BREAKING: LAPD shooting homeless man

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: n00bUK

I guess I just don't see how Americans having the right to bear arms has anything at all to do with this incident.
The cops have guns. This guy tried to grab one, or may have actually done so.

Are you going to tell me that where you live, no cops have guns?

Only trained professional police have guns, they tend to be ex-military who join the firing squad. Not some fat obese power mad dick head with badge like every 98% of the american police force

a reply to: stirling

it's hard to really see what was happening within that group of people but, i definitely agree. there were way too many rounds fired there. whatever happened during the course of the struggle, at the end they were no longer trying to subdue him. they switched into, blow him away mode. so i would expect to hear that he was gaining control or had gained control over one of the officers guns.

i'll be interested in hearing their explanation for how things turned sour like this. if the cops gun was grabbed, if it actually was dropped and the victim tried to pick it up?

but, LA Times said at least 1 officer WAS wearing a body camera so maybe some answers will come out.

At least one officer involved in the incident was wearing a body camera, Smith said.

LA Times


as for the women picking up the nightstick, what the f*ck? that was crazy. shes lucky not to be dead too.

and since when is a factual description like "homeless" a sign of bias? should news articles not describe the victim in any way then? don't call him black, don't call him homeless, don't say his age and don't say his gender. just say person A shot person B, because all that matters is WHAT he did, not the conditions that helped lead to the incident? c'mon now.

So I gotta ask, does it matter how the officer lost or dropped his gun?

Like if it was holstered and the man grabbed it out or what have you then I understand.

But if he lost it due to his own negligence, would that not factor into what happened?

I know we will never know cause that would never come out, just curious as to what people think

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
as for the women picking up the nightstick, what the f*ck? that was crazy. shes lucky not to be dead too.

No its not "crazy", she's reaching her breaking point, out of desperation. She is simply an early convert to the cultural shift, where people believe they will "lose" to the police either way and may as well "go out swinging". The police are no longer viewed as "peace keepers" by portions of the US population. Although that number is still in the minority now, it is larger than previously and grows by the day.

Nobody has anything to lose anymore, no jobs, no healthcare, DA's will prosecute for anything they can and the threshold for felonies has been lowered as well. So with ALL that in mind, if someone is going to get a felony for "mouthing off to a cop", why not take a piece out of them too, since the felony is coming anyway?

What Percentage of The US Adult Population Has a Felony Conviction?

Most Americans Commit Three Felonies a Day — and Here's What Happens If They Get Caught

a reply to: roth1

Fair enough. but outside of this video, which isn't overly clear of what was happening to begin with, it is something else to make assumptions as to what actually was happening, which is what you are doing. Not enough is known about what lead to this. OR what was actually happening before the man was shot. The video is NOT clear, unfortunately. It absolutely records a man being shot and a struggle before that - everything else is NOT clear. So for what I said about how difficult it can be to apprehend and individual, I was merely being a devils advocate - trying to see it from another perspective.

I know the LAPD have a reputation, and it certainly does seem as though they met that reputation in this video. I do not dispute that. More than one shot in my books is excessive force. Apparently there were 5...pathetic!

I'm not sure if you read the rest of what I wrote, or just focused on what you wanted to, but in no way was I defending what they did. Even if it was justified, IF the man actually had their gun, they still screwed up buy allowing that to happen AND using excessive force. I was simply stating what I have experienced and shared that with you and others, not knowing that you have hundreds of contacts like this as well. Sad that you have had to experience these types of situations, as many times as you say you have. So at the very least, you should know that this was a difficult individual to gain control of, based on the video.

So where do you draw the line? Do cops just walk away from a violent individuals to avoid this outcome? I know cops SHOULD be better trained in deescalation...clearly they are not when they jump to tasers and firearms to subdue ONE individual.

Believe me, I am not one to trust the police and I am usually last to defend them. I avoid contact with them at all costs.

When will this crap end, Oh I know, when they start that Net Neautrality crap, and regultae what can be shared and what cant. Hmmmmmm

a reply to: boohoo

i wasn't intending to imply that she was "crazy" for doing what she did with the nightstick. I was just saying the situation in general was crazy to watch. i've just literally never seen a person pickup a cops baton and start swinging at them with it.

you're right about the climate. people are being pushed by the system to the absolute point of desperation.

originally posted by: roth1
Yeah i always wonder why four guy can't hold a guy and handcuff him. Instead the stand around pinch and kick for a while first. If they would subdue the guy instead of beating on him. If would not escalate. Come on four guys really? Only takes two to have control. One to take him down and hold him. The other to cuff. They need better training. And yes i am that skilled to handle a situation. Been there many times. If they can't handle the training they should not be in the job, period. Now this crap out there where they don't have to know the laws they are arresting you for. BS. To much protecting them from criminal prosecution. Not above the law. I think actually they should serve more time if caught. Just for being hypocrites too. Supposed to uphold the law but break it. Knowing better than others what the laws are. GUILTY.

It only takes one stick of a virus-infected needle because there was a concealed syringe in a pocket to tell you that your two-man tactic isn't the best choice around the Skid Row area. But, you know...you're trained in how to take someone down, so there's that.

Maybe that's how they were trained in that specific area in L.A. Training isn't one-size-fits-all in the law enforcement world. Or martial arts. Or MMA. Or self defense. Or handgun tactics. Or knife tactics. Or anything in life. Hell, even the military trains differently for different areas of conflict.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So I gotta ask, does it matter how the officer lost or dropped his gun?

Like if it was holstered and the man grabbed it out or what have you then I understand.

But if he lost it due to his own negligence, would that not factor into what happened?

I know we will never know cause that would never come out, just curious as to what people think

No, it doesn't matter, at least not in the justification to use lethal force (unless the officer said, "hey, come here and take this and point it at me" in order to shoot him). The burden lies on the guy not to go for or pick up the service revolver of an officer trying to subdue or arrest him. Once he does that, lethal force is fair game because there is absolutely reason to think the person will or could physically threaten the lives of those officers (or the civilians in the area). And why else would someone being subdued by officers reach for or take or pick up the service weapon unless they had intent to use the deadly weapon against the officers or another human being?

The possible negligence would be dealt with administratively, if the officer lost the weapon that way.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Knowing that part of town very well, and the insanity that lurks at every turn, I think the police have valid concern of a mob uprising if one aspect of their job goes out of control. What do they say about extreme situations call for extreme remedies? Skid Row is like a no go/war zone. The (police) rules are different there, I"m sure.

Personally, I'm going to feel a little safer on my next shopping trip to that area.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well I have always held the view point we when there is that much hand fighting going on then it is subjective if the person willfully grabbed the gun and not just felt something solid and grasped but I know that is really hard to prove just my personal felling on the matter.
If he indeed had the gun in his hand from picking it up then I have no issue, if it comes back to just "he was grabbing it" I will.

It is clear they fight with him and are not attempting to subdue him, just assault. Not saying he was not fighting back. I am saying if the police subdued the guy. It would not be an issue.a reply to: Sparkymedic

a reply to: game over man

Why is a man, deemed mentally ill, homeless?
Is this how california takes care of it's people?
Just throw a mentally ill person out in the street
and put him at the mercy of W/E circumstance.

That is the real crime here.

Exactly, that was Bruce lee's theory and why he combined a few arts. Also mine. That is how it is so easy for me to take care of some one trained / brainwashed. Four guys one per limb, how long come on. Get real. Four high school kids could do that. Problem is that was not what they were doing. They were fighting not subduing him. a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: roth1

i have watched it a few more times now...you're right. they are assaulting him. He is doing the same, but I suppose anyone who is mentally unstable would naturally fight back. that is another thing i have dealt with many times...illogically being attacked by someone who is not all there mentally. mind you i didn't provoke them. hard to say if these cops did or not...

originally posted by: roth1
It is clear they fight with him and are not attempting to subdue him, just assault. Not saying he was not fighting back. I am saying if the police subdued the guy. It would not be an issue.a reply to: Sparkymedic

I agree with this. It looks like before the homeless man is killed the police are punching him. I just re-watched this pausing it every frame and the whole time there is a police officer on his knees in front of the homeless man while he is being shot, all the other cops jump back.

It's difficult to see maybe someone can take screen grab, but it looks like he was on his back when he was killed. Look at his shoes.

ETA: Pause it at 0:25 sec, and click frame by frame till the officer who was subduing the homeless woman walks out of the way of the shot. You will then see the homeless man's feet. You can also see 2 guns drawn.

a reply to: roth1

Sometimes you have to undergo a fight in order to subdue. The sad truth is that LEOs, IMO, don't get proper training in hand-to-hand combat, nor do most of them have a passion (therefor, a desire) to get better at it.

I have Richard Bustillo (original student of Bruce Lee) coming to my training center very soon--I train under someone who learned JKD from him. Sadly, I will be missing it :/

originally posted by: BerenstEiner

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: BerenstEiner
How long until the riots?

Want to see how cynical I've become? Depends, what color was he? No one riots over a white dead mental homeless guy.

Yes they do. Come to Albuquerque, the land where cops dont care what color you are. They will flat out kill you here.

In fact, when they killed a homeless man last year, one of the cops, said he was going to shoot him in the penis before even arriving on scene. To me thats pre meditated murder.

Come to Albuquerque, I dare you.

We should wait untill the outcome of this LA shooting before we compare the James Boyd case thats going on down here.

But they both have mental illness and both were homeless and both did not remove their tent. Now both are dead.

Ok, I'll give you Boyd. But it's a rarity, not the norm.

2nd

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So I gotta ask, does it matter how the officer lost or dropped his gun?

Like if it was holstered and the man grabbed it out or what have you then I understand.

But if he lost it due to his own negligence, would that not factor into what happened?

I know we will never know cause that would never come out, just curious as to what people think

IF the officer's gun was now in the man's possession and was threatening the officer with it, then yes, it became a kill or be killed moment. However, it can't be seen clearly from the video shared with the online world, so we can't make this assessment, and I doubt LAPD will share the officer who was wearing a body cam who might have caught it all on film. If it proves this, I understand. I do. They DO have the right to go home at the end of the day and protect the nearby citizens. I just would like to know if this is was the case, or if this is a case or shout gun to shoot.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: game over man

Why is a man, deemed mentally ill, homeless?
Is this how california takes care of it's people?
Just throw a mentally ill person out in the street
and put him at the mercy of W/E circumstance.

That is the real crime here.

I cannot agree more. And I doubt it's just CA.