NYC Cops stand around and WATCH man stabbing homeless man in the neck repeatedly

When they point their guns and kept distance from the criminal, they look like taking a defensive position in order to protect themselves if the guy decide to attack them, they don't seem to care to much about the victim, almost can read their minds : "F*** this guy, I won't risk my as* for that ....."

I bet if a normal civilian would have ran in front of the cops and kicked the attacker in the face he would have been shot.

What we need to start doing is helping people out while the cops eat donuts.
I'd really like to see some videos of that, more videos of people helping each other.

We should all start our own police, we dont need weapons to help people.

Cops have training for exactly these sorts of situations.
If we discount (for the sake of finding answers) Evil or negligent action on the part of the police, what else then would motivate the police to pretty much do nothing?

What are the health and retirement plans like for cops?

Are they allowed to kick someone? would kicking the offender have potentially caused the victim more harm?

Pepperspray was out in this situation as they would have hit the victim as well, same for tasers and handgun/pistols (contrary to popular belief a hand firearm is extremely innacurate even at very close range, not to mention bullet trajectories)

The only solution i could see (and it's risky for the victim) would have been for two (or more) cops to have each grabbed an arm and restrained him, thus avoiding being stabbed themselves. The downside to this is that the knife might have been IN the victim when they tried this, use your imagination to figure out the possible implications of this.

The cops, for the victims sake and the sake of themselves had little option but to wait for the offender to either drop the weapon or move away from the victim. Any other action would have put the victim in harms way (more so)

The cops in America have been playin up lately, it's true, but i don't think this incident is an example of this. Being arrested for closing a bank account or spraying a couple of peaceful protestors however ARE good examples of this.

If we all holla and scream about this kind of incident without applying a bit of thought, devoid of emotion, then we are prone to reduce our overall believability in the eyes of those who's support we need.

So relax, take a deep breath and think about it before you get all angry, going off half-cocked is what we are angry with the police about and it would do us no good to become the devil we fight.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


You are certainly entitled to your opinion....but...I know what I know...I have seen...what I have seen....my opinions and viewpoints count just as much as yours do or anyone elses...and..I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

Bull#. If those people weren't constantly having their second amendment rights eroded and demonized, then they would have done what I would have done, and pumped about 18 9mm rounds into that guys back.

First of all the second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms. That is interperated to mean we have the right to purchase and own firearms and not to mean we have the right to carry firearms with us everywhere we go. Anything not expressly stated in the constitution falls on the state to regulate. NY State says you need a concealed carry permit to carry your firearm but does allow people to purchase and own firearms. This only applies to citizens of New York State. You are subject to the laws of your state which has nothing to do with the laws of New York. So no, no rights have been eroded.

Second of all, those states with open carry disallow the use of your firearm in cases like this. The danger has to be presented to you. Not someone else. So even the states that allow open carry would not allow you to intervene in a situation like this with the use of your firearm. If one did, they would be subject to criminal prosecution. The reason behind this is so we do not have one open carry citizen waste the criminal, then another open carry citizen waste the first one because they believed they were the criminal and then another open carry citizen waste the second one because they thought they were the criminal and then the police waste the third one because all they saw was one guy shooting another.

Third of all, shooting the guy in the back while he is laying ontop of the victim would mean shooting the victim as well. Maybe in the ribs, or in the side of the head to angle the round into the car next to him but not in the back.

It's the fact that it takes cops so long to respond that we are supposed to have the right to carry weapons and defend ourselves and others.

It looks like the police responded pretty quickly if the altercation was still in progress. Then it only took a matter of seconds for them to take action that led to saving the life of the victim, not killing the suspect and not having any police officers or bystanders injured. What measure of police work are you using? That sounds like the police did a pretty good job by those standards. If the police were too late, then they would have been rolling out crime scene tape around the body, chalking off his outline and the suspect would have escaped.

I do have to agree with you that those "bystanders" are just as guilty as the police when it comes to lack of honorable action.

This proves that the job that the police offcers performed is not as mundane as some claim it is. The fact that there were so many bystanders there and none took action proves that the police, who took the appropriate action, did so with more courage than anyone else present.

reply to post by Trueman

When they point their guns and kept distance from the criminal, they look like taking a defensive position in order to protect themselves if the guy decide to attack them,

Again, it was a matter of seconds from the beginning of the video until the police took action. That is a matter of seconds for the first officer seen in the video to assess the situation, wait for the second cop, formulate a plan and then start to take action.

they don't seem to care to much about the victim, almost can read their minds : "F*** this guy, I won't risk my as* for that ....."

If that was the case, why did they then? Why did they PULL the guy off of the victim instead of just waiting for him to comply and get off himself. Or wait for the victim to be dead and then simply shoot the guy with the knife. You appraisal is lacking and unreasonable.

reply to post by Fishticon84

I bet if a normal civilian would have ran in front of the cops and kicked the attacker in the face he would have been shot.

I bet not. One, because if one of the bystanders had the courage to do that it would have happened before the police got there. Two, the bystanders did not have enough time once the police arrived because it was 15-20 seconds before the police took action themselves.

What we need to start doing is helping people out while the cops eat donuts.

Get real.

We should all start our own police, we dont need weapons to help people.

Really? And after the first one of these brave volunteers is killed by a person with a weapon you will have a hard time finding people to further volunteer without giving them a weapon.

The reason the police carry weapons is so they can confront those criminals who also choose to carry weapons.

And I am pretty sure your leadership would begin to fail once the first bullet flew over your head or knife was swung at you and all you had to give back was harsh language and good intentions. Again, get real.

reply to post by caladonea

You are certainly entitled to your opinion....but...I know what I know...I have seen...what I have seen....my opinions and viewpoints count just as much as yours do or anyone elses...and..I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else.

For the sake of your own argument, I was asking you to validate your claims. You presented what you said as fact not opinion.

What you stated was that you had some form of evidence that the police engage in some form of population control, knew that the man was homeless and the fact that the victim was homeless guided the way the police handled the situation. Meaning there was some form of evidence that led you to believe this.

An opinion on the matter would have just been stating, "I believe the police did not act fast enough." See, nothing needs to be validated. You are simply right or wrong.

If you cannot explain to me what led you to believe that then I do not know where you are getting all of that from.

Again, all I am asking is that you validate your claims if you are going to make such claims and allow the other members to formulate an opinion.

And if this was purely your opinion, stated as fact, I simply made my case that you are completely and 100% wrong and misguided. I attempted to show you why you are wrong and what you are saying is unreasonable. If you choose to stick to your half-baked opinion then that is your right, but I have every right to show others where you are wrong.

This may have been posted already, haven't read the whole thread. Probably looked something like this:



Edit: I don't remember Nicky speaking Spanish though.

Peace

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
You appraisal is lacking and unreasonable.

Mmmmm......Nah!

reply to post by areyouserious2010



I said in my original post..."My take on this is...." that means opinion.....you just don't understand....but that's ok.....I am moving on now. Take care!

reply to post by caladonea

I said in my original post..."My take on this is...." that means opinion.....you just don't understand....but that's ok.....I am moving on now. Take care!

So, what you are saying is that you have no evidence of the police engaging in population control, the police officer's knowledge that the victim shown in the video was homeless when he was being attacked, or evidence that the police officer's actions were somehow guided by the knowledge that the man was homeless and it was all your "guess" or opinion?

My goal is not to belittle anyone or make them feel that there opinions or views are not welcome. My goal is to bring back level-headedness when dealing with this subject. Up until now, it appears that some have let their imagination, misconceptions as well as their blind hatred towards the police run rampant.

All I ask is that you look at the situation realistically. Claiming that the police are engaging in some sort of population control against the homeless without any evidence seems unrealistic.

I welcome everyone's views on any topic whatsoever. I just ask that I be allowed to express mine as well. When I provide a different view on the subject, I do so under the pretenses of reality and reason in the face of the unreasonable and irrational. I then let those who are reading the post make their own decisions based on both sides of the argument. You are going to feel one way and I am allowed to feel another. Try not to take me disagreeing with you personal as I do not take your disagreement with me personal.

Part of the problem is damned if you do damned if you dont. If dont smash him with clubs and they are called cowards and they should have done something. They do and they are called abusive and used excessive force.