Sondjata, that remark you said about research about black cops shoot less? well I looked it up on my stuff and I can't give you the reference because I'd be in big trouble, however it shows that there are no references to what race any public service killed who or what because of laws back to the 60's of course that no one should have to say what race they are when getting a job. So its pretty much how much do you take it by word. The trend I'm seeing sadly it states for demo's 18-64 32% on average per 6537 interviewed in 12 metro markets that black women never married, 61% estimated male black population could have served time in jail taken from a poll of 7 states ( appears to be mostly southern, one west coast [u guess] and one northeast, [another no brainer]. What it says here is that white inmates typically serve longer periods, white collar crimes typically have outrageous long sentences at time, and either that or they're just plain crazy I guess, i.e. serial killers. Ugh I don't think I'm making any sense. but still heh.
One interesting but sad trend is that it appears that possibly as high as 75% of black children grow up without a father.
Several here have mentioned the fact that these folks, while black, also happen to act in a certain manner that denotes clearly resisting arrest. Has anyone ever seen a statistic or report for shootings after things like chases with feigned weapons and getting shot white vs. black?
Vice: I'm not sre what video you looked at. But I looked at the video about 10 times and took screen grabs for another board, which I won't post here (for the tranquility of the members of THAT board).
Not only did one of the officers Point his gun directly at the suspects head, while the "weapon" was brandished. he had yet a second opportunity to shoot the suspect AND DID NOT. If he felt that he or his partner was in IMMEDIATE MORTAL DANGER by the suspect when he first brandished "the weapon" Why did he not use the two opportunities to shoot the suspect and do so? Because the officer in fact did not fear for his or his partner's life. Why after the suspect was no less than 10 feet away, walking with his back turned to the officer did he then shoot at the suspect? That is not self defense, Shooting a person in the back, while they are walking away is NOT self defence. It is Clint Eastwood Holywood, not law enforcement, where each citizen is GUARANTEED innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
The fact of the matter is the officers had options and CHOSE not to exercize them. God forbid, I got stopped by a State trooper, am asked to exit the vehicle and my iPOD is on my hip, in it's case. I guess I'll get shot for having a weapon. Or go for my insurance card in my glove compt. andmy Ipod is in there and light flashes on it and they think it's a weapon.
ANd mind you, the video has far less respolution than the actual events
But let me say this, Had the officers shot the man on the two opportunitites they had, immediately after he pointed his "weapon." I would not have said squat in the suspect's defence. SQUAT.
Sondjata, that remark you said about research about black cops shoot less? well I looked it up on my stuff and I can't give you the reference because I'd be in big trouble, however it shows that there are no references to what race any public service killed who or what because of laws back to the 60's of course that no one should have to say what race they are when getting a job. So its pretty much how much do you take it by word. The trend I'm seeing sadly it states for demo's 18-64 32% on average per 6537 interviewed in 12 metro markets that black women never married, 61% estimated male black population could have served time in jail taken from a poll of 7 states ( appears to be mostly southern, one west coast [u guess] and one northeast, [another no brainer]. What it says here is that white inmates typically serve longer periods, white collar crimes typically have outrageous long sentences at time, and either that or they're just plain crazy I guess, i.e. serial killers. Ugh I don't think I'm making any sense. but still heh.
One interesting but sad trend is that it appears that possibly as high as 75% of black children grow up without a father.
The research was based on the precincts in East Orange NJ. a mostly black population with a fair mix of police. Therefore it is easy to determine the race of a perp and the officers are easily identifiable.
AS for the rest of your stats, did you just leave the stormfornt site or something? the 61% number is way too high. The most liberal estimates are 30%, with it being obviouse that some places will have higher rates of incarceration than the average. And those rates will vary directly with socio-economic indicators. Same as in white populations.
AS for your white inmates serving longer terms. Taking your word for it, it still does not negate the issues of convictions and arrests. Arrests and charges are highly determined by police on the scene and the DA's that prosecute.
And the 75% number is known to me already, but has little bearing on this particular subject. ANd the actual issue is that 75% are born to single mothers, which does not imply the lack of a father, just the maritial status of the mother at birth. Still irrelevant though
We've simply entered a time in our culture/history that I think it's pretty much expected that a cop is to take a bullet (perhaps even a couple?) before he's expected to act with serious, possibly deadly, force.
On the contrary. It seems that the facts are against such a position. Including the case in question. I know that here in Pittsburgh in the last six months there have been over three cases of people being shot or beaten to death by the police. Including a 14 yes that's FOURTEEN year old boy shot in the back for possibly carrying a non-existent gun, and also recently a 25 year old young man shot for having a rifle on a roof top (he shot it so it makes sense that he was shot) a man beaten to death by three police officers outside of a bar for 'acting up', but nonetheless there are more and more of these it seems and in all of these cases the police were not charged for wrongfully using force.. I'm not taking a position for or against, but I am saying that the times now are different then they were in the fifties say, when force itself probably would have been used less (on both sides)
That is the reality: the times are such that it becomes more common-place to have cops killing. In Portland Or, when I lived there, there were repeated cases of police shooting people in the back while fleeing . . . many of them with something in their hands.
It might seem that there are more people complaining about the police than ever. That might be true. But I think that it because the use of force has increased. The use of force is accepted as a part of the job by the police (for many legitimate reasons) whereas the populace doesn't see it that way, there lives aren't impacted on a daily basis by hte increase of gun availability.
Policing is increasingly difficult work and they risk thier lives now more than they used to . . . although the eighties had more gun deaths happening . . . .
Its just the tenor of the times that accept it more . . . we have more people arguing for the right for the use of immediate force now (even on these boards) whereas it used to be understood that a police officer doesn't fire unless absolutely sure that they risk being fired upon or are actually fired upon . . . but who can blame them these days . . . there are so many guns floating around and so many stupid people who think with their crotches . . they need to be cautious.
That might be worth a comment or explanation from yourself to the officer then. What could it hurt to go "hey, I've seen the news lately and I also watch 'World's Wackiest Police Chases Gone Bad and Caught on Video', so let me inform you that I have a digital music player in my glove compartment, okay? It's small and white and called an iPod, BUT it does have some chrome on it and, in the cover of night and with a flashlight hastily scanning over it, I don't want you or your partner thinking it's a gun and blowing my head all over my dashboard, okay?"
You could word it differently, of course, but you get the picture.
I actually did that once, while getting pulled over about 12 years ago. I was coming back from rehearsal, so I had three guitars in the backseat and a bag in the passenger seat with cables, some pedals, etc. It was nighttime on a fairly deserted road (I was speeding) and I simply told the officer that my wallet was in the side pouch of the bag (which it was).
But I actually took 2 seconds and considered what it MIGHT look like to him for someone to reach into a dark bag and catch a glimpse of some metallic objects and, fearing the worst, draw his gun and put a couple in me.
He said "that's fine...I appreciate that...". He did, however, step back a couple of steps and place his hand on his gun (which I wouldn't blame him for...he was just going on my word), but as soon as I produced my wallet (AND did little things like a) keep my hands visible on the steering wheel b) turn off my radio c) answer his questions in an efficient, non-surly/threatening manner d) explained what the cases in the backseat contained, as well as the bag beside me and e) where I was coming from and why I was on that particular stretch of road well after 1am.
All I know is that I got off with a warning. He had me dead-to-rights, but because I was agreeable and wasn't a baiting asshole to him, he probably thought "this guy gets a freebie tonight".
It's pretty easy, actually. I don't know why more people just don't. As I said earlier, the worst that might happen is a ticket or, depending on the circumstances, a night in the clink.
But that's better than 3-8 bullets in your ass, or, at the least, additional charges of evading the police, resisting arrest, felony asshole behavior (I made that one up, but I think it should be on the books), etc.
I'd still love to see how some of these high-profile cases would've gone had the perp just relaxed and cooperated. I'd bet $100 that Rodney King wouldn't have gotten the ass-whipping he did had he PULLED OVER AND COOPERATED miles earlier when the incident first began.
It never would've elevated to what he did. That's on him. Yeah, the cops messed up bad (and they got dealt with, didn't they?), but that whole thing would've never happened had they been pursuing me.
Hell, it's been over a decade and that idiot is STILL out there causing wrecks, getting arrested, driving his car into houses, etc. The fool apparently didn't learn ANYTHING from his troubles, did he?
I agree with most of pfflam's post. It is a different time and people are more brazen. And I'm not condoning or defending shitheaded behavior by cops, so don't get me wrong. But I still think they might not REACH shitheaded status if the people they were dealing with weren't such lame-brained, mouthy ****-ups and clueless pinheads (when has brandishing a weapon in front of a cop EVER been a cool, swell idea? On what planet exactly?)
I'm sorry, but you do something that idiotic...you kinda take your chances.
"Oh I get...a BLACK man can't wave a gun in front of a cop! Is that it?"
Vice: I'm not sre what video you looked at. But I looked at the video about 10 times and took screen grabs for another board, which I won't post here (for the tranquility of the members of THAT board).
Not only did one of the officers Point his gun directly at the suspects head, while the "weapon" was brandished. he had yet a second opportunity to shoot the suspect AND DID NOT. If he felt that he or his partner was in IMMEDIATE MORTAL DANGER by the suspect when he first brandished "the weapon" Why did he not use the two opportunities to shoot the suspect and do so? Because the officer in fact did not fear for his or his partner's life. Why after the suspect was no less than 10 feet away, walking with his back turned to the officer did he then shoot at the suspect? That is not self defense, Shooting a person in the back, while they are walking away is NOT self defence. It is Clint Eastwood Holywood, not law enforcement, where each citizen is GUARANTEED innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
The fact of the matter is the officers had options and CHOSE not to exercize them. God forbid, I got stopped by a State trooper, am asked to exit the vehicle and my iPOD is on my hip, in it's case. I guess I'll get shot for having a weapon. Or go for my insurance card in my glove compt. andmy Ipod is in there and light flashes on it and they think it's a weapon.
You said something very important in your post. YOU GOT TO WATCH THE VIDEO "10 TIMES" BEFORE JUDGING SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE ELSE IN A SPLIT SECOND. The Officers didn't have the benefit of rewinding the event 10 times while sitting in a lazy-boy and sipping a cool drink before deciding what to do next! They had to act.
You complain in your post that the Officer passed on his first opportunity to shoot the man in the head? Have you ever been in a shooting? Have you ever had to point your gun at another human being and shoot? It's not so goddamn easy. These are human beings trying to do the best they can - the fact that he didn't shoot immediately doesn't mean he didn't think he was in danger - it means he's human. What would you have them do? Continue to just walk behind him saying excuse me sir, please stop, and please don't turn around and shoot my face off. And please don't tell me that they should tackle a man who they believe is holding a gun - or do some cool kung fu move you saw on TJ Hooker. Had they let him get away and he killed someone else by running them over or shooting them had the gun been real - you would probably be the first one complaining that the Police didn't do enough to stop him.
As for your example with the ipod. Yes - if you lead Police on a high speed chase and then jump out and point your silver ipod in both hands intentionaly trying to make it look like a gun then you might get shot. Otherwise you'll be fine - although I'm sure you would find something else that the blood-thirsy, racist COPS did wrong.
Now that I've had time to come back and revisit this (because I am a bit curious about people's reactions here), I want to further my earlier contention a bit. I initially went on the "benefit of the doubt" theory (before reading the details), that the person who got shot probably hadn't done anything that stupid. It's crystal clear now that he DID. And what he did was not only stupid but also demonstrably threatening.
It is therefore also crystal clear that the title of this thread is completely misleading. I don't think you can fault the cops at all for what they did, even if they ARE racist bastards (which we don't know one way or another). The point is, how RETARDED do you have to be - in this day and age - to pretend your cell phone (or whatever) is a gun and make a threatening jesture to two cops in a heated situation? It's called having a death-wish and in this case that's not much of a stretch.
It would've been one thing if the guy suddenly turned and flipped the cops the bird or something, and then they shot without seeing that there was nothing in his hands. But common. I don't even see where the room to complain here is. And still, I really don't care if it's two fatal shots vs 8. Dead is dead so it's a bad thing, but the cops clearly did what they were trained to do -- and what all cops are trained to do as pointed out by our NE office friend. This isn't about race.
when cops go to pull someone over, and they run, it's usually for a reason.
most people who run have outstanding warrents or are drunk/high. so a cop has to assume there's a high probability that this person isn't going to come in easily. guess what, that puts you on guard, and makes your interperet events differently.
man who walks out of car with silver cell phone will be seen differently than man who runs from cops, runs red lights, then stops and gets out of call with the same cell phone.
there was a lot more that happened here than the 60 seconds before the shooting. ignoring that just screws up your perspective on events.
I second that. Pretty much what I was saying: we all get bent out of shape for what the police did, but we never seem to go "hey, why did the guy run 11 red lights, tear up 2 police cruisers and then - once pulled over - became violent and threatening?"
In these scenarios, the bad guys have WAY more influence on the outcome of this stuff.
I know it's fashionable and all in some quarters to think of cops in a certain way, but at some point you have to slide that to the side a bit and step back and ask "well, why...".
There's been more common sense and rational thought in the previous 4-5 posts than in the entire thread.
A) The officer closest to the suspect had 2 opportunities to shoot the suspect. He even had his gun to the suspects head. DID HE SHOOT? No? Why not? Two clear cut opportunitites to shoot the suspect who was supposedly carrying a weapon. WHY NOT SHOOT HIM THEN. Ok. so he missed the first opportunity ( when the gun was to the suspects head). WHaqt about the second?
After the suspect walks away the FIRST TWO SHOTS ARE FIRED. Two shgots fired at a suspect who is NO LONGER POINTING ANYTHING AT THE OFFICERS. This is NOT self defense.
What part of NOT Self Defense do you guys not understand. Shoot somneone in the head when they are facing you or in a struggle, no problem. SHoot them when you stop struggling and have a clear shot and the suspect is still facing you. NO PROBLEM.
Shoot someone who is not facing you, is not pointing anything at you is NOT SELF DEFENSE.
Comments
PSA: How Not to get Your Ass Kicked by the Police
....the .mov file is on this page its in Episode #51.
Originally posted by ena
It's an .asf file BUT it's funny...
PSA: How Not to get Your Ass Kicked by the Police
....the .mov file is on this page its in Episode #51.
The guys on my team LOVE the Chris Rock Public Service Anouncement. There's always someone in roll-call yelling "he got weed, he got weed!"
One interesting but sad trend is that it appears that possibly as high as 75% of black children grow up without a father.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
The top story in Australia tonight was a "sniper" in Brisbane who fired 8 shots at pedestrians walking by a service station. With a slingshot.
Barto
Obvious Australian for sniper isn't the same as Australian for beer.
Nick
Nick
Not only did one of the officers Point his gun directly at the suspects head, while the "weapon" was brandished. he had yet a second opportunity to shoot the suspect AND DID NOT. If he felt that he or his partner was in IMMEDIATE MORTAL DANGER by the suspect when he first brandished "the weapon" Why did he not use the two opportunities to shoot the suspect and do so? Because the officer in fact did not fear for his or his partner's life. Why after the suspect was no less than 10 feet away, walking with his back turned to the officer did he then shoot at the suspect? That is not self defense, Shooting a person in the back, while they are walking away is NOT self defence. It is Clint Eastwood Holywood, not law enforcement, where each citizen is GUARANTEED innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
The fact of the matter is the officers had options and CHOSE not to exercize them. God forbid, I got stopped by a State trooper, am asked to exit the vehicle and my iPOD is on my hip, in it's case. I guess I'll get shot for having a weapon. Or go for my insurance card in my glove compt. andmy Ipod is in there and light flashes on it and they think it's a weapon.
But let me say this, Had the officers shot the man on the two opportunitites they had, immediately after he pointed his "weapon." I would not have said squat in the suspect's defence. SQUAT.
Originally posted by kraig911
Sondjata, that remark you said about research about black cops shoot less? well I looked it up on my stuff and I can't give you the reference because I'd be in big trouble, however it shows that there are no references to what race any public service killed who or what because of laws back to the 60's of course that no one should have to say what race they are when getting a job. So its pretty much how much do you take it by word. The trend I'm seeing sadly it states for demo's 18-64 32% on average per 6537 interviewed in 12 metro markets that black women never married, 61% estimated male black population could have served time in jail taken from a poll of 7 states ( appears to be mostly southern, one west coast [u guess] and one northeast, [another no brainer]. What it says here is that white inmates typically serve longer periods, white collar crimes typically have outrageous long sentences at time, and either that or they're just plain crazy I guess, i.e. serial killers. Ugh I don't think I'm making any sense. but still heh.
One interesting but sad trend is that it appears that possibly as high as 75% of black children grow up without a father.
The research was based on the precincts in East Orange NJ. a mostly black population with a fair mix of police. Therefore it is easy to determine the race of a perp and the officers are easily identifiable.
AS for the rest of your stats, did you just leave the stormfornt site or something? the 61% number is way too high. The most liberal estimates are 30%, with it being obviouse that some places will have higher rates of incarceration than the average. And those rates will vary directly with socio-economic indicators. Same as in white populations.
AS for your white inmates serving longer terms. Taking your word for it, it still does not negate the issues of convictions and arrests. Arrests and charges are highly determined by police on the scene and the DA's that prosecute.
And the 75% number is known to me already, but has little bearing on this particular subject. ANd the actual issue is that 75% are born to single mothers, which does not imply the lack of a father, just the maritial status of the mother at birth. Still irrelevant though
Originally posted by pscates
We've simply entered a time in our culture/history that I think it's pretty much expected that a cop is to take a bullet (perhaps even a couple?) before he's expected to act with serious, possibly deadly, force.
On the contrary. It seems that the facts are against such a position. Including the case in question. I know that here in Pittsburgh in the last six months there have been over three cases of people being shot or beaten to death by the police. Including a 14 yes that's FOURTEEN year old boy shot in the back for possibly carrying a non-existent gun, and also recently a 25 year old young man shot for having a rifle on a roof top (he shot it so it makes sense that he was shot) a man beaten to death by three police officers outside of a bar for 'acting up', but nonetheless there are more and more of these it seems and in all of these cases the police were not charged for wrongfully using force.. I'm not taking a position for or against, but I am saying that the times now are different then they were in the fifties say, when force itself probably would have been used less (on both sides)
That is the reality: the times are such that it becomes more common-place to have cops killing. In Portland Or, when I lived there, there were repeated cases of police shooting people in the back while fleeing . . . many of them with something in their hands.
It might seem that there are more people complaining about the police than ever. That might be true. But I think that it because the use of force has increased. The use of force is accepted as a part of the job by the police (for many legitimate reasons) whereas the populace doesn't see it that way, there lives aren't impacted on a daily basis by hte increase of gun availability.
Policing is increasingly difficult work and they risk thier lives now more than they used to . . . although the eighties had more gun deaths happening . . . .
Its just the tenor of the times that accept it more . . . we have more people arguing for the right for the use of immediate force now (even on these boards) whereas it used to be understood that a police officer doesn't fire unless absolutely sure that they risk being fired upon or are actually fired upon . . . but who can blame them these days . . . there are so many guns floating around and so many stupid people who think with their crotches . . they need to be cautious.
You could word it differently, of course, but you get the picture.
I actually did that once, while getting pulled over about 12 years ago. I was coming back from rehearsal, so I had three guitars in the backseat and a bag in the passenger seat with cables, some pedals, etc. It was nighttime on a fairly deserted road (I was speeding) and I simply told the officer that my wallet was in the side pouch of the bag (which it was).
But I actually took 2 seconds and considered what it MIGHT look like to him for someone to reach into a dark bag and catch a glimpse of some metallic objects and, fearing the worst, draw his gun and put a couple in me.
He said "that's fine...I appreciate that...". He did, however, step back a couple of steps and place his hand on his gun (which I wouldn't blame him for...he was just going on my word), but as soon as I produced my wallet (AND did little things like a) keep my hands visible on the steering wheel b) turn off my radio c) answer his questions in an efficient, non-surly/threatening manner d) explained what the cases in the backseat contained, as well as the bag beside me and e) where I was coming from and why I was on that particular stretch of road well after 1am.
All I know is that I got off with a warning. He had me dead-to-rights, but because I was agreeable and wasn't a baiting asshole to him, he probably thought "this guy gets a freebie tonight".
It's pretty easy, actually. I don't know why more people just don't. As I said earlier, the worst that might happen is a ticket or, depending on the circumstances, a night in the clink.
But that's better than 3-8 bullets in your ass, or, at the least, additional charges of evading the police, resisting arrest, felony asshole behavior (I made that one up, but I think it should be on the books), etc.
I'd still love to see how some of these high-profile cases would've gone had the perp just relaxed and cooperated. I'd bet $100 that Rodney King wouldn't have gotten the ass-whipping he did had he PULLED OVER AND COOPERATED miles earlier when the incident first began.
It never would've elevated to what he did. That's on him. Yeah, the cops messed up bad (and they got dealt with, didn't they?), but that whole thing would've never happened had they been pursuing me.
Hell, it's been over a decade and that idiot is STILL out there causing wrecks, getting arrested, driving his car into houses, etc. The fool apparently didn't learn ANYTHING from his troubles, did he?
Low-rent asshole.
I'm sorry, but you do something that idiotic...you kinda take your chances.
"Oh I get...a BLACK man can't wave a gun in front of a cop! Is that it?"
Uh...yeah, dumb-butt. That's usually how it goes.
Seems that he was HIT by 8 shots but that 15 were fired.
Isn't it amazing to think that the three officers (BTW where is the third one in the video?) missed 7 times at point blank range?
More investigations
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
Vice: I'm not sre what video you looked at. But I looked at the video about 10 times and took screen grabs for another board, which I won't post here (for the tranquility of the members of THAT board).
Not only did one of the officers Point his gun directly at the suspects head, while the "weapon" was brandished. he had yet a second opportunity to shoot the suspect AND DID NOT. If he felt that he or his partner was in IMMEDIATE MORTAL DANGER by the suspect when he first brandished "the weapon" Why did he not use the two opportunities to shoot the suspect and do so? Because the officer in fact did not fear for his or his partner's life. Why after the suspect was no less than 10 feet away, walking with his back turned to the officer did he then shoot at the suspect? That is not self defense, Shooting a person in the back, while they are walking away is NOT self defence. It is Clint Eastwood Holywood, not law enforcement, where each citizen is GUARANTEED innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
The fact of the matter is the officers had options and CHOSE not to exercize them. God forbid, I got stopped by a State trooper, am asked to exit the vehicle and my iPOD is on my hip, in it's case. I guess I'll get shot for having a weapon. Or go for my insurance card in my glove compt. andmy Ipod is in there and light flashes on it and they think it's a weapon.
You said something very important in your post. YOU GOT TO WATCH THE VIDEO "10 TIMES" BEFORE JUDGING SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO SOMEONE ELSE IN A SPLIT SECOND. The Officers didn't have the benefit of rewinding the event 10 times while sitting in a lazy-boy and sipping a cool drink before deciding what to do next! They had to act.
You complain in your post that the Officer passed on his first opportunity to shoot the man in the head? Have you ever been in a shooting? Have you ever had to point your gun at another human being and shoot? It's not so goddamn easy. These are human beings trying to do the best they can - the fact that he didn't shoot immediately doesn't mean he didn't think he was in danger - it means he's human. What would you have them do? Continue to just walk behind him saying excuse me sir, please stop, and please don't turn around and shoot my face off. And please don't tell me that they should tackle a man who they believe is holding a gun - or do some cool kung fu move you saw on TJ Hooker. Had they let him get away and he killed someone else by running them over or shooting them had the gun been real - you would probably be the first one complaining that the Police didn't do enough to stop him.
As for your example with the ipod. Yes - if you lead Police on a high speed chase and then jump out and point your silver ipod in both hands intentionaly trying to make it look like a gun then you might get shot. Otherwise you'll be fine - although I'm sure you would find something else that the blood-thirsy, racist COPS did wrong.
It is therefore also crystal clear that the title of this thread is completely misleading. I don't think you can fault the cops at all for what they did, even if they ARE racist bastards (which we don't know one way or another). The point is, how RETARDED do you have to be - in this day and age - to pretend your cell phone (or whatever) is a gun and make a threatening jesture to two cops in a heated situation? It's called having a death-wish and in this case that's not much of a stretch.
It would've been one thing if the guy suddenly turned and flipped the cops the bird or something, and then they shot without seeing that there was nothing in his hands. But common. I don't even see where the room to complain here is. And still, I really don't care if it's two fatal shots vs 8. Dead is dead so it's a bad thing, but the cops clearly did what they were trained to do -- and what all cops are trained to do as pointed out by our NE office friend. This isn't about race.
most people who run have outstanding warrents or are drunk/high. so a cop has to assume there's a high probability that this person isn't going to come in easily. guess what, that puts you on guard, and makes your interperet events differently.
man who walks out of car with silver cell phone will be seen differently than man who runs from cops, runs red lights, then stops and gets out of call with the same cell phone.
there was a lot more that happened here than the 60 seconds before the shooting. ignoring that just screws up your perspective on events.
In these scenarios, the bad guys have WAY more influence on the outcome of this stuff.
I know it's fashionable and all in some quarters to think of cops in a certain way, but at some point you have to slide that to the side a bit and step back and ask "well, why...".
There's been more common sense and rational thought in the previous 4-5 posts than in the entire thread.
A) The officer closest to the suspect had 2 opportunities to shoot the suspect. He even had his gun to the suspects head. DID HE SHOOT? No? Why not? Two clear cut opportunitites to shoot the suspect who was supposedly carrying a weapon. WHY NOT SHOOT HIM THEN. Ok. so he missed the first opportunity ( when the gun was to the suspects head). WHaqt about the second?
What part of NOT Self Defense do you guys not understand. Shoot somneone in the head when they are facing you or in a struggle, no problem. SHoot them when you stop struggling and have a clear shot and the suspect is still facing you. NO PROBLEM.
Shoot someone who is not facing you, is not pointing anything at you is NOT SELF DEFENSE.