- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Police shoot man in Fresno... bodycam footage
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:42 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:42 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
My point is the cops, who are supposed to be trained, should have recognized after he was down, laying on his back thus preventing him from reaching whatever weapon they thought he had, should have realized he was no longer a threat and thus not shot him two more times.
How do they know he doesn't have a gun in his waistband on his stomach?
1
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:42 pm to slackster
quote:
Does that phrase not sum up his position nicely?
No. Not in a case where the POS that gets shot should just fricking comply.
Comply or die is usually used for otherwise innocent people that are hassled by police. Using it for situations like this one and Alton Sterling is just lazy.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:43 pm to slackster
quote:You have good passion and zeal. Your sails, however, could use some redirecting - much like Saul on road to Damascus.
Non-compliance doesn't excuse any and all actions by the police after that point.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:43 pm to Salmon
quote:
Guy was basically shot b/c he refused to prove he was not a threat.
which makes him a threat IMO
This is the problem, although I don't know the solution. LEOs are allowed to assume you're "guilty" until proven innocent. If it turns out you were unarmed, oh well, you could have been. I'd like to find a better way.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:44 pm to UpToPar
quote:
How do they know he doesn't have a gun in his waistband on his stomach
If he's got a gun in the front, why's he reaching around to his back?
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:44 pm to slackster
quote:
LEOs are allowed to assume you're "guilty" until proven innocent
The guy was actively resisting requiring him to be shot. His innocence is long gone.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:45 pm to slackster
quote:
LEOs are allowed to assume you're "guilty" until proven innocent. If it turns out you were unarmed, oh well, you could have been. I'd like to find a better way.
develop better non lethal weapons that completely immobilize the person
that is the only way
that guy gave the officers no other choice to assume he was a threat
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:45 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If he's got a gun in the front, why's he reaching around to his back?
how do you know he doesn't have guns in both locations?
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:46 pm to slackster
quote:
This is the problem, although I don't know the solution. LEOs are allowed to assume you're "guilty" until proven innocent. If it turns out you were unarmed, oh well, you could have been. I'd like to find a better way.
What? It's not just LEOs. If this guy walked into your house at night with his hand behind his back and kept walking towards you you would have every right to shoot him. Further, after he falls to the ground if he continued to move around and reach for his waist you would have every right to shoot him again.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:47 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The guy was actively resisting requiring him to be shot. His innocence is long gone.
I agree 100%. His own actions lead to him being shot. Where we differ is over the fact they kept shooting him after he was clearly no longer a threat.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If he's got a gun in the front, why's he reaching around to his back?
Oh yea, I forgot the ole you can only carry one gun rule.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:47 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
No. Not in a case where the POS that gets shot should just fricking comply.
But he didn't. He should have, but he didn't. Are we supposed to ignore everything after that point? Does the cops' actions after he was non-compliant matter?
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
after he was clearly no longer a threat.
You don't get to say that from a chair.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:48 pm to slackster
quote:
Are we supposed to ignore everything after that point?
Like where he's resisting?
No, that shouldn't be ignored. You've already said the shots were justified, so shut up already. quote:
Does the cops' actions after he was non-compliant matter?
Yes, have fun proving something wrong was done here.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:49 pm to UpToPar
quote:
It's not just LEOs. If this guy walked into your house at night with his hand behind his back and kept walking towards you you would have every right to shoot him.
Completely different situation and you know it.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:50 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
You don't get to say that from a chair
Actually I do. Otherwise every cop shooting is justified. All they've got to do is say "I felt threatened". Well OK, we can't question that since we were not there. He's got to be justified, he said he feared for is life. Case closed.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Actually I do.
You can, doesn't make you right.
quote:
Otherwise every cop shooting is justified.
What kind of leaps did you make to get here?
quote:
All they've got to do is say "I felt threatened". Well OK, we can't question that since
I didn't say that at all, but OK.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
All they've got to do is say "I felt threatened".
with the way that guy was acting, they justifiably did feel threatened
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:52 pm to slackster
Police procedure seems to be to eliminate the (perceived) threat before it endangers you. And, as long as your perception was objectively reasonably, the shooting is a-okay.
That's not so much a problem in situations like this one or most others, which can be justified w/o much imagination, but this 'shoot first' mindset creeps into other much more questionable situations, like perhaps the Minnesota shooting. I recall seeing a video where a guy exited his vehicle after parking, when an officer rolled up (guy matched a suspect description or something). Officer asked to see his ID, guy reached into his car to get it and the officer opened fire ('I thought you were reaching for a gun'). That homeless camper in New Mexico a few years ago. Etc.
There are people out there with mental problems (or substance abuse) who are generally incapable of complying with every command. I recall a video where an obvious mental person had a knife in his hand, didn't drop it on command, and got shot to death. When the suspect is not an imminent threat to officers or anyone else, I believe shooting him should be a last resort.
That's not so much a problem in situations like this one or most others, which can be justified w/o much imagination, but this 'shoot first' mindset creeps into other much more questionable situations, like perhaps the Minnesota shooting. I recall seeing a video where a guy exited his vehicle after parking, when an officer rolled up (guy matched a suspect description or something). Officer asked to see his ID, guy reached into his car to get it and the officer opened fire ('I thought you were reaching for a gun'). That homeless camper in New Mexico a few years ago. Etc.
There are people out there with mental problems (or substance abuse) who are generally incapable of complying with every command. I recall a video where an obvious mental person had a knife in his hand, didn't drop it on command, and got shot to death. When the suspect is not an imminent threat to officers or anyone else, I believe shooting him should be a last resort.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:53 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Like where he's resisting? No, that shouldn't be ignored. You've already said the shots were justified, so shut up already.
We're not talking about Sterling.
quote:
Yes, have fun proving something wrong was done here.
Thank you for showing some logic. Not a single person in this thread has suggested the victim was void of any fault. He should have complied, but that isn't where the story ends. We're not arguing whether he bears some of the blame in this.
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News