*Video* Cops shoot unarmed man in bed 16 times, DEPT OF CORRECTIONS SAYS: “OK”

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RWESteel
 


Fair enough. Though it still seems pretty rare.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RWESteel
 


So when you responded to what your new friend on ATS said by saying



While I may be a "tool of the law" I still hold my rights as an American citizen and human being. I have the inherent right of self-defense just as any civilian does.


What you meant to say was that you have an extra special right to self-defense unlike any civilian? Because you did respond to my first post with this...



Cops are targets when it comes to violent crime, so yes our perception of risk is in fact greater than that of a civilian.


And I simply refuse to believe you are implying that your perception of risk is in fact greater and that your rights to self-defense are greater because unlike civilians you are the target of violent crime. That's not what you're saying right? Because we both know that just like law enforcement, civilians are targets of violent crime. In fact I wouldn't doubt that civilians are targeted more often than law enforcement. And given that law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals from the crimes of others I cannot see how your rights to self-defense and your perception of risk are greater than any other persons.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraggleRock
reply to post by RWESteel
 


So when you responded to what your new friend on ATS said by saying



While I may be a "tool of the law" I still hold my rights as an American citizen and human being. I have the inherent right of self-defense just as any civilian does.


What you meant to say was that you have an extra special right to self-defense unlike any civilian? Because you did respond to my first post with this...



Cops are targets when it comes to violent crime, so yes our perception of risk is in fact greater than that of a civilian.


And I simply refuse to believe you are implying that your perception of risk is in fact greater and that your rights to self-defense are greater because unlike civilians you are the target of violent crime. That's not what you're saying right? Because we both know that just like law enforcement, civilians are targets of violent crime. In fact I wouldn't doubt that civilians are targeted more often than law enforcement. And given that law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals from the crimes of others I cannot see how your rights to self-defense and your perception of risk are greater than any other persons.


Citizen's rights of self-defense stem mainly from state laws. I don't agree with this but that is what it is (lack of castle laws in some states, stand-your-ground, etc.). I personally believe that all people have a right to self-defense---may not be legal.

Legally speaking, yes our perception of risk is higher due to what our position stands for.

We can throw a hypothetical out there that actually happens pretty regularly. Guy walks into a store with a plan to rob it with a firearm. No one notices him. Uniformed Armed LEO and two civilians are in the line. Who is he going to shoot at? The one person who he perceives is a threat to his freedom and the accomplishment of his end-goal of robbing the store. Now he may even shoot the civilians, screwed up, but not immediately necessary to complete the robbery.

Second scenario, police officer approaches a man who has been casing a jewelry store for hours. The officer introduces himself and the individual makes hand motions towards his waistline. Officer draws down and instructs the individual to place his hands in the air, turn around, drop to his knees, and then drop to his stomach. In the middle of doing this the subject grabs for his wasitline again and pulls out a dark object while turning towards the officer. Officer fires. Clean shoot.

When would a civilian ever be in a situation such as that? The only time we would even need to discuss this happening with a civilian would be a quick-draw duel scenario and someone decides to pull out a cellphone instead of a handgun.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I have a feeling all these police action is a deliberate way for inviting a counter action....

an attack on the police station by armed groups or anything...they are baiting us to strike them ....



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I think they're taunting people to revolt. Its really outrageous and citizens need to group up in every single town and region and start becoming first level of government, start solving problems. Citizens watchdogs should be overseeing all police, judicial and political actions, they're the real senate, and have the power to press charges, take away pensions and benefits and FIRE them from their positions.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by RWESteel
 


I'm not going to get into an off topic hypothetical discussion regarding the differences between risks pertaining to law enforcement and risks pertaining to civilians. My point is that perception of risk should be equal. Whether we're in a store being robbed or encountering a dangerous individual on the street. And specifically speaking on this story I don't believe there is any justified perception of risk that should alleviate anyone from legal consequences.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


The guy tells the cops he does have weapons....then reaches under the covers....so OF COURSE they fired! I would have, too. He made a really stupid move. Cops with guns ask if you are armed, you say yes, and you reach out of sight? If that is accurate, it's a righteous shooting. Let's not overlook that this man was in a house with a felon that had broken parole, too, so it's very possible he's got some criminal involvement. Not certain, but possible. Cops get shot all the time, from guys with guns that don't want to be arrested. Shooting when a guy states he's armed, and reaches, isn't out of line.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RWESteel
 


The risk is NOT equal. Not by a long shot.

Police officers are trained, heavy supplied, heavily armed, organized... because that is what we pay them for.

And no, you do NOT have the same rights as a civilian. Deadly force should only be used in the absolute extreme circumstances. The "its coming right for us" excuse does not hold water.

Furthermore, and as stated before, I have no sympathy for your job risk. You chose a career in law enforcement knowing full well the risk it carries, you are trained to handle that risk, you are supplied to handle that risk, you took an oath reaffirming that risk.

I am sick and tired of the romanticisation of police officers. Statistically, a roofer is more likely to be killed at his job.


20 years ago I may have said that deadly force was more "acceptable" due to the fact police officers were not funded as they are now and you only had a sidearm with 6 rounds of .38 special.

All major cities now have militarized police with tanks, stun guns, riot control, access to unlimited amounts of self defense training, technology that allows the assessment of criminals, demographics, and assault weapons (police should never ever ever ever ever have offensive weapons... ever... period) you get discounts on firearms, range time... I can list for hours.... and you want to sit there and tell me that the lust and rush you get from all this training and toys and you want to cite that you have no duty to protect the citizens that live under your protection? That you are somehow equal to even the most hardened criminals?

No. The answer is no.

Cities are broke due to a large portion of the hero worship we give to our officers and you repay those citizens by citing obscure court judgements that can be subjective in justifying your alpha male good ol boys in blue club? When your cars (that are paid for by the tax payers) state on the side "to protect and serve" not "judge jury and executioner"

There is no excuse with the resources and organization that you cant take 99.999% of all suspects ALIVE.

Police are glorified bouncers that must always operate inside the law.

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:
"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed."

Vis a vis

No person shall... be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Black and white.


edit on 5-4-2013 by YayMayorBee because: replied to wrong post



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWESteel
Alright guys... This one I have to chime in on.

BLUF: We're all logical people here, try not to come to conclusions based on one media (who most here would believe is skewed) report, especially in a situation like this when you were not there.


I myself work in Law Enforcement, and while everyone has made valid points concerning this shooting, I believe it was in fact justified. Not many of you on here have been in situations such as this, and you were not there that day. It is not our place to say whether or not the officer was threatened. When the individual was asked to put his hands in plain view, and immediately reached for something, it is a cause for concern, and in a situation such as that, I believe I would have fired as well. One random thing, whenever there are reports of LEO shootings, the media likes to report the number of rounds fired. When your adrenaline is pumping, you squeeze the trigger till the threat is gone. 20 Rounds from two officers is not a lot of rounds -- that's not even a magazine emptied from each. It was enough to stop the subject and declare the scene safe.

Everyone who is criticizing the officer, why don't you put you pay attention to the details and attempt to put yourself in his shoes, facing a life and death situation.

And revamping training/policies is the correct thing to do. Increased training will help ensure a situation like this does not happen again.

I'm sure you won't like it, but as this site generally houses more logical individuals than most, I thought that maybe seeing a point of view other than the skewed one that was presented could get you to open your mind and think a bit before jumping to conclusions.

Thanks and be safe everyone.



edit on 4-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)


You don't belong in law enforcement if you think was justifiable. A law enforcement officer needs to be able to clearly discern when he is in danger and a simple movement from a suspect in bed is not reason to think they are in danger.

I also think it should be illegal to do no knock warrants in the first place. How many lives would have been saved if the police would just knock first?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


A fast hand movement to an out of sight location after admitting he has a weapon, and directed to put his hands in plain sight, doesn't constitute danger during the execution of a warrant for a convicted felon? You're an imbecile.

Oh and yes, let's please knock and announce our presence while the individual inside gets to cover and aims a R870 at the door. Not safer.
edit on 5-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by YayMayorBee
reply to post by RWESteel
 


The risk is NOT equal. Not by a long shot.

Police officers are trained, heavy supplied, heavily armed, organized... because that is what we pay them for.

And no, you do NOT have the same rights as a civilian. Deadly force should only be used in the absolute extreme circumstances. The "its coming right for us" excuse does not hold water.

Furthermore, and as stated before, I have no sympathy for your job risk. You chose a career in law enforcement knowing full well the risk it carries, you are trained to handle that risk, you are supplied to handle that risk, you took an oath reaffirming that risk.

I am sick and tired of the romanticisation of police officers. Statistically, a roofer is more likely to be killed at his job.


20 years ago I may have said that deadly force was more "acceptable" due to the fact police officers were not funded as they are now and you only had a sidearm with 6 rounds of .38 special.

All major cities now have militarized police with tanks, stun guns, riot control, access to unlimited amounts of self defense training, technology that allows the assessment of criminals, demographics, and assault weapons (police should never ever ever ever ever have offensive weapons... ever... period) you get discounts on firearms, range time... I can list for hours.... and you want to sit there and tell me that the lust and rush you get from all this training and toys and you want to cite that you have no duty to protect the citizens that live under your protection? That you are somehow equal to even the most hardened criminals?

No. The answer is no.

Cities are broke due to a large portion of the hero worship we give to our officers and you repay those citizens by citing obscure court judgements that can be subjective in justifying your alpha male good ol boys in blue club? When your cars (that are paid for by the tax payers) state on the side "to protect and serve" not "judge jury and executioner"

There is no excuse with the resources and organization that you cant take 99.999% of all suspects ALIVE.

Police are glorified bouncers that must always operate inside the law.

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:
"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed."

Vis a vis

No person shall... be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Black and white.


edit on 5-4-2013 by YayMayorBee because: replied to wrong post



So an individual walks into your place of work with full level IV body armor and begins firing off rounds in each and every direction. You are all unarmed for this scenario. (if armed, which i'm sure you are Scott, hopefully you'd stop the threat yourself)

They break a glass cabinet with merchandise and the silent alarm goes off calling in the police. The police then arrive, judge the situation, and enter the place of business. You're telling me if that individual points the gun at me, as an LEO, I have no right to fire at them?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWESteel
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


A fast hand movement to an out of sight location after admitting he has a weapon, and directed to put his hands in plain sight, doesn't constitute danger during the execution of a warrant for a convicted felon? You're an imbecile.

Oh and yes, let's please knock and announce our presence while the individual inside gets to cover and aims a R870 at the door. Not safer.
edit on 5-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)


This convicted felon for whom the warrant was for was already in custody. The shooters were doing a sweep of the residence for weapons when they happened upon the victim in his bed. And assumption shouldn't be justification for firing on civilians. I don't care if they told him 1000 times to not move. Until they see an actual direct threat they have no justification to fire.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RWESteel
 


You just described a "unique and extreme situation" and also where civilians are in directly harms way which is once again, the only time (in my opinion) a LEO is justified in using deadly force.

Any other time, they are not. Your job is to bring the bad guys to the judicial system for due process and to serve the public.

Any person on US soil is protected by the Constitution. Its is the supreme law of the land. There is no if, ands, or buts. If every LEO thinks like you do... I would fire every single one of you without question.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWESteel
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


A fast hand movement to an out of sight location after admitting he has a weapon, and directed to put his hands in plain sight, doesn't constitute danger during the execution of a warrant for a convicted felon? You're an imbecile.

Oh and yes, let's please knock and announce our presence while the individual inside gets to cover and aims a R870 at the door. Not safer.
edit on 5-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)


It doesnt matter what he arms himself with on the other side of the door, if there is NO THREAT TO OTHER CIVILIANS then your JOB is to take him ALIVE above all else for DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tasers? Hand to Hand physical restraint? Flash bang grenades? Tear Gas?

All of the above is at the disposal of every major jurisdiction.

So, with your logic, give up all those cool toys and training. Because what you are saying is no matter how much training and non lethal toys we give LEOs, they are always going to use deadly force or looking for opportunity?





top topics
 
33
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join