WATCH: Phoenix Cops Kill Man after Responding to Noise Complaint over Video Game

Let's lay some truths down here.
Phoenix crime stats

Phoenix scores a 7 out of 100, meaning that Phoenix is safer than 7% of American cities...

It isn't a city where you answer your door at 11PM without a piece in your hand, whether someone yells "police" or not.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: infolurker

You said it yourself the Cops are deathly afraid so much so that they shoot first ask questions later, now does this mean the Police should be disbanded and de-funded ?

No of course not , Unfortunately we need the police so what needs to be done is some serious re-training and some serious vetting before hiring someone to be an Armed Police Officer.

If your that scared to be shot or die then you do not need to be a Police officer end of story.

Cops have it both ways, they shoot unarmed people because they are scared (and its justified)
Then they don't go into a school shooting like in Florida because they are scared and the supreme court says it's ok.
If you are scared all the time then find a different job.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

You would propose destroying the 2nd Amendment enumerated Rights of Americans and you would do so while demonstrating why most of us are beyond pleased that you're not an American.

No, I am not saying anything against American members of a well regulated militia, being armed.

Bombs are armaments, too. The 2nd says nothing about "guns" specifically. Yet you would draw a distinction there which is not in the actual legislation.

Ditto for the arming of the general populace. The 2nd is clearly only about militia having the right to armament to oppose potential tyranny.

At the time of writing, the individual states controlled their own militias. The 2nd gives the individual states right to armament and self-defense, even against their own government, should it become tyrannous.

originally posted by: queenofswords

There are common protocols that should be followed when you have a weapon and a law enforcement officer approaches. People should learn them. Cops deserve respect and they should expect every law-abiding citizen that carries a weapon to follow certain protocols. If you don't know them, learn them if you're going to carry. This is for your own protection and also that of the police officer. Common respect.

Its funny that people aware of those common protocols are mostly criminals that deal with the police all the time. The guy opened his door took one step and was shot... The cops were out of sight to the left and right... WTH do you want him to do?

So the guy opens the door with a gun to his side sees the cop and puts the gun behind his back raising the other hand in an open palm trying to kneel down and was shot within about 2 seconds.

You have no clue to what you are talking about here.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
once you knew for a fact it was police officers knocking on your door

Hearing "Open up, it's the police!" at your door isn't "knowing for a fact" in any way these days.

Yeah maybe... but I’m pretty sure he realized it was in fact the police after he opened the door.

But then he still decided it’d be a good idea to reach for his weapon.

The pistol was in his hand when he opened the door, he was reaching to put it and himself on the ground...

Damn, admittedly I totally missed that.

But still, I think it only helps to validate my original opinion... What kind of idiot would answer the door all aggressively like that, gun in hand, when it was obviously just someone complaining about the noise.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also, a chain on the door would have allowed him to answer and respond to whomever is outside without exposing his family to a potential malefactor and he would also have had time to identify that they were the police.

I'm 6'5" 280 what is that chain going to do? lol I just kicked in your chained door and I'm coming at you with a hammer what are you going to do?

If it was clear that it was more than a threat, I would probably have grabbed you by the hair or ears (or even your mouth or eye sockets) while simultaneously kicking you in the knees/shins.

I would utilize your forward body movement to ensure your face hit the ground with maximum force - Akkido style.

Then I might remove the hammer and utilize it to incapacitate you and prevent you from retaliating - I could break your fingers and toes. Then you couldn't walk, use your fists, or grab me (depends on the weight of the hammer).

There's also a door which I could use to repeatedly slam against you, too. It depends entirely on the situation.

The reactions of those cops is what I been saying over and over...its got nothing to do with BLM, it is how cops should initiate the proper level of force to begin with and they need to deescalate once the situation has changed.

How about this... Police...guy answers the door... Police! put the gun down... The guy puts the gun on the ground and the cops say..come forward step away from the gun...the guy does it then the cops can secure the gun and then deescalate down to asking questions...at the end the cops hand the gun back to the guy and move on.

Honestly, I'd probably not attack you, if at all possible, but you must realize the best method of defense is to either run away, or attack. If I chose to attack, I'd have to go all-in.

These cops did not do anything to de-escalate anything. They murdered a guy when they were supposed to be defending and saving lives.

Throw the book at them, and train the other ones better.

Only one solution.

robocops.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Bombs are armaments, too. The 2nd says nothing about "guns" specifically. Yet you would draw a distinction there which is not in the actual legislation.

Well no bombs are not arms....Arms is not short for armaments...lol Arms is considered a weapon that a single person would use, or to bear. Things like bombs, fighter jets, cannons etc are not arms as in designed for single weapon use. The 2nd does say you have the right to keep and use arms and that shall not be infringed upon. The term was used in England many times as a term to describe a weapon a man would use. As examples below...

In 1780 following the Gordon Riots in London, Cramer and Olson write, Lord Richmond protested certain actions taken by the king to disarm citizens, speaking of “the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.

Among their historical evidence is a law written in England during the reign of King Henry VIII making it unlawful for any Welsh resident to “bring or bear, or cause to be brought or borne to the same Sessions or Court, or to any place within the distance of two Miles from the same Sessions or Court, nor to any Town, Church, Fair, Market, or other Congregation . . . nor in the Highways in affray of the King’s Peace, or the King’s liege People, any Bill, Long-bow, Cross-bow, Hand-gun, Sword, Staff, Dagger, Halberd, Morespike, Spear, or any other manner of Weapon . . . .”

Ditto for the arming of the general populace. The 2nd is clearly only about militia having the right to armament to oppose potential tyranny.

No it is not. The Constitution is not about state rights, but individual rights... The citizens have the right to form their own militia and to keep and bear arms...

The federal Goverment back then was much smaller in power... So what if the State was the tyranny where do the militias come from if not the general population?

a reply to: chr0naut

Per US Code bombs are classified as "explosive devices" rather than "arms."

originally posted by: chr0naut
If it was clear that it was more than a threat, I would probably have grabbed you by the hair or ears (or even your mouth or eye sockets) while simultaneously kicking you in the knees/shins.

I would utilize your forward body movement to ensure your face hit the ground with maximum force - Akkido style.

Then I might remove the hammer and utilize it to incapacitate you and prevent you from retaliating - I could break your fingers and toes. Then you couldn't walk, use your fists, or grab me (depends on the weight of the hammer).

There's also a door which I could use to repeatedly slam against you, too. It depends entirely on the situation.

Well congrats you are a part of the .003% of the population in American that might be able to stop me, what about the rest...

These cops did not do anything to de-escalate anything. They murdered a guy when they were supposed to be defending and saving lives.

Throw the book at them, and train the other ones better.

Way to reactive to zero offensive moves from the guy...he was literately trying to just get on his knees...geez

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
once you knew for a fact it was police officers knocking on your door

Hearing "Open up, it's the police!" at your door isn't "knowing for a fact" in any way these days.

Yeah maybe... but I’m pretty sure he realized it was in fact the police after he opened the door.

But then he still decided it’d be a good idea to reach for his weapon.

The pistol was in his hand when he opened the door, he was reaching to put it and himself on the ground...

Damn, admittedly I totally missed that.

But still, I think it only helps to validate my original opinion... What kind of idiot would answer the door all aggressively like that, gun in hand, when it was obviously just someone complaining about the noise.

I don't think folks in Europe or Australia have a good concept of just how victimized many major American cities are by street criminals. Phoenix is NOT a safe city. Home invasions are common there, which is why most people own handguns there to begin with. I've spent time in Phoenix, and will tell you it's a "head on a swivel" city where you are constantly on guard or running a high risk of getting robbed, beaten, or killed.

[post]originally posted by: infolurker


Knock, knock.......(looks at security cam) WHO IS IT? Sorry, I just don't open my door without knowing who it is.

originally posted by: panoz77

Knock, knock.......(looks at security cam) WHO IS IT? Sorry, I just don't open my door without knowing who it is.

Its a cheap apartment... don't think you can install security cams...

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You ought to have to walk in the shoes of a law enforcement officer for a few months. Sure, there are probably some bad apples, but to paint cops with the broad brush you just painted them with is vile.

Literally, they deal with dregs of society. If you think that description is "racist" or any other "ist" you want to put on it, it matters not. It is the truth. Society is full of low-lifes.

You know who else has to deal with the dregs of society? EVERY FRICKIN ONE ELSE!

You think being a cop is a tough job? Try working a convenience store midnight shift. You deal with the same dregs of society, but without the benefit of a gun or backup. You don't even need a job to deal with these dregs. Ride a New York subway. Walk the streets of any "gun controlled" city without a badge and a gun.

Don't like the broad brush I used? Well, I didn't make the brush. Cowardly flicks like this POS made the brush. His fellow gangbangers who protect scum like him from justice and public scrutiny mixed the paint. If this guy was made as famous as any cop killer and stood trial for his actions, I wouldn't be painting a single stroke. I recognize that many, many honorable men and women have served in law enforcement with valor, courage, and distinction. I've had the pleasure of knowing some. But every time they cover for some spineless, yellow-belly candyass like this it's a huge bloodstain on every badge everywhere that doesn't wash off.

If the murder victim had been a member of my family, I would make it my life's mission to show everyone I possibly could who this coward is, what he did, and where he could be found. And that would be the kindest thing I would do to him. I'd make him wish he had spent the rest of his life in prison.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, obviously I know nothing about living in Phoenix.

Still though, I’m a little skeptical that answering your door by roaring out their with a loaded weapon in hand, could in any way be considered the act of a person who’s in a stable and rational frame of mind... even if you do live in Phoenix, lol.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I understand. And, I'm not saying this was a righteous kill.

But, listen to the 911 call. The neighbor told the 911 dispatcher that there was possible physical violence.

It was the second time he had called 911, and when asked if it was just verbal or physical, he said that if saying it was physical would get the cops out there, then that's what he would say. All he cared about was getting some sleep.

What information was conveyed to the cops via the dispatcher? Probably, something like "domestic violence" underway.

The law enforcement officers arrive and announce themselves and the guy comes barreling out with a gun. It is his right to have the gun, but the way he just threw open the door and rushed out was stupid.

The cam shot from the cop on the right shows the guy facing the other cop, and the guy is holding a gun behind his back. The cop on the right had almost no time to make a decision. The cop on the left couldn't see the guy's right hand. What would you have done in that micro second?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Good Lord, you took me waaaay wrong!

I'm rural and not seeing the destruction. I back the police 99% of the time, but this was a bad shoot!

I have fencing and locked gates for a reason. If someone is knocking on my doors screaming police, while out of sight, not giving clear instructions of why they're there, you're damn skippy I'm gonna be armed!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The proper legal term for it is "home carry" and if you google the term you'll find that an awful lot of the self defense trainers advocate the practice in this country.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The proper legal term for it is "home carry" and if you google the term you'll find that an awful lot of the self defense trainers advocate the practice in this country.

Yeah well, if your self defense trainer advocated
you to handle a similar situation in the same manner, may I suggest you get a new self defense trainer.

Considering how it worked out for this bloke.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

The proper legal term for it is "home carry" and if you google the term you'll find that an awful lot of the self defense trainers advocate the practice in this country.

Yeah well, if your self defense trainer advocated
you to handle a similar situation in the same manner, may I suggest you get a new self defense trainer.

Considering how it worked out for this bloke.

Can't fix stupid and I'd say the cop was the one who needed a new trainer... or a different profession. Someone so high strung and situationally unaware shouldn't be in law enforcement.