Shoot someone who is not facing you, is not pointing anything at you is NOT SELF DEFENSE.
I think you're missing the point. Assume the man has a gun. You would have the officer stand there and yell "drop the gun" instead? Go back and read the post about action vs reaction times. A man can spin and fire a weapon before that cop can shoot to stop him.
I think you're missing the point. Assume the man has a gun. You would have the officer stand there and yell "drop the gun" instead? Go back and read the post about action vs reaction times. A man can spin and fire a weapon before that cop can shoot to stop him.
No I am not. You guys seem to not be able to read. I'll repeat this one more time:
The officer closest to the supect had 2 clear opportunities to shoot at the "armed" suspect. The first time the officer put his gun to the suspect's head But did not shoot.
We all understand that? gun to head..did not shoot
After a brief scuffle with the suspect the officer again had an opportunity to shoot the "armed" suspect but hedid not shoot
Why didn't the officer shoot? If he/they are claiming that because the suspect raised a chrome object and pointed it at one of the officers (not both) that he presented an immediate mortal danger to that officer, then why not take the justified shot right there and then. No one could have questioned that shot at all. Even when I saw the video I thought that if they shot him at that time they would have been completely justified.
They did not shoot him when he presented an immediate mortal threat to either officer. Once he walked away from the officers (and his own vehicle). The officers could have used their own cars for cover and called in for more backup. They did not. They had the opportunity and the time since the suspect was not an immediate mortal threat. But that time they violated the law and acted not if defense but in offense They decided that this "guy" had pissed them off. He had scared them with a "gun" and they were going to show him what happens when you threaten the life of a cop.
A little off the topic - but reading Sondjata's "thoughts" about Police Officers reminded me of this:
Recently the State of California ran a e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being "COMMUNITY POLICING". One of the civilian email participants posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?"
A response to this question came from a California Police Officer:
It is not easy! In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One-fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.
So, one cop is responsible for harassing about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 20,000 or more people a day. A ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one-second to harass a person, and three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out, It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those which we harass. They are as follows:
PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on a weeknight is, "The kids next door are having a party."
CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration stickers and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.
RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.
CODES: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that give ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Codes"; Penal, Vehicle, Health and Safety, Business and Professions... They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT. Why? Because the good citizens who pay the tab LIKE that we keep the streets safe for them.
As far as we know at the trial the jury had no reason not to believe the cop. Or are you too stupid to realize that?
Oh wait I'm sorry I didn't read it right the first time. It was a white cop (racist) and black defendants. What was I thinking? We all know white cops are automatically racist until prove to be hood wearin' klans men.
A little off the topic - but reading Sondjata's "thoughts" about Police Officers reminded me of this:
Recently the State of California ran a e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being "COMMUNITY POLICING". One of the civilian email participants posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?"
A response to this question came from a California Police Officer:
It is not easy! In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One-fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.
So, one cop is responsible for harassing about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 20,000 or more people a day. A ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one-second to harass a person, and three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out, It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those which we harass. They are as follows:
PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on a weeknight is, "The kids next door are having a party."
CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration stickers and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.
RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.
CODES: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that give ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Codes"; Penal, Vehicle, Health and Safety, Business and Professions... They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT. Why? Because the good citizens who pay the tab LIKE that we keep the streets safe for them.
It's nice to know just how ignorant you are. I'm sure that my invisible car registration was the reason why certain police officers insisted on following me all the way across their jurisdiction. Or why my cousin, who lives in a very upscale neighborhood, and has lived thier most of his life, repeatedly has police follow him when he's driving his car, but not when his *cough* white friends are driving their equally expensive vehicles.
But really THAT's not the point. Fact is at no point have you been able to dispute the fact that the officers involved had two opportunities to shoot the "armed" suspect while he posed an immediate and mortal threat but did not.
No instead you decide to post non-sense that has absolutely nothing to do with the incident at hand. It's police (or ex police) like yourself that puts a dirty stain on the officers out there who do their job in a professional manner.
No instead you decide to post non-sense that has absolutely nothing to do with the incident at hand. It's police (or ex police) like yourself that puts a dirty stain on the officers out there who do their job in a professional manner.
Besides disagreeing with you and then explaining why in my PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE I see it differently, I'm not sure what I've done for you to say such hateful things about me. I already explained quite clearly why I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it at that. As for you trying to imply that I'm an "ex Police" or a "stain" - I think that says a lot about you. It's very telling that the only person in this thread who keeps wanting to portray Police Officers as hateful, violent, racists is in fact the one who is being judgmental and mean. This is why I ussualy lurk on the sidelines of the AO forum instead of entering the discussion. Instead of enjoying the opportunity of having someone in the discussion with real first hand knowledge of the topic - lets call him names and chase him away because we don't agree with his opinion. Well done Sondjata.
Besides disagreeing with you and then explaining why in my PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE I see it differently, I'm not sure what I've done for you to say such hateful things about me. I already explained quite clearly why I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it at that. As for you trying to imply that I'm an "ex Police" or a "stain" - I think that says a lot about you. It's very telling that the only person in this thread who keeps wanting to portray Police Officers as hateful, violent, racists is in fact the one who is being judgmental and mean. This is why I ussualy lurk on the sidelines of the AO forum instead of entering the discussion. Instead of enjoying the opportunity of having someone in the discussion with real first hand knowledge of the topic - lets call him names and chase him away because we don't agree with his opinion. Well done Sondjata.
Apparently you also cannot read. In my very first post on this topic I started by saying that the suspect was OUT OF ORDER for pulling the stunt he did. I also REPEATEDLY STATED that at the time that the SUSPECT was in fact pointing what could be honestly be construed as a gun, the officers would have been COMPLETELY Justified for SHOOTING the suspect.
Yet you decide to ignore these repeated statements in order to push your own agenda that Cops have it hard.
In my experience---if you are dealing with a cop, you were doing something you shouldn't. It's fun to dehumanize people but it's not right. If you don't have any cop friends, and haven't sat down and listened to their copmlaints and how they have to do deal with the daily shit, then SHUT THE HELL UP and go watch the PSA I posted.
1. Obey the law.
2. Pull over immediately.
3. Be polite.
4. and so on....
If the guy had obeyed some simple instructions, he would have had NO PROBLEMS. If you think tweeking every last bit of adrenaline a cop has in him with a car chase is good sense then maybe you need the wooden shampoo or a bullet in your ass.
Vice, I'm sure you're a good police officer. But if you were a truly honest and observent person, and not simply a blue-protecting apologist you'd say, "Yes, sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes there are bad cops. But there are good ones too, so don't forget it." But instead you appear to pretend that there are NO racist cops. That there are NO corrupt cops. We all know that's not true (and the Texas case just goes to prove that point). And you haven't said a word to admit it. So people will take offence.
Absolutly, there are some bad Police Officers. I'm only trying to share my perspective with the group. Again - you label me as a "blue-protecting apologist" because I think a shooting was justified? I don't see you labeling the people who agree with you as "cop hating radicals" or some other silly example. If this were a thread about a medical malpractice case it might be interesting to hear the perspective of a Doctor. Your perception might be that the Doctor sounds defensive about the conduct of his fellow Doctors. Does that mean he's "ignorant", a "stain", and a "Doctor-protecting apologist?"
Yes Sondjata, my opinions and my "agenda" are obviously different from yours - I only wish we could have continued this interesting discussion without the name calling and insults.
Yes Sondjata, my opinions and my "agenda" are obviously different from yours - I only wish we could have continued this interesting discussion without the name calling and insults.
don't feel bad---she basically does that to everybody....(she disagrees with)
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.
Well some of us still do what you say, but we still get assaulted by the police. And we're not even black.
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?"
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
I don't know. I mean, of course within reason. We wouldn't send every cop in America to their death to save one person. But that's obviously extreme.
The attitude I'm seeing here is that this guy broke the law, so that allows the cops to use deadly force. That's just dumb.
I can't watch the video. Does anyone have a different link?
In the meantime, I'll pre-defend myself by saying that I've always felt that the cops didn't overreact in the Rodney King situation. So when I watch this video and think the cops did (which is what it sounds like so far), all you flamers can go to hell.
Comments
Originally posted by Sondjata
ANd still you miss the point:
Shoot someone who is not facing you, is not pointing anything at you is NOT SELF DEFENSE.
I think you're missing the point. Assume the man has a gun. You would have the officer stand there and yell "drop the gun" instead? Go back and read the post about action vs reaction times. A man can spin and fire a weapon before that cop can shoot to stop him.
Originally posted by murbot
I think you're missing the point. Assume the man has a gun. You would have the officer stand there and yell "drop the gun" instead? Go back and read the post about action vs reaction times. A man can spin and fire a weapon before that cop can shoot to stop him.
No I am not. You guys seem to not be able to read. I'll repeat this one more time:
The officer closest to the supect had 2 clear opportunities to shoot at the "armed" suspect. The first time the officer put his gun to the suspect's head But did not shoot.
We all understand that? gun to head..did not shoot
After a brief scuffle with the suspect the officer again had an opportunity to shoot the "armed" suspect but hedid not shoot
Why didn't the officer shoot? If he/they are claiming that because the suspect raised a chrome object and pointed it at one of the officers (not both) that he presented an immediate mortal danger to that officer, then why not take the justified shot right there and then. No one could have questioned that shot at all. Even when I saw the video I thought that if they shot him at that time they would have been completely justified.
They did not shoot him when he presented an immediate mortal threat to either officer. Once he walked away from the officers (and his own vehicle). The officers could have used their own cars for cover and called in for more backup. They did not. They had the opportunity and the time since the suspect was not an immediate mortal threat. But that time they violated the law and acted not if defense but in offense They decided that this "guy" had pissed them off. He had scared them with a "gun" and they were going to show him what happens when you threaten the life of a cop.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rug-Busts.html
Recently the State of California ran a e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being "COMMUNITY POLICING". One of the civilian email participants posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?"
A response to this question came from a California Police Officer:
It is not easy! In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One-fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.
So, one cop is responsible for harassing about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 20,000 or more people a day. A ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one-second to harass a person, and three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out, It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those which we harass. They are as follows:
PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on a weeknight is, "The kids next door are having a party."
CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration stickers and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.
RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.
CODES: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that give ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Codes"; Penal, Vehicle, Health and Safety, Business and Professions... They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT. Why? Because the good citizens who pay the tab LIKE that we keep the streets safe for them.
Originally posted by Sondjata
You guys must be the type that sat on the jury that put these folks in prison:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rug-Busts.html
As far as we know at the trial the jury had no reason not to believe the cop. Or are you too stupid to realize that?
Oh wait I'm sorry I didn't read it right the first time. It was a white cop (racist) and black defendants. What was I thinking? We all know white cops are automatically racist until prove to be hood wearin' klans men.
Originally posted by vice108
A little off the topic - but reading Sondjata's "thoughts" about Police Officers reminded me of this:
Recently the State of California ran a e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being "COMMUNITY POLICING". One of the civilian email participants posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?"
A response to this question came from a California Police Officer:
It is not easy! In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One-fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.
So, one cop is responsible for harassing about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 20,000 or more people a day. A ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one-second to harass a person, and three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out, It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those which we harass. They are as follows:
PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on a weeknight is, "The kids next door are having a party."
CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration stickers and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.
RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.
CODES: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that give ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Codes"; Penal, Vehicle, Health and Safety, Business and Professions... They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people. After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT. Why? Because the good citizens who pay the tab LIKE that we keep the streets safe for them.
It's nice to know just how ignorant you are. I'm sure that my invisible car registration was the reason why certain police officers insisted on following me all the way across their jurisdiction. Or why my cousin, who lives in a very upscale neighborhood, and has lived thier most of his life, repeatedly has police follow him when he's driving his car, but not when his *cough* white friends are driving their equally expensive vehicles.
But really THAT's not the point. Fact is at no point have you been able to dispute the fact that the officers involved had two opportunities to shoot the "armed" suspect while he posed an immediate and mortal threat but did not.
No instead you decide to post non-sense that has absolutely nothing to do with the incident at hand. It's police (or ex police) like yourself that puts a dirty stain on the officers out there who do their job in a professional manner.
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
No instead you decide to post non-sense that has absolutely nothing to do with the incident at hand. It's police (or ex police) like yourself that puts a dirty stain on the officers out there who do their job in a professional manner.
Besides disagreeing with you and then explaining why in my PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE I see it differently, I'm not sure what I've done for you to say such hateful things about me. I already explained quite clearly why I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it at that. As for you trying to imply that I'm an "ex Police" or a "stain" - I think that says a lot about you. It's very telling that the only person in this thread who keeps wanting to portray Police Officers as hateful, violent, racists is in fact the one who is being judgmental and mean. This is why I ussualy lurk on the sidelines of the AO forum instead of entering the discussion. Instead of enjoying the opportunity of having someone in the discussion with real first hand knowledge of the topic - lets call him names and chase him away because we don't agree with his opinion. Well done Sondjata.
Originally posted by vice108
Besides disagreeing with you and then explaining why in my PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE I see it differently, I'm not sure what I've done for you to say such hateful things about me. I already explained quite clearly why I think you're wrong, and I'll leave it at that. As for you trying to imply that I'm an "ex Police" or a "stain" - I think that says a lot about you. It's very telling that the only person in this thread who keeps wanting to portray Police Officers as hateful, violent, racists is in fact the one who is being judgmental and mean. This is why I ussualy lurk on the sidelines of the AO forum instead of entering the discussion. Instead of enjoying the opportunity of having someone in the discussion with real first hand knowledge of the topic - lets call him names and chase him away because we don't agree with his opinion. Well done Sondjata.
Apparently you also cannot read. In my very first post on this topic I started by saying that the suspect was OUT OF ORDER for pulling the stunt he did. I also REPEATEDLY STATED that at the time that the SUSPECT was in fact pointing what could be honestly be construed as a gun, the officers would have been COMPLETELY Justified for SHOOTING the suspect.
Yet you decide to ignore these repeated statements in order to push your own agenda that Cops have it hard.
1. Obey the law.
2. Pull over immediately.
3. Be polite.
4. and so on....
If the guy had obeyed some simple instructions, he would have had NO PROBLEMS. If you think tweeking every last bit of adrenaline a cop has in him with a car chase is good sense then maybe you need the wooden shampoo or a bullet in your ass.
Originally posted by tonton
Vice, I'm sure you're a good police officer. But if you were a truly honest and observent person, and not simply a blue-protecting apologist you'd say, "Yes, sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes there are bad cops. But there are good ones too, so don't forget it." But instead you appear to pretend that there are NO racist cops. That there are NO corrupt cops. We all know that's not true (and the Texas case just goes to prove that point). And you haven't said a word to admit it. So people will take offence.
Absolutly, there are some bad Police Officers. I'm only trying to share my perspective with the group. Again - you label me as a "blue-protecting apologist" because I think a shooting was justified? I don't see you labeling the people who agree with you as "cop hating radicals" or some other silly example. If this were a thread about a medical malpractice case it might be interesting to hear the perspective of a Doctor. Your perception might be that the Doctor sounds defensive about the conduct of his fellow Doctors. Does that mean he's "ignorant", a "stain", and a "Doctor-protecting apologist?"
Originally posted by Sondjata
Apparently you also cannot read.
Yes Sondjata, my opinions and my "agenda" are obviously different from yours - I only wish we could have continued this interesting discussion without the name calling and insults.
what country are you from?
Originally posted by vice108
Yes Sondjata, my opinions and my "agenda" are obviously different from yours - I only wish we could have continued this interesting discussion without the name calling and insults.
don't feel bad---she basically does that to everybody....(she disagrees with)
Originally posted by pscates
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.
Well some of us still do what you say, but we still get assaulted by the police. And we're not even black.
Originally posted by pscates
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?"
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
Originally posted by bunge
Because it's the responsibility of the police to control a situation without killing people. We the people put a lot of trust in this institution and when it goes wrong it can create havoc.
It doesn't matter how difficult their job is. It doesn't matter that the pay sucks; I wouldn't care if they were unpaid volunteers. They have a responsibility that is of the utmost important. When life and liberty is on the line, it trumpts even the lives of the police.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
apparently somebody here get's it.
The job of the police is to serve and protect that drunken, coke infested, gun toting idiot.
but the answer is to protect within reason. where we're all getting hung up is what we define as reasonable restraint.
Originally posted by alcimedes
but the answer is to protect within reason.
I don't know. I mean, of course within reason. We wouldn't send every cop in America to their death to save one person. But that's obviously extreme.
The attitude I'm seeing here is that this guy broke the law, so that allows the cops to use deadly force. That's just dumb.
I can't watch the video. Does anyone have a different link?
In the meantime, I'll pre-defend myself by saying that I've always felt that the cops didn't overreact in the Rodney King situation. So when I watch this video and think the cops did (which is what it sounds like so far), all you flamers can go to hell.