Cop Shoots Apparently Helpless Man In The Back (Update: Officer quits to avoid IA questions)

reply to post by ALLis0NE


OK, so you have just spent all that time proving that another person (not the dead guy) threw something at the officers that went BANG. How exactly does this relate to the dead man?

Yes, I hear your cries of "This goes to show that the officers were highly suspicious and in defensive mode because of an object being thrown at them."

I am sorry but this is no excuse for either drawing the wrong weapon or deliberately shooting him (whichever argument you believe). These officers are supposedly highly trained for situations like this and therefore, based on this argument, it is fair to say that they should not be in the profession as the first time an actual incident happens, someone gets shot in the back.

Watched videos a couple of times and looks like the police shooter lost his head and just decided to act completely independent to all the others that were in the same proximity to the victim. My question would be why were they all not using their Tazers that we've seen being used on anyone that say's boo to police in the US of late? Is this not their 2nd last line of defence? I can't see how they can justify this no matter how much force a person was using with 3-4 police on top or what abuse or outrage he was conveying?

On a more speculative tack, one has to wonder what sort of instructions from above is being drummed into police (I assume in NWO police state readiness) to make this sort of action even an option in the head of that policeman? Scary!

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Lol, you're actually claiming that the other bystander stood right next to cops with a clearly visible weapon? You stated that it is cleary visible and looks like a weapon and in the video he is standing shoulder to shoulder with cops. This is what I call gasping at straws mate

Originally posted by Kryties
Yes, I hear your cries of "This goes to show that the officers were highly suspicious and in defensive mode because of an object being thrown at them."

Which was thrown after they shot an innocent and defendless guy dead, in the back. I'd be pretty pissed too at that point and might do something stupid like that. He will probably be charged for this but this is totally unrelated to the shooting.

Wow you guys are lost.....

I'm only analyzing the video and reporting what I see.

The point I am making is that tasers or guns were already out before the killing happened. It was a very hostile situation. This is why ALL the officers were on edge. This is just proves they had a reason to take out their weapons.

Some of you are claiming there was no reason for weapons to be drawn. I just proved you wrong.

At 1:52 one officer has a weapon out.
At 2:55 other officer shoots victim.


Also, since the suspect I pointed out had thrown the object to assault an officer, it is technically called a weapon. So yes, he did walk up to an officer with a weapon.


[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

It was probably his cell phone which in no case is labeled as a weapon untill he uses it offensively. There was no reason to have weapons drawn and you can see that some officers actually put their batons back to their belts.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Wow, WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO! I just posted images of them drawing weapons because of the suspect I pointed out, and his friends.

Geeessshhhhhh!!!

...and I haven't even started showing the proof the suspect was resisting arrest yet.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

I've watched it plenty of times. They draw weapons because there is an angry mob shouting at them and approaching them. Once they back off the officers put their weapons back to holsters. There is no indication of anyone else than the officers being armed. Besides you're derailing this conversation, the crowd had nothing to do with the guy who was shot. Stop the smoke and mirrors and stick to the subject.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


How come the same video shows an officer also putting his baton back in it's holster? Can't have been too hostile a situation for this too occur.....


Also, witnesses describe hearing the man pleading with officers not to shoot him, seconds before they do, with his hands high in the air. The officers then pile on him, one stands up and shoots him in the back.

Not to mention the friends who said later that the only crime that man committed was attempting to calm his friends down, seconds before he was set upon and shot.

I would say "I hope you don't sleep well at night" but I believe you sleep very soundly in your own ignorance.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Wow, WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO! I just posted images of them drawing weapons because of the suspect I pointed out, and his friends.

Geeessshhhhhh!!!

...and I haven't even started showing the proof the suspect was resisting arrest yet.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

No, there was no justification for this killing even if the policeman was brain washed about the terrorism 'non' threat that they like to justify everything they do these days. God, can you imagine the mass killing if they had all taken off their shoes and thrown them at the police

reply to post by PsykoOps


Here in the US, what your talking about only applies to undercover officers. You are allowed to take pictures of uniformed officers without any problems.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Once they back off the officers put their weapons back to holsters.

Wow here is proof that everything you say from this point on is complete hogwash!



2:51 One officer puts his baton away. (maybe to get another weapon)
3:02 THE OFFICER STILL HAS OUT HIS WEAPON


You said "the officers put their weapons back to holsters", which is a direct lie. You sir, have been caught lying.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by PsykoOps


The act of throwing anything at a police officer is aggravated battery, and if it was something that is hard enough to cause serious injury can be elevated to a use of lethal force level. Believe it or not spitting or hitting an officer in the groin can both be considered use of lethal force in the US. Though they will usually only hood someone for spitting, but with the diseases that can now be transmitted through saliva that is considered a serious offense by police today.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


You make some racist comments in this thread. Shame on you. That kid did not deserve to die and the officer deserves incarceration. Frankly I think you deserve something too...

Why on Earth do you think I think he deserved to die?

He didn't deserve to die. At all.

You people are acting like I think it was justified. Stop.

This isn't a matter of if it was justified or not, it's a matter of if it is accidental or not. You people are jumping to conclusions and believing he did it on purpose!!! That is outrageous.

If the officer did it on purpose (which I highly doubt), then you can start debating if it was justified or not...

...but right now, we don't even know if it was an accident or not. If it was an accident (which I believe, and the officers reaction supports), then no crime was committed.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

The act of throwing anything at a police officer is aggravated battery, and if it was something that is hard enough to cause serious injury can be elevated to a use of lethal force level. Believe it or not spitting or hitting an officer in the groin can both be considered use of lethal force in the US. Though they will usually only hood someone for spitting, but with the diseases that can now be transmitted through saliva that is considered a serious offense by police today.

Yeah your right - "Watch it Officer Doh, he's got a mouth full of potentially lethal saliva! Officer Doh "PUT DOWN THE SALIVA! I REPEAT PUT DOWN THE SALIVA OR I WILL SHOOT YOU DEAD" (IN THE BACK, AS YOU FACE DOWNWARDS and several others on top of you). Sounds reasonable

Hollywood are going to have to re-think their tough street police scenes. can you imagine the new plot for '24' with Jack on the trail of some bad mother-fathers that spit on innocent people and well lets face it need taken down in the interests of national Security!

reply to post by ALLis0NE


You're actually right for once. One officer is seen putting his baton away. He didn't go for another weapon afaik since he appears unarmed later. The only officers that I can see with weapons is the guy who keeps his baton under his armpit trough the whole video and the female who has a tazer.
My bad, I remembered wrong.

[edit on 6/1/2009 by PsykoOps]

It just goes to prove that police should not have guns. They should be allowed night sticks and tasers only. If a gun situation develops they should call in a special unit that is highly trained to take care of the situation. Police are paid to take risks not to murder people.

Maybe if they continue to have guns a real time video / audio satellite link from a helmet camera back to a supervisor would be required yo unlock the gun to fire. It would have the advantage of a digital heads up display of land scape and other officers locations. We are in the digital battlefield age so there is no reason not to equip officers that way. It would also provide video / audio that could be used in court.

reply to post by mlmijyd


I have a news flash for you what I said is absolutely the truth.
Try it and you'll find out real fast how true it is.

One of my friends works in a corrections facility and when an inmate does anything that they consider to be a biological hazard to an officer, on go the Bio suits under their armadillo armor, followed by an extraction team that is going to put that guy into submission, followed by five point restraints and a hood if need be.

[edit on 1/6/2009 by defcon5]

Also, in this video:
www.ktvu.com...

At 1:53 right when the narrator says "holding his hands up and appearing to cooperate", the victim is seen sitting on the ground, and tries to stand up.

You can clearly see the officers telling him to sit down, and he is trying to stand up.

Everyone knows police officers make you sit down, and usually cross your legs, when being questioned or detained. It's common procedure. Any person(s) that moves, or tries to get up, is considered "non-cooperative", and could potentially be trying to run, or escape.

This appears to be what triggers the confrontation with the officers. The victim who was sitting down, decided to stand up on his own, and triggered a response from the officers. The officers must have felt the need to finally handcuff him. That is when he resisted.

Later you can see in the video, right before they put his chest to the ground, the victim has his hands behind his head, and his fingers locked together (common procedure). BUT, right as he is put to the ground, you can see the victim take his hand apart, and move is right arm. This is when the second officer standing up leans down and grabs him exactly at 2:00 minutes into the video.

The victim was resisting being handcuffed.

This does NOT mean I think the shooting was justified, it only means I believe the officer had a valid reason to pull a weapon. Not a reason to shoot, just a reason to pull a weapon such as a taser.

This supports the officers explanation that "he mistaked the gun for a taser".


-- for the record, spitting on someone is usually considered assault --


[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]