Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I don't consider shooting an unarmed man (who is co-operating.

You police hating propaganda spinners need to give the “Co-operating” thing a rest.

Right. Do you think that I indiscriminately hate the police and don't appreciate them? I didn't state that so please don't jump to conclusions here.

Eye witnesses and the video show what appears to be a co-operating person. So YES I am saying he was co-operating because more evidence suggests he was than the contrary and you are welcome to show me why YOU feel he wasn't co-operating. I see no evidence to suggest he was trying to run/resist the police.

The police officer could have discharged his taser but he decided to shoot the guy. This was a decision not an accident.

A person is not co-operating if they require two police officers to be on their back pinning them down. Just because you cannot see movement on the persons part, that does not imply lack of resistance.

Strange. From what I can see the chap who was murdered was sitting down next to others for some time and didn't attempt to escape the police.

You may call me a propagandist or a police "hater", but I rather be labelled that than to be openly supporting what could potentially be a cold blooded murder and acting in the defence of this police officer.

Police do commit crime just like everyone else and act unlawfully. Wake up!

[edit on 8-1-2009 by IceColdPro]

Originally posted by IceColdPro
Right. Do you think that I indiscriminately hate the police and don't appreciate them? I didn't state that so please don't jump to conclusions here.

I don’t mean you specifically, I am just tired of seeing that written all over about this incident in general.

Originally posted by IceColdPro
Eye witnesses and the video show what appears to be a co-operating person. So YES I am saying he was co-operating because more evidence suggests he was than the contrary and you are welcome to show me why YOU feel he wasn't co-operating.

The police have a very specific matrix of escalation that they use, and the fact that they are having to physically manhandle him tells me they are in the top three levels already, which implies he is not co-operating. That is unless you are accusing the other police officer of misconduct as well?

Originally posted by IceColdPro
I see no evidence to suggest he was trying to run/resist the police.

Passive resistance is still resistance. If I recall correctly he has his hands in front of him, and not behind his back, which means he was beyond passive resistance and into actively resisting. You don’t have to flee to be resisting, simply pulling away from an officer who is trying to cuff you is resisting arrest. Not following a lawful verbal command, while being arrested can also be considered resisting.

Originally posted by IceColdPro
The police officer could have discharged his taser but he decided to shoot the guy. This was a decision not an accident.

What possible reason would the officer have to intentionally kill this guy, thereby ruining his career and life? Do you go to work everyday thinking, “man lets do something really stupid, to someone I have nothing personal against, and throw years of school, training, and my life right out the window just cause I feel like doing something mean today”?
I doubt you do. So what makes you think that this guy would do something so foolish?

I can only see two possible things that happened, A) the guy just snapped and went momentarily nuts, B) he made a mistake. I am thinking that B is the more logical from looking at the tape.

Originally posted by defcon5
Passive resistance is still resistance. If I recall correctly he has his hands in front of him, and not behind his back, which means he was beyond passive resistance and into actively resisting. You don’t have to flee to be resisting, simply pulling away from an officer who is trying to cuff you is resisting arrest. Not following a lawful verbal command, while being arrested can also be considered resisting.

I'm sorry, I had to read this several times to make sure I had read this correctly.

Passive resistance is the refusal to follow commands. Like when a protester sits on the ground and refuses to move at the request of an officer.

This DOES NOT justify the use of excessive force.
You cannot excuse an officer for shooting someone who is resisting. I don't even see how the use of a tazer would have been justified in this case. And that is from seeing the VIDEO EVIDENCE.

It is becoming increasingly clear that many law enforcement officers in the US seem to believe that their job is to control the public rather than maintain safety and order. This is a completely warped view of Policing in a democratic country. Are Police trained in the US to control the people rather than maintain order and safety? Because that's certainly how it seems from my perspective.

The victim had been detained, on the ground, surrounded by officers. How is there any justification for even using a tazer?

That new video is very telling. Would someone explain to me one good reason WHY that officer needed to pull his gun AT ALL? He had help, and the guy was on the ground. The crowd was not threatening them or trying to get in the way. He had no reason whatsoever to pull his gun, otherwise, if there was a valid reason, ALL officers would have had theirs drawn too.

That is total BS. I'd love nothing more than to see a few thugs wrestle that cop to the ground, pull out a gun and shoot his sorry ass, and then claim it was an accident. The act of pulling your firearm is no accident. And since when does a taser gun even feel like a pistol? And from what I have seen, police will warn profusely (usually) that they will taser you if you do not cooperate, BEFORE they fire with one.

There was no physical threat to the officer whatsoever requiring he use deadly force. This is just not making sense to me. AT ALL.

[edit on Thu Jan 8th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Please forgive me, but what exactly would be the point of a "peaceful" protest? One could protest silently in their own room, but who the hell would know you are doing it, and what would be the point?
A protest has to draw attention to itself so that it is noticed; otherwise its message would not be heard.
Protests have to be loud. They have to in some ways be alarming so that people stand up and take notice.
They do have to do something to disrupt the inertia of the sleeping masses in order to be effective.
Loud, noisy, disrupting to people's routines. That is what a protest has to be.
They do not have to destroy personal property.
Sometimes a Ghandi like passive protest works too, but is much harder to commit to and much more time consuming.
I applaud this protest and hope it keeps up, loudly, until justice is served.

Accident or not he killed the guy in cold blood. I'd probably be a little shocked and surprised too if I just murdered an innocent man in front of a group of people. Anything less than prison for this 'cop' is a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see more rioting in the bay area.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by MetatronCubensis]

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
Accident or not he killed the guy in cold blood. I'd probably be a little shocked and surprised too if I just murdered an innocent man in front of a group of people. Anything less than prison for this 'cop' is a joke. Wouldn't be surprised if we see more rioting in the bay area.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by MetatronCubensis]

I bet the liquor and electronics stores are hit first