Crime Arizona Officer Shoots Unarmed Man: Acquitted

[robotsonic]

LOL.

You clearly are unable to look at the situation with any sort of objectivity. I've already stated that the incident was bad, and the instructions the cop was giving were terrible, and elevated the situation to an unnecessary level of danger and confusion.

Now knowing that it wasn't the shooter giving the instructions, I find his responsibility less offensive, because he actually had restraint, while the other moron was telling the victim to do everything but jumping jacks, and waited for the suspect to make a move that could be deemed threatening, rather than the many times the victim couldn't help but not follow instructions. The shooter wasn't in control of the situation. All he could do was survey the suspect's movements. Movements which were being dictated by his moronic partner. Judging this situation in an objective way, and assessing blame appropriately, apparently makes me a "boot licker".

Then again, I'm pretty sure anything shy of celebrating when a cop gets killed, makes anyone a "boot licker" to you.

What makes you think I would celebrate a cops death? I just objected to your flippant horse shit statement is all, might've been unfair to call you a boot licker but you were making light of the dudes death like you thought the chip was justified or whatever.

I'm actually fairly conservative but not stupid or short sighted enough to realise that if you give rogue trigger happy cops like this free rein to do whatever they want it is a danger to everyone, regardless of political affiliation, race, religion, whatever.

 

[HereticBD]

What makes you think I would celebrate a cops death? I just objected to your flippant horse shit statement is all, might've been unfair to call you a boot licker but you were making light of the dudes death like you thought the chip was justified or whatever.

Point me to the part where I made light of the dude's death.

 

[Sjb1888]

Governments killed more of their own people last century than the black death .... outside of war. What's the number of deaths due to gun ownership minus homicides that would occur in lieu of no gun ownership?

I think you've been had, friend. In any event, I hope your chains lay lightly.

Also, good luck with the Muslim horde invading your country, while your government arrests anyone speaking against it by the way.

You need to get your news from somewhere other than fox News, utterly brainwashed.

 

[Sjb1888]

Police in the US are used to generate revenue. I don't know about the rest of the world. Also since the American people have been given the right to own guns, there is to be a certain amount of gun violence to be expected. That's the price of having that freedom. Other countries didnt want to keep that right, and that's fine.

In most state we have an amount of freedom to protect our property, guns help law abiding citizens do that. I can see how people would feel safe without guns. If someone doesn't take proper measures to keep their guns safely then guns can be very scary. A lot of people don't practice proper gun safety.

Police can't protect anyone unless they are there in that moment of danger. Only an individual can have any hope protect there family and property. I feel gun rights are important to people because of that. Guns should be treat with the proper amount of respect a dangerous tool deserves, same with motor vehicles.

If you use tools in a improper way they are dangerous. I have always felt that we should teach proper gun safety to people because they can be so dangerous to someone who is not trained to use them in a safe manner.

I understand why a lot of people would feel the need to have guns to protect their families and property in the US, but that's only because the criminal element also have guns.

But let's be honest unless you are constantly carrying the gun a bad guy with a gun is gonna get the drop on you due to the element of surprise.

I feel much more comfortable knowing that any bad guys where I live wouldn't be able to just point and shoot.

 

[DespicablePeep]

But let's be honest unless you are constantly carrying the gun a bad guy with a gun is gonna get the drop on you due to the element of surprise.

I feel much more comfortable knowing that any bad guys where I live wouldn't be able to just point and shoot.

Almost impossible to clear guns from criminals the only option is making their life harder by arming regular people. Even if they get the drop they can still end up dead if a bystander watching is carrying. Criminals are a lot less bolder under these circunstancies.

 

[m25105]

Man.. the authority bootlickers and cop worshippers are really exposing themselves. You lot are borderline sociopaths.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That is horrible.

I understand the cop firing as the victim was reaching when clearly told not too. The moment he was advised to cross his legs and fingers and lay face down should've been the final instructions.

Fucking kneel and move towards me with your hands up? Majority of people can't even physically do that task.

I can see why they requested him to move towards them as the area wasn't deemed safe but that method was destined to fail.

I don't.

And you SHOULDN"T.

Sadly this has become a default position of many that simply not following instructions is reason to be shot by a cop. Over and over when such videos as this arise we see so many flock in to say merely not following instructions is understandable reason to be shot when it SHOULD NOT be.

The cop should also be REQUIRED to establish a threat is present. He should be required to USE HIS TRAINING to assess the person and situation and determine what threat level this person poses and that IN CONJUNCTION with listening to instructions should be the bar.

In this case the cop had the man laying in front of him for minutes on end. He KNEW the man had no weapon on his back anywhere or certainly if he had any decent training could feel confident in that assessment. So knowing that he should certainly not be on kill mode.

The thing is you can’t actually hold police to the same exact standards as the public. Why? Because your average citizen is never going to have to make arrests, actually fight with someone to put them in cuffs, or have an adversarial role against criminals. Cops are put in so many circumstances where they have to put their hands on people, or are faced with potentially armed subjects. It is our duty to do so, we signed up for it, but with that responsibility comes a little leeway.

Completely disagree with this line of thought and gave my reason above.

Police have the ABSOLUTE LOWEST standard with regards to discharging a firearm and killing an unarmed citizen.

If an average citizen has a weapon and simply feels at threat he MUST STILL establish that he actually saw and evaluated a threat was present.

Soldiers in active war zones EVEN WHERE THEY ARE TAKING IN BOUND FIRE just prior, cannot gun down a random citizen WITHOUT FIRST identifying the actual threat (gun., etc).

Police who primary job is being SWORN TO PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS can gun them down and simply say I got scared. Nothing more needed and walk if its reasonable to feel they were scared. Well the average citizen and soldier definitely can also feel scared but we require more of them.

Sorry but no, cops should gladly accept the highest standard when it comes to shooting unarmed citizens (their bosses or clientele) and not the lowest.


Can you imagine private security shooting their bosses or clients and just saying 'I got scared' and saying that should be a defense?

If you left policing today and joined a private security detail where you generally had far more confrontational contact with average citizens (lets say you were assigned to a very controversial speaker) you would automatically adopt a higher standard than police are held to today so it is bullshit to say police cannot be held to that standard too.

 

[Sjb1888]

Almost impossible to clear guns from criminals the only option is making their life harder by arming regular people. Even if they get the drop they can still end up dead if a bystander watching is carrying. Criminals are a lot less bolder under these circunstancies.

I agree that the US is too far gone to simply ban guns, that process would take generations and even then there would still be plenty of guns in circulation.

But I still believe it's the root cause of the policing issue in this thread.

 

[HereticBD]

In this case the cop had the man laying in front of him for minutes on end. He KNEW the man had no weapon on his back anywhere or certainly if he had any decent training could feel confident in that assessment. So knowing that he should certainly not be on kill mode.

No, he did not know that.

Now, if the cop didn't instruct the man so poorly, he couldv'e easily found that out, but to be fair, the cop had no way of knowing if the dude was strapped with a concealed weapon, with the piss poor way the incident was handled. The guy could've very easily had a small gun where he reached.

All I'm saying is don't blame the shoot, so much as the circumstances that led up to it, which is on the cops as well. The shoot was technically a good shoot. Dude hadn't been searched, and reached behind his back. That is always treated as a threat, especially when responding to a report of a man with a gun(which I believe is what they were responding to). Now, the instructions that were screamed out, and confusing as all fuck, was the real problem, and ultimately lead to the guy getting shot.

The question that should be asked, is why the guy was given such terrible commands that put him in a situation like that. They had him on the ground, face down, palms flat on the ground. They had him on the ground, face down, fingers interlaced. They then had him on his knees, hands up and in plain view. They then command him to crawl, which frees up his hands, and could cause a natural reaction to anything, like pulling up your pants. They had multiple chances to neutralize him very easily, but instead played Simon Says with him. That should be looked at more harshly than the actual shot. The shot was standard protocol for a threat like that. The commands are what guided it to that point though.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Anyone wearing clear lense shooting glasses anywhere other than the range is a tool, generally speaking.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I retract my statement. Apologies to the Sensei.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

I wonder if they kept looking for the guy in the window with the gun, after they mowed this guy down, or just called it a day?

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, he did not know that.

Now, if the cop didn't instruct the man so poorly, he couldv'e easily found that out, but to be fair, the cop had no way of knowing if the dude was strapped with a concealed weapon, with the piss poor way the incident was handled. The guy could've very easily had a small gun where he reached.

All I'm saying is don't blame the shoot, so much as the circumstances that led up to it, which is on the cops as well. The shoot was technically a good shoot. Dude hadn't been searched, and reached behind his back. That is always treated as a threat, especially when responding to a report of a man with a gun(which I believe is what they were responding to). Now, the instructions that were screamed out, and confusing as all fuck, was the real problem, and ultimately lead to the guy getting shot.

The question that should be asked, is why the guy was given such terrible commands that put him in a situation like that. They had him on the ground, face down, palms flat on the ground. They had him on the ground, face down, fingers interlaced. They then had him on his knees, hands up and in plain view. They then command him to crawl, which frees up his hands, and could cause a natural reaction to anything, like pulling up your pants. They had multiple chances to neutralize him very easily, but instead played Simon Says with him. That should be looked at more harshly than the actual shot. The shot was standard protocol for a threat like that. The commands are what guided it to that point though.

Sorry but I blame both. The entire situation was handled piss poorly and they hold training videos on what not to do in situations like that, for officers in the future.

But the guy who pulls the trigger ultimately has a responsibility to assess the situation when considering using deadly force.

Could he be 100% sure the guy lying on the ground did not have a concealed weapon hidden under his shirt if that weapon was tiny? Ok maybe not. But he certainty had a huge amount of time to be comfortable that he had a great view of the guys back and it was very unlikely there was a weapon hidden there.

Yes I expect cops to take calculated risks when it comes to taking a life based on what they can assess. And having a person lie in front of you for that long period of time, seeing them move through different positions as they crawl, etc gives you a good enough view that in almost all cases you will be able to see if even a small item is hidden in their clothes.

 

[HereticBD]

Sorry but I blame both. The entire situation was handled piss poorly and they hold training videos on what not to do in situations like that, for officers in the future.

But the guy who pulls the trigger ultimately has a responsibility to assess the situation when considering using deadly force.

He did though, and technically the situation that he chose to fire on, was indeed a perceived threat with the potential of deadly intent. They were responding to a report of a guy with a gun, the guy reached for his belt line quickly, and they did not know if he was armed or not. They are taught to treat that as a deadly threat, and are permitted to use deadly force in that scenario.

What I'm pretty sure they're not trained to do, is give the suspect 10,000 different commands, that lead him to crawling on all fours, after they've already had the suspect neutralized multiple times.

Could he be 100% sure the guy lying on the ground did not have a concealed weapon hidden under his shirt if that weapon was tiny? Ok maybe not. But he certainty had a huge amount of time to be comfortable that he had a great view of the guys back and it was very unlikely there was a weapon hidden there.

Nah. Check out some of the shit they have for concealing weapons. It's crazy. On top of that, some guns are incredibly small, and easy to conceal. They're not all six shooters from the wild west. Some are very small, and easy to keep hidden.

Yes I expect cops to take calculated risks when it comes to taking a life based on what they can assess. And having a person lie in front of you for that long period of time, seeing them move through different positions as they crawl, etc gives you a good enough view that in almost all cases you will be able to see if even a small item is hidden in their clothes.

That's just false. Just check out some quick videos on weapon concealment. It's not hard to fool the naked eye.

 

[MikeMcMann]

He did though, and technically the situation that he chose to fire on, was indeed a perceived threat with the potential of deadly intent. They were responding to a report of a guy with a gun, the guy reached for his belt line quickly, and they did not know if he was armed or not. They are taught to treat that as a deadly threat, and are permitted to use deadly force in that scenario.

What I'm pretty sure they're not trained to do, is give the suspect 10,000 different commands, that lead him to crawling on all fours, after they've already had the suspect neutralized multiple times.



Nah. Check out some of the shit they have for concealing weapons. It's crazy. On top of that, some guns are incredibly small, and easy to conceal. They're not all six shooters from the wild west. Some are very small, and easy to keep hidden.



That's just false. Just check out some quick videos on weapon concealment. It's not hard to fool the naked eye.

Not saying some guns are not small. Not saying he could not have some type of new fangled space weapon we've never seen either. Sure there are possibilities.

But what I am saying is that the officer had every chance to asses the situation for minutes on end through all different types of movements and therefore should have had a good degree of comfort that there was no gun or concealed weapon on his back. You and many others seem to think an officer needs 100% certainty or they fire away because it was POSSIBLE. Whereas I think the officer has to access what is PROBABLE and take added risk based on that.

If this guy was always standing and never went down and the officer had no view of his back I could understand that. But once he has assessed the situation and his only worry is tiny weapons then he needs to be willing to change his tactic just a little.

 

[workdiggitz]

legal shoot but clearly that cop was not suited for the job and killed a man for a very stupid reason. id like to see the actual full video not the edited 4 minute version.
but either way i wouldnt be upset if the cop did get jail time but in this case he got away with it... i mean... the suspect did ignore the commands mutiple times but...shit... at least attempt to make an arrest before shooting. idk. its a bad situation where yes i and most would agree that the cop is a jerk and deserves jail time but was it outright murder? ehhh... not really...

 

[Sjb1888]

That actually does give me a different perspective of the incident. I blame the shooter a lot less now, as buddy who was shouting instructions almost made it impossible not to shoot the guy. The shooter might've been just as confused as the victim. Given the instructions, I'm amazed the shooter had the restraint he did, and waited for a threatening gesture before firing.

I agree that the officer shouting instructions caused this incident to become such a clusterfuck, but I don't think the shooter gets a pass at all.

He had to show some common sense before killing another human being, no one in their right mind should have have been so on edge that they pulled the trigger in that situation.

If someone isn't willing to take even the slightest risk to protect human life, then they need to find a new line of work.

 

[method115]

Man this whole situation was a mess. I think everyone has pretty much summed it up:

1. Kid should not have reached for the back of his pants. He was nervous as fuck though you could tell i was just an reaction to reach back to pull up his pants. Probably something he's been doing his whole life.

2. Cop was fucking insane with the # of orders he was giving.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

What's the consensus here as the best way to act with a Highly Agitated Cop, giving multiple contradicting instructions?


After watching that I almost think get face down, spread arms and legs then refuse to move further.

"Don't move, get up"

Fuck you, I ain't moving, you assholes don't shot. You're going to shoot if I move, I ain't moving!

Maybe then they'll only beat the shit out of you instead of mowing you down?

 

[HereticBD]

Not saying some guns are not small. Not saying he could not have some type of new fangled space weapon we've never seen either. Sure there are possibilities.

But what I am saying is that the officer had every chance to asses the situation for minutes on end through all different types of movements and therefore should have had a good degree of comfort that there was no gun or concealed weapon on his back. You and many others seem to think an officer needs 100% certainty or they fire away because it was POSSIBLE. Whereas I think the officer has to access what is PROBABLE and take added risk based on that.

I don't agree with the risk assessment. When you're talking about a potential firearm in play, I don't expect cops to assume there isn't a gun, over assuming there is. You always assume there is, until you can determine with a certainty that there isn't. You simply can't do that by looking at the guy.

Now, where I think we can find some common ground, is in the overall assessment, and how the cops failed to determine whether or not the guy was armed. They had multiple opportunities to move in on the suspect, and apprehend him so a proper assessment could be made. When the suspect has his nose to the ground and is laying spread eagle on the ground with his palms out, they could've moved in. When the suspect was on his knees with his hands on top of head, they could've moved in. Shit, when the suspect was on all fours and not moving, they could've moved in. Instead, they made the suspect come to them in an awkward manner, and that's what caused it.

I could understand if there was one cop, and the guy had to keep his eye on the other suspect, but there were two of them. There was no need to make the suspect crawl towards them, and I don't think I've ever seen that before. Usually, the suspect is standing up with their hands in plain view on their head, if they ask them to move towards them. I've never seen a suspect instructed to crawl on all fours. I've never seen such a confusing set of commands given to a suspect before. I really don't know what that cop was thinking. The incident should've been over the moment the guy was on the ground and not a threat. The cop giving commands turned him into a threat.