Police shoot man 81 times *WARNING THIS IS GRAPHIC AND UNEDITED*
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
every single word you quoted me on was true besides my opinion at the bottom. You threaten power hungry police saying you have a gun and plan on using it, you are asking to get lit up. the guy had plenty of chances....10 minutes worth in fact. he wished to speak to his lady on the phone, somthing that could easily be done after he had surrenderd and given up peacefully. this man chose to stay in his place, threaten police with shooting them, threatend to shoot a police dog, and actually encourage and asked for them to release the dog just as an excuse for him to shoot..... how am i supposed to be sympathetic towards somone who had a choice refused it and encouraged the worst result to happen? too bad, but that is not ignorant.
I'm not even going to argue with you because there was no way to justify that cold blooded murder, no way at all no matter how you twist it. What ever the guy did doesn't mean that he deserved 81 bullets thrown at him.. Again, you are ignorant and your comment is disgusting, you need to grow the fuck up, I have no respect for you sir..
My point is, you seem to be placing responsibility on the officers because our legal and law enforcement systems have policies and procedures the officers SHOULD abide by. In reality, however, everyone knows cops don't always follow procedure. Therefore, it should not be considered a safety net to rely on the officers to follow procedure when you are threatening them with a weapon, real or otherwise.
This means that although the officers were at fault for not following procedure, the man was also responsible because common sense would tell you that cops are going to shoot if you threaten them regardless of what you believe they SHOULD do based on policy and procedure. The law is not golden.
This means that although the officers were at fault for not following procedure, the man was also responsible because common sense would tell you that cops are going to shoot if you threaten them regardless of what you believe they SHOULD do based on policy and procedure. The law is not golden.
Fuck policy! What about common decency and regard for human life? Either way you look at it the guy wasn't armed, the officers saw no potential threat, no gun, all they saw was some guy on a porch with his hand in his pants.. Wtf do they teach these pigs now a days? Kill at your own discretion? 81 shots? Why not 2 or 3? They killed the guy like 50 times over! Please, how are you people trying to justify this? I bet if the fool was white it would be a different story, not trying to pull the race card but honestly that is just a subconscious reality here concerning some of you guys' opinion on this.. Especially Csmoke's racist ass.
Stop. You come on here trying to make me look bad by quoting my response to someone else, yet you want to explain your point? The point is, don't come out the blue with with some left field shit because you'll end up looking pathetic in the long run. Proof of this may be found in my previous response to you. :hurt:
Well, I guess I'm not alone because the aunt of the deceased filed a wrongful death suit. You seem to be missing the fact that I said the man COULD have done things on his part to diffuse the situation. However, the responsibilty does lie on the officers which is why officers have discretion. The question is will they be held responsible for the death?
Which is why lawsuits are often filed againt the police.
Law enforcement still have a duty to maintain regardless if the person had a weapon or not. Failure to do the duty will result in cases such as this.
First of all, you have failed to read my previous posts, and before you continue to respond, I suggest you read them. Several times now I have said the man had a hand in his death (his actions were RECKLESS), but for some reason, you and others want to rationalize this killing and place more emphasis on his actions instead of those who decided to pull the trigger. Second of all, common sense WOULD tell you cops are going to shoot if they are threatened, but if the person LACKS common sense, or if the person is out of of their mind or stressed, how can you expect them to utilize common sense?
Finally, no one has said or implied that the law IS golden, so why describe it as such? The law and cj system have many kinks and bugs and no one is denying this.
Well, I guess I'm not alone because the aunt of the deceased filed a wrongful death suit. You seem to be missing the fact that I said the man COULD have done things on his part to diffuse the situation. However, the responsibilty does lie on the officers which is why officers have discretion. The question is will they be held responsible for the death?
Which is why lawsuits are often filed againt the police.
Law enforcement still have a duty to maintain regardless if the person had a weapon or not. Failure to do the duty will result in cases such as this.
First of all, you have failed to read my previous posts, and before you continue to respond, I suggest you read them. Several times now I have said the man had a hand in his death (his actions were RECKLESS), but for some reason, you and others want to rationalize this killing and place more emphasis on his actions instead of those who decided to pull the trigger. Second of all, common sense WOULD tell you cops are going to shoot if they are threatened, but if the person LACKS common sense, or if the person is out of of their mind or stressed, how can you expect them to utilize common sense?
Finally, no one has said or implied that the law IS golden, so why describe it as such? The law and cj system have many kinks and bugs and no one is denying this.
heresy you're totally missing my point, which is still valid. the dude coulda saved his own life, he chose to risk it and paid the consiquences. what pisses me off about this whole thing is that he didnt get treated like he should of AFTER he was no longer a threat, as i stated on the first page of this thread.