Pinal County Sheriff Deputy kills Manuel Longoria while Longoria's hands are raised in the air.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Wasnt much time between less lethal and lethal huh?

They just wanted to kill him. Its total b.s. I think.

Dapaga
reply to post by stirling

 

The first shots are the bean bags being shot at him. It looks like they hurt him and he panicked, and then tried to find protection in the car. He realized his mistake, and stepped back, and was shot a couple more time with the bean bags. He shouted, "Ow! Allright!" and turned with his hands in the air...and was shot for real.

edit on 26-1-2014 by Dapaga because: (no reason given)

I starred you for that... That's what I saw too. I know/seen some extremely tough/crazy people get shot with bean bags/tasers an it worked wonders to get them under control.
If there wasn't that definite pause before the final two shots when he had time to raise his hands and turn around it would be a little more understandable because who knows what was potentially in the car/backseat.
The officer that fired the final two shots definitely had time to read the situation an the situation is that man was giving up, he shouldn't have been shot.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Police in Pinal County, Arizona, claimed that the shooting death of a suspected car thief two weeks ago came after the man had turned to reach for a weapon.

By this there must be a weapon on file in the evidence
lock up. And with the video showing no such weapon?
Guess who that evidence works against? Can you say
two dollar quete' ?

NewsWorthy

Dapaga
reply to post by stirling

 

The first shots are the bean bags being shot at him. It looks like they hurt him and he panicked, and then tried to find protection in the car. He realized his mistake, and stepped back, and was shot a couple more time with the bean bags. He shouted, "Ow! Allright!" and turned with his hands in the air...and was shot for real.

edit on 26-1-2014 by Dapaga because: (no reason given)

I starred you for that... That's what I saw too. I know/seen some extremely tough/crazy people get shot with bean bags/tasers an it worked wonders to get them under control.
If there wasn't that definite pause before the final two shots when he had time to raise his hands and turn around it would be a little more understandable because who knows what was potentially in the car/backseat.
The officer that fired the final two shots definitely had time to read the situation an the situation is that man was giving up, he shouldn't have been shot.

The pause between the beanbags being fired and the last two(lethal) shots being fired is most telling. The cops just fkn executed the guy!!!

Hands over his head?
ORLY?

Here we are a 0:19 seconds just before the first shot.
He is standing with his hands BEHIND HIS BACK...


Why did he get shot, lets see what his next move is in the next second:



here is what he is doing when the first shot goes off at 0:20:


Pointing at the cops like he has a gun....
He finally puts his hands up at 0:25 after 6 gunshots....

reply to post by defcon5


What tripe

You can hear the police clearing their cross fire at 20 or so.

They knew he was a dead man

At 25-26 you can hear the bean bag shot AND tazer zap

Meaning he was incapacitated

Tazers lock you muscles

After a zap his hands hit the roof

And 2bullets hit his back



Eta did you really say he pointed his finger at them

I want you to Google

South park finger bang

Then shoot all those kids

reply to post by defcon5


That type of confusion will occur when a video is posted from live leak without anything to place the video into context. That's done so people can go after law enforcement without having to confront things like facts.

Even after just posting the news account with nothing posted along with it the typical suspects assume they know what my position is and try to take me to task for it - just like the video - they see something and without doing more investigation they just assume to know the answer.

Let em complain about law enforcement.. Its what they are good at and they don't seem to care about anything like facts in order to support their claims. Even without being present, or part of the investigation, they already know what happened. Why take into account those little things like laws or Supreme Court Rulings...

I don't even think one of them has considered the fact the guy could have ended it before it started by, you know, not stealing a car and breaking the law.

@ gogo - Based on the guys actions, and video, law enforcement actions were within the law / justified.

By all means though - please explain how law enforcement actions were not justified using actual law / supreme court rulings and not your opinion.

Let me help you out.. I will give you a hint. Law enforcement did state the reason he was shot. I will let you find it on your own. If you need help, just ask.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Please show me where shoot a tazered unarmed man in the back for pointing his finger is an offense marketing death without a trial?

Police are not judge dread

If you take the oath you put your life at risk

You do not get to minimize that risk by killing anyone who scares you

These police had him tazed and on the defense the had the situation under control

And they shot him in the back

A cowardice move since the invention of firearms

Eta. The fact defcom believes there were 6 shots fired proves my point

4 were Hannah's

Then the zap from the laser

Then hands on car

Then two shot in the back

Your mentality scares me

reply to post by Another_Nut


right...

Same challenge to you as gogo...

Explain how law enforcement actions were not justified / illegal based on law and supreme court rulings. As I hinted to him, the reasons for the shots fired are present. All you guys need to do is read and you will see them.

again, please show me what law / rulings the police violated making their actions illegal.

reply to post by Another_Nut

According to Babeu, Longoria hit one Eloy police vehicle and two sheriff’s vehicles during the final stages of the chase.

I'm not sure if that is considered attempted vehicular homicide on a police officer, or battery on a police officer with a deadly weapon, it may depend on the state laws. Either way the police were already justified to shoot him before the video even started. They tried to take him into custody without killing him, but his own actions prevented that from happening.

Either way, if you hit a police vehicle while fleeing, the police can justifiably shoot you.
A car is a deadly weapon, and using it to hit an officer in the commission of a crime justifies lethal force in every state I am aware of...

reply to post by defcon5


It is...

Secondly his claims of having a weapon are taken at face value, whether or not he is being honest.

People not familiar with how law enforcement works don't understand that once a person makes a claim like:

I'm armed
I'm going to kill someone
I won't be taken alive

All claims are taken at face value, whether or not they are in fact true. Using a vehicle and intentionally trying to hit an officer / officers car becomes felony assault on emergency services (terminology changes state to state).

Also the fact those actions occurred in the general public with civilians in the area UPS the situation. Public safety becomes a major factor. A person who makes threats like this guy did, coupled with his actions, and taking into account his actions at the end of the situation, are the reason for the use of deadly force.

The fact he was not armed is not relevant since that info came out at the end of the situation. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to review a use of force. What did the officer perceive at the moment force was used is the standard.

I think his only mistake was moving too fast, his actions were unclear and in the event he draws a weapon and fires, the cops would be at risk.

It is an unfortunate accident for sure.

reply to post by defcon5


Nhap. Those are when he gets shot with beanbags. When he gets murdered he has his back to the cop and his arms out to his sides going up.

reply to post by Biigs


Nah. Unjustified. He would have never gotten a shot off. They had too many cops with guns on him and it a pretty clear how ready to shoot they were. They should have waited but they jumped the gun and murdered this guy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Lol yeah just like stomping Kelly's brains into the curb was justified. It was notjustified because i'm smart enough to see that it was not. We all know that cops are hired only if they have average or below average intelligence. I dont care what the law says, the law is a joke. Common sense says it is not justified.
I believe you have stated before that you are or were a cop? Ill take my assessment over yours. Mine is based in the real world.

I think everyone figured all claims are taken at face value. Doesnt change the fact that they could see his hands. Doesnt make it less of a murder.

We are seeing the consequences of police departments only allowing average and below average IQs onto the force. I think if the men behind those guns had above average IQs they would have been able to better judge the situation.

The guy was a thief ... and he fled. Sharia law might have handled it better. One hand for stealing, one foot for running.

Either way, this guy's out of the business of being a criminal. AmeriKa ... safe for democracy once more!

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


He moved quickly and went to get something out of the car... He could have been getting anything from that car..

Yes it was a brash move by the officer which resulted in another pointless death.

However when you have more than ten people with guns on you, you do not make any quick or sudden movements... That's called common sense.

defcon5
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

According to Babeu, Longoria hit one Eloy police vehicle and two sheriff’s vehicles during the final stages of the chase.

I'm not sure if that is considered attempted vehicular homicide on a police officer, or battery on a police officer with a deadly weapon, it may depend on the state laws. Either way the police were already justified to shoot him before the video even started. They tried to take him into custody without killing him, but his own actions prevented that from happening.

Either way, if you hit a police vehicle while fleeing, the police can justifiably shoot you.
A car is a deadly weapon, and using it to hit an officer in the commission of a crime justifies lethal force in every state I am aware of...

edit on 1/27/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

So if you have a car collision, and then 'Surrender'...they get still justifiably shoot you ? No.
They can only shoot to defend life, not to "Punish and Neutralize" offensively or as retribution.

Shooting someone who surrendered is not justified...

If "Hands Up" isn't "Surrender" than I honestly don't know what is.
It's universally recognized.

Someone on the force made a big mistake this day. Big.