock or pull a knife. While it appears his hands are empty it is a grainy video and it is from some distance. The other eye witnesses and hopefully security cameras from businesses will help establish the facts. I got zero sense from the body language the guy had an intention of surrendering when he turned. Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't get that vibe. If his hands were in fact empty, this is a bad shooting.
GREAT post.
We have a bunch of police sympathizers defending the shoot, but really, he never left their field of vision, he didn't scoop another rock.
They just shot him, IMO, as a "continuation" of the initial shoot.
-
GREAT post.
We have a bunch of police sympathizers defending the shoot, but really, he never left their field of vision, he didn't scoop another rock.
They just shot him, IMO, as a "continuation" of the initial shoot.
He may not have left their field of vision, but he certainly left ours.
-
I watched the video again... the man is out of our view for at least 7 seconds. I also saw something drop from his hand as he was shot. No idea what it was.
-
I watched the video again... the man is out of our view for at least 7 seconds. I also saw something drop from his hand as he was shot. No idea what it was.
He should of been shot dead just because he was an "orchard worker," translation Illegal Alien!
-
I watched the video again... the man is out of our view for at least 7 seconds. I also saw something drop from his hand as he was shot. No idea what it was.
Watch the video I posted on pg. 4, it's the clearest I've seen. After watching it a couple times, it looks like he might have been trying to move a rock from his left hand to his right hand...as if gearing up to throw again. It also looks like a potential surrender, but I think this is the first time I paid real close attention to his hands...like he was trying to shift a rock.
Also, do you know of this happening to a civilian where the civilian shot somebody throwing rocks at them. Was if found to be self defense?
-
He should of been shot dead just because he was an "orchard worker," translation Illegal Alien!
I can think of a long list of people that should be shot before ever getting close to an orchard worker
-
was there a magic invisible gun on his body? I didn't notice it.
your a dumbass they have a split second to react ,your watching it from your trailer on your computer and after 20 times and you can't even see it right :D :D
-
your a dumbass they have a split second to react ,your watching it from your trailer on your computer and after 20 times and you can't even see it right :D :D
(http://www.simonsfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/monday-morning.jpg)
(http://jerseygirlsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Monday_Morning_QB.jpg)
-
Watch the video I posted on pg. 4, it's the clearest I've seen. After watching it a couple times, it looks like he might have been trying to move a rock from his left hand to his right hand...as if gearing up to throw again. It also looks like a potential surrender, but I think this is the first time I paid real close attention to his hands...like he was trying to shift a rock.
Also, do you know of this happening to a civilian where the civilian shot somebody throwing rocks at them. Was if found to be self defense?
I agree. That's what I saw too. Could have been shifting a rock or something else. Could have been nothing.
-
Well, 240...it's looking like he may have been armed with another rock after all.
________________________ _______________________
Investigation Finds Five To Six Bullets Hit Pasco Shooting Victim
Kennewick police investigating the police shooting this month of Antonio Zambrano-Montes told reporters Wednesday bullets entered him from the front, and a rock was found near his body.
Officers fired 17 rounds. Of those, one autopsy shows Zambrano-Montes took five shots, the other said six.
Kennewick police spokesman Ken Lattin told reporters he didn’t want to get too graphic, but it’s sometimes difficult to sort out multiple entry and exit wounds.
“And I can’t tell you of those five or six, which officers they came from either,” he said. “That will come from the final pathology report as well.”
Witnesses say Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks in a crowded intersection and then ran from police before he was shot. At the press conference, Lattin said a rock was found near his body.
More information may be slow to come; the police investigation wrap-up and the Franklin County coroner’s inquest are expected to take months.
People from the Tri-Cities’ large Latino population have demonstrated against Pasco police and questioned whether officers used excessive force to stop him. They gathered outside Wednesday’s media briefing in Kennewick to give reporters their opinions.
They were disappointed that none of this information was given in Spanish and they were disappointed that the prosecutor seemed to be in lock step with the police investigators, having given these media briefings jointly three times now. They also questioned his ability to be independent and are still calling for a federal investigation of this case.
National TV news trucks and reporters have remained in the Tri-Cities area to cover the case.
Washington state’s American Civil Liberties Union has called for the federal government to conduct an investigation beyond Kennewick police’s study of the incident.
And now a famous civil rights attorney, Benjamin Crump, is representing Zambrano-Montes’ family. Crump has recently represented the families of two famous cases: Trayvon Martin’s family in Florida and Michael Brown’s family in Missouri.
http://www.kplu.org/post/investigation-finds-five-six-bullets-hit-pasco-shooting-victim
-
how the fk do you get "he was armed with another rock" from "a rock was found near his body?
They could have been sitting on the ground already, or cops could have been referring to the rock he threw at the 1st shooting place.
Show me there was a rock in his hand when he was shot the 2nd time, please.
-
Well, 240...it's looking like he may have been armed with another rock after all.
________________________ _______________________
Investigation Finds Five To Six Bullets Hit Pasco Shooting Victim
Kennewick police investigating the police shooting this month of Antonio Zambrano-Montes told reporters Wednesday bullets entered him from the front, and a rock was found near his body.
Officers fired 17 rounds. Of those, one autopsy shows Zambrano-Montes took five shots, the other said six.
Kennewick police spokesman Ken Lattin told reporters he didn’t want to get too graphic, but it’s sometimes difficult to sort out multiple entry and exit wounds.
“And I can’t tell you of those five or six, which officers they came from either,” he said. “That will come from the final pathology report as well.”
Witnesses say Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks in a crowded intersection and then ran from police before he was shot. At the press conference, Lattin said a rock was found near his body.
More information may be slow to come; the police investigation wrap-up and the Franklin County coroner’s inquest are expected to take months.
People from the Tri-Cities’ large Latino population have demonstrated against Pasco police and questioned whether officers used excessive force to stop him. They gathered outside Wednesday’s media briefing in Kennewick to give reporters their opinions.
They were disappointed that none of this information was given in Spanish and they were disappointed that the prosecutor seemed to be in lock step with the police investigators, having given these media briefings jointly three times now. They also questioned his ability to be independent and are still calling for a federal investigation of this case.
National TV news trucks and reporters have remained in the Tri-Cities area to cover the case.
Washington state’s American Civil Liberties Union has called for the federal government to conduct an investigation beyond Kennewick police’s study of the incident.
And now a famous civil rights attorney, Benjamin Crump, is representing Zambrano-Montes’ family. Crump has recently represented the families of two famous cases: Trayvon Martin’s family in Florida and Michael Brown’s family in Missouri.
http://www.kplu.org/post/investigation-finds-five-six-bullets-hit-pasco-shooting-victim
Drain the clips, make it home safe by sunset just in time for a serving of bland, overcooked meatloaf and some stale, boring sympathy sex from the old lady after she hears you had a stressful day having to put down a skitzed out meth head.
-
Well, 240...it's looking like he may have been armed with another rock after all.
________________________ _______________________
Investigation Finds Five To Six Bullets Hit Pasco Shooting Victim
Kennewick police investigating the police shooting this month of Antonio Zambrano-Montes told reporters Wednesday bullets entered him from the front, and a rock was found near his body.
Officers fired 17 rounds. Of those, one autopsy shows Zambrano-Montes took five shots, the other said six.
Kennewick police spokesman Ken Lattin told reporters he didn’t want to get too graphic, but it’s sometimes difficult to sort out multiple entry and exit wounds.
“And I can’t tell you of those five or six, which officers they came from either,” he said. “That will come from the final pathology report as well.”
Witnesses say Zambrano-Montes was throwing rocks in a crowded intersection and then ran from police before he was shot. At the press conference, Lattin said a rock was found near his body.
More information may be slow to come; the police investigation wrap-up and the Franklin County coroner’s inquest are expected to take months.
People from the Tri-Cities’ large Latino population have demonstrated against Pasco police and questioned whether officers used excessive force to stop him. They gathered outside Wednesday’s media briefing in Kennewick to give reporters their opinions.
They were disappointed that none of this information was given in Spanish and they were disappointed that the prosecutor seemed to be in lock step with the police investigators, having given these media briefings jointly three times now. They also questioned his ability to be independent and are still calling for a federal investigation of this case.
National TV news trucks and reporters have remained in the Tri-Cities area to cover the case.
Washington state’s American Civil Liberties Union has called for the federal government to conduct an investigation beyond Kennewick police’s study of the incident.
And now a famous civil rights attorney, Benjamin Crump, is representing Zambrano-Montes’ family. Crump has recently represented the families of two famous cases: Trayvon Martin’s family in Florida and Michael Brown’s family in Missouri.
http://www.kplu.org/post/investigation-finds-five-six-bullets-hit-pasco-shooting-victim
Sounds consistent with the video clip, where it looked like he might have something in his hands.
-
how the fk do you get "he was armed with another rock" from "a rock was found near his body?
They could have been sitting on the ground already, or cops could have been referring to the rock he threw at the 1st shooting place.
Show me there was a rock in his hand when he was shot the 2nd time, please.
I saw an object drop fast from his hand as he was shot. They found a rock near his body. If it was at the first shooting place, it wouldn't be found near his body. Certainly a rock could have been sitting near his body to begin with, but coupled with the video it seems TO ME he had a rock in his hand as he was shot. Now if there is additional information forthcoming down the road that proves the rock was there prior to his being shot, and the object that fell was a water balloon, I will adjust my statement.
SKIP- I don't recall off hand a citizen and rock situation though there could be some. A subtle but important difference in citizen vs police in a situation like this is the cop has an expectation placed upon him to deal with the situation. A citizen who follows the person who they believe to be a threat then shoots them would have the additional question to answer of "if you thought it was so dangerous, why the hell did you follow him and put yourself in that position?". The officers are expected to and have a duty to engage. I'm not even saying they handled it like champs, but just pointing out a difference.
If the citizen is in a position where they are confronted and faced with a potential deadly threat like a base ball bat held in a threatening manner, or a large rock being hoisted to throw, I can see the citizen being no billed for deadly force as there are many many examples of those situations to fall back on.
-
how the fk do you get "he was armed with another rock" from "a rock was found near his body?
They could have been sitting on the ground already, or cops could have been referring to the rock he threw at the 1st shooting place.
Show me there was a rock in his hand when he was shot the 2nd time, please.
I said 'may'.
You're grasping for straws now.
Don't go full retard. Consider this in a logical manner and accept that many variables point to a legit shoot.