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

reply to post by zerbot565

ofcourse shooting the fellow might have been a bit over the line,

Did you really write that?

Wow.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Now you're the one lying (intentional or not). Narrator says "holding his hands up and appearing to cooperate with officers." Nothing about trying to stand up.

Here, for the ignorant...

A Thirty-Five Year Prison Sentence for Spitting at a Police Officer: The Danger of Basing Justice on Mistaken Assumptions
Last month, Willie Campbell was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment for spitting at Dallas police officer Dan Waller. The sentence was based in part on a jury finding that that because Campbell was HIV-positive, his spit qualified as a deadly weapon. As a result of the finding, Campbell will have to serve at least half his sentence before he is eligible for parole. The sentence is troubling, because it rests on fact-finding at odds with scientific evidence regarding the transmission of HIV.

Spitting at a police officer is a Felony in many states for this very reason.



[edit on 1/6/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Now you're the one lying (intentional or not). Narrator says "holding his hands up and appearing to cooperate with officers." Nothing about trying to stand up.

This is what I said:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
At 1:53 right when the narrator says "holding his hands up and appearing to cooperate",

I said exactly what the narrator said, in quotes. How is that lying?

I was pointing out that even the narrator is lying (or telling an opinion). While the narrator is saying he is cooperating, the video is showing him trying to stand up!

The victim was not cooperating.

I never said the narrator was talking about him standing up. Did you read my post correctly or did you just skim through and rush to reply?

[edit on 6-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by defcon5
Spitting at a police officer is a Felony in many states for this very reason.

Preposterous, HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting at someone.

They made it a felony under the guise of HIV-contamination because being spat at is extremely humiliating, especially when you cannot legally retaliate against the suspect.

reply to post by zerbot565

Well lets put you on the ground and put a round in your back for being so ignorant. How about your kid. Lets put a bullet in his back. See if you arrogant attitude changes. you peice of #

reply to post by MoonMine


HIV is not the only thing that can be transmitted through saliva,
How about Hepatitis B or C, and many other very nasty diseases that you don't want simply for doing your job.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Why on Earth do you think I think he deserved to die?

Hmmm.... Perhaps this:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Both of the answers to the above questions point to the reason why he got shot. BECAUSE HE WAS BEING A TYPICAL NEGRO. Yeah, I said it. Truth hurts.

Perhaps I read you wrong? I bet you get it all the time right?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Missed quote.
For what it's worth the guy is on his knees and backing away from the cops against the wall. Plenty of room to stand up if he would've tried that but he is holding his hands up and leaning back.

Originally posted by MoonMine

Originally posted by defcon5
Spitting at a police officer is a Felony in many states for this very reason.

Preposterous, HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting at someone.

They made it a felony under the guise of HIV-contamination because being spat at is extremely humiliating, especially when you cannot legally retaliate against the suspect.

It certainly can't as the HIV Virus doesn't exist or if it does then they have to re-write the book on Viruses as this one can target on the bases of Colour and wealth!

Originally posted by defcon5
How about Hepatitis B or C, and many other very nasty diseases that you don't want simply for doing your job.

Hence not a deadly weapon, charges should be lowered to assault.

Assault by spit.

reply to post by mlmijyd


I work in medicine, and believe me there is HIV and its not a targeted thing regardless of what you have read on any conspiracy site. I have seen just as many rich white people with it as anyone else. To be honest, as a medical person I am a lot more afraid of getting hepatitis then I am of HIV anyway. They give us Hep-B vaccinations because Hep-B can be ejected in saliva and live on a surface for up to two weeks.

Originally posted by defcon5
My first reaction to the video was that he mistakenly drew his gun when he was meaning to draw his taser. His stance is pretty standard for someone preparing to tase an uncooperative individual. You can even see him put his hands to his head, like “man I just drew the wrong weapon”, right after it happens. I am not agreeing with what happened in any way, but in the heat of the moment I can see where it would be easy to grab the wrong pistol shaped item off your belt and let fly before you realize what you did.

All of that sort of argument reminds me of Lionel Hutz on defending Marge for stealing and how the judge they got was not good. (i think it was the Marge case)

Lionel Hutz: Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Lionel Hutz: Well, I didn't win. Here's your pizza.
Marge: But we did win.
Lionel Hutz: That's okay. The box is empty

Anyway the point being, if it's used as defense, it's obvious to all but the justice system that the defence's argument should be thrown out. He shot the kid, who was not obviously posing an immediate threat. Manslaughter at the very least.

As for what was going on in the dudes mind... Every damn Friday night in Perth is like that at the city train station. It gets intimidating quicksmart.

I don't favour anyone in this case. He took the job when he obviously was not capable of it and the loud mouths pushed the atmos. Lose Lose situation.




[edit on 1/6/2009 by bloodcircle]

reply to post by clay2 baraka


I noticed that comment about the tazer too.

But that is no defense at all.If you look at the footage he had the weapon in his hand long enough to know whether it was his gun or tazer.

The fact that he stands,draws his gun,pauses,then shoots him;tells you all you need to know.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by DantesLost]

Looks like the cop screwed up, and probably did think he had reached for his taser. However, when people do stupid illegal S^%$ and screw around with cops, your asking for trouble. Kind of goes with the territory.

Those people were acting like a bunch of monkeys in a zoo and were very provoking as well.

The entire situation could have been avoided if those involved simply acted like civilized human beings.

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Both of the answers to the above questions point to the reason why he got shot. BECAUSE HE WAS BEING A TYPICAL NEGRO. Yeah, I said it. Truth hurts.

Perhaps I read you wrong? I bet you get it all the time right?

You didn't read it wrong, but you are completely taking it out of context, which is a major problem here at ATS.

The reason the victim got shot, was because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let's face it, if I had a time machine and I went back in time to stop this event from happening, all I would have to do is make sure the victim had nothing to do with the initial fight.

But unfortunately, being who he is, he was "involved" and "in the mix".


Here is a book you should read:
Psychology and Race By Peter Watson

Page 188:

In the face of adversity, the Negro feels more than the frustration generated by the caste system. His anger is intensified - particularly in the Negro male - by his sense of powerlessness (Drake 1965). When hostility is expressed, it is often through indirect means. Among lower-class Negros aggression is frequent, the chain of victimization is perpetuated, and the lower-class Negro is exploited by both whites and fellow Negros. Other outlets for aggression are juvenile delinquency and crime, both of which provide means of 'striking back' at the white society.

It is no secret, psychology has already documented it.

It is "typical" for a Negro to be in "involved" in a crime involving aggression.

If this victim in the video was not "involved", then he would still be alive today. So the reason he got shot? Because he was "involved", which is typical for a Negro statistically, and physiologically.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by igor_ats

 

Recording conversations is illegal unless you're one of the participants in it. Photographing and taking video of cops is perfectly legal, and in many cases advisable. They will tell you it's not legal but that argument has been shot to hell many times over. Keep your cameras rolling

I see. "New Hampshire law requires consent for audio recording (apparently you can record video alone without consent)." www.examiner.com...

That's the thing, most video also records audio by default, they can forcibly remove incriminating evidence from your hands with this law. Even if it only records video they will assume it does as a pretense to get hold of the evidence anyway. Especially if it's them doing something they shouldn't.

It really is horrible how the law is inadequate with this. I hope the few high profile cases will be the road to setting this issue once and for all.

BART several videos have been released to the public via Fox 11's Bay Area station. The guy just pulled the gun and killed him right then and there. We get Bay Area news here in Reno, and I have been keeping close tabs on this.

Witness testimony shows that bystanders and BART passengers aboard the train were already not liking what was going on. This man was unarmed, subdued, and no danger to anyone. The officer in question has yet to be interviewed by investigators according to Fox 11, a 25 million dollar lawsuit has already been filed.

reply to post by bloodcircle


I already covered this above somewhere, but to charge an officer with manslaughter you have to show that they did something intentionally negligent. Like if the guy modified his weapon, or was in the habit of handling it unsafely. Police are given a large amount of leeway in making mistakes, even when it costs someone their life. As I have already stated above though, it will most likely end his career as a police officer.

Also if you read my other posts, you will see that one of the other reasons I truly feel that he did not intend to use his firearm is because of the proximity to other officers who were struggling with the victim. An officer is not going to discharge his weapon when the person could easily pull one of his fellow officers into the line of fire at the last second, or where the shot could ricochet off the floor and strike another officer. As to your remark about the other case, I guess I just don't get it.

Originally posted by taserman

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

A person close to the investigation told the San Francisco Chronicle that BART officials are looking into the possibility that the officer thought he was firing a Taser and pulled out his gun by mistake.

Well, there is the defense.

As weak as that defense is, I am gonna bet the farm that it will hold up in court and the officer will go scot free.

Perfectly fine defense.

Put yourself in the officer's shoes. You are surrounded by a large mob of people who hate you and are issuing verbal threats against your life, one of them runs at you (whom a fellow officer tackles to the ground). While that man is tackled to the ground, he starts violently resisting arrest and tried to pull something from his shirt which could be used to kill you.

Your adrenaline is pumping, heart is racing, you can't hear or concentrate because of the large mob making so much noise around you ... do you think it's possible you could pull the wrong thing off your belt (a belt which has at least 30 different things on it?)

Problem with that every holstered weapon is suppose to have the safety turned on so you can not fire the gun by accident.

Chances are it was an accident no doubt in my mind anyway. I first thought maybe he thought the safety was on and when he aimed boom oops safety was turned off because last time he holstered the weapon he forgot to turn the safety back on. Rookie mistake and at 2 years he is a rookie no doubt. But if that was the case a very very bad mistake to make safety always on unless intending to pull the trigger.

My first comment is what would be made by a defense attorney in a case stating he thought it was a tazer.