|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 3, 2014 20:29:18 GMT -5
I've seen the whole video of this (this one is censored). This guy was murdered in cold blood by these cops.
UPDATE: Full version (will probably be taken down soon)
Those cops should be charged with first degree murder. That guy was no threat to them. He could hardly stand. They shot him multiple times for no reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jun 3, 2014 21:45:04 GMT -5
Difficult to see in detail what happened at the critical moment. But it looks as if the officer walked right up to the "suspect," thereby putting himself "in range" of the shears, rather than keeping some distance as is correct procedure and as he had been doing earlier in the video. The suspect was only able to lunge at the officer (if that's really what happened) because the officer got too close.
A police officer is justified in defending himself, and may have to make a split-second decision. But in this case (and others I've read about) the officer has unnecessarily put himself in a split-second decision situation by walking right up to the suspect. Why do that? Why not wait for backup (which was almost there) so the suspect could be surrounded and someone could grab him from behind?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 3, 2014 22:27:38 GMT -5
Wait a minute: why apprehend him in the first place? Is it illegal to have a garden shears?
Second, I don't think the cop did put himself "within range". It didn't look like that to me, and according to eye witnesses the victim was backing off when he was shot.
Third, there are other ways of disarming someone without blowing their head off. A single Irish cop would have taken the shears away from that guy in two seconds, without using any weapon. There are techniques for tackling people in these circumstances.
Fourth, the guy could hardly walk. He was no threat to anyone at the time he was shot.
Fifth, you don't shoot someone multiple times when you make a split-second decision. Nor do you have to shoot to kill. The police over there are pathetic if the only way they can disarm and disable a shambling suspect is by emptying a gun into him.
There was absolutely no need to shoot that guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jun 4, 2014 11:11:17 GMT -5
1 - Police were called to the scene by a report of an attempted home break-in. He was the suspect. 2 - The officer did step up to the suspect. Scroll down to the frame-by-frame analysis -- about 3/4 of the way through the linked video. www.ksbw.com/news/breaking-news-violence-erupts-on-del-monte-in-salinas/26113072#!UqxZx 3 - Agreed. Why were the cops ready to use lethal force against someone who didn't even have a real weapon? They said they tried to "Tazzer" him but "it didn't work" or "it was ineffective" (unclear whether the device failed or if it didn't effect the suspect). OK, so that didn't work. Where were their "night sticks?" 4 - The suspect was walking just fine. 5 - In a situation like this there is no such thing as shooting "not to kill." There is no time to think about where to shoot someone, no time to aim carefully. You just shoot. But the cop created the situation by getting too close to the suspect. So, although in the moment of the shooting the cop MAY have been justified in shooting, it was his own fault that he was in a shooting situation. And back to point 3 -- how about a non-lethal response to someone who MAY have lunged at him with a makeshift weapon. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Jun 4, 2014 11:54:15 GMT -5
1 - Not true. He called the police himself.
2 - Yes, they stepped up to him and shot him while he was saying "Help me," according to eye-witnesses.
3 - They tazered him several times, with several different tazers.
4 - He was stumbling. He'd just been tazered. He was having a delusional mental episode (which can happen to anyone, by the way) and was disorientated.
5 - Baloney. They had all the time in the world to think. The guy was no threat to them or to anyone else.
They murdered the guy in cold blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Jun 4, 2014 15:13:18 GMT -5
I'm surprised they could video this -- although it's been challenged in court -- Illinois has (had??? Not sure if it was actually repealed) a law that you can't videotape or audiotape police officers while they are arresting someone. What state is this?
--Debutante
|
|
