Soldato
Why do you hate freedom?It's almost as if their obsession with guns has consequences....
Why do you hate freedom?It's almost as if their obsession with guns has consequences....
It is *entirely* possible - that a person on the other side of a front door (which are generally quite heavy and design to block noise from outside), in this own home, with other sources of noise (music/tv/etc) doesn't make out what the random person banging on his door in the middle of the night is yelling.The officer shouts "Sheriff's office, open the door" several times, the last one just before he opens the door, so he should have heard it.
If we want to get into semantics about how anyone can shout that, fine, but he had a warning.
From the linked article:
Mr Crump said at the time of the shooting Fortson was on a video call with a friend, who described what she heard to his family's legal team.
The friend said the airman heard a knock on his apartment door and asked who was there, but received no response. He then heard a second, "very aggressive knock" but did not see anyone when he looked through the peephole.
Freedom is for wimps, especially American Freedom.Why do you hate freedom?
It is *entirely* possible - that a person on the other side of a front door (which are generally quite heavy and design to block noise from outside), in this own home, with other sources of noise (music/tv/etc) doesn't make out what the random person banging on his door in the middle of the night is yelling.
You absolutely *cannot* tell from the video what was or wasn't audible on the *other side* of the door when the police officer was shouting, or how far from the door the victim was, or what other noise source were going on *whilst the police officer was shouting* - just because you cant hear it on the video. Noise doesn't have to be deafeningly load to muffle what someone outside your house is shouting.It was not the middle of the night and there is no noise blocking him from hearing the officer, as we can hear the audio when he opens the door from the body cam footage. The officer also shouts loudly who it is for a last time a second or so before the victim opens the door.
The door also doesn’t look very solid at all, it looks like a fairly cheap and basic one you see fitted on apartments/flats.
You absolutely *cannot* tell from the video what was or wasn't audible on the *other side* of the door when the police officer was shouting, or how far from the door the victim was, or what other noise source were going on *whilst the police officer was shouting* - just because you cant hear it on the video. Noise doesn't have to be deafeningly load to muffle what someone outside your house is shouting.
None of which changes the pertinent facts of the case: Man was minding his own business in his own home, the police turned up and shot him dead.
How does the video, or how could it possibly show what was audible on the other side of the door, when it was very obviously filmed from the perspective of the police officer who was outside? Obviously it is clear on the video that the officer says because the microphone is right next to his mouth. You have absolutely no way of knowing what the victim did or didn't hear, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the victim "knew".You absolutely can tell from the video as he opens the door seconds after the officer shouts for the last time who it is. I don’t know why you are making up nonsense like it was the middle of the night either. Those doors are not sound proof at all.
The pertinent fact is opening the door with a gun in your hand when you know the police in your country shoot first and ask questions later.
How does the video, or how could it possibly show what was audible on the other side of the door, when it was very obviously filmed from the perspective of the police officer who was outside? Obviously it is clear on the video that the officer says because the microphone is right next to his mouth. You have absolutely no way of knowing what the victim did or didn't hear, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the victim "knew".
He was a man, holding a gun (down by his side) that he was legally entitled to own and legally entitled to hold, in his own home. And, again, he had committed no crime.
I accept I was wrong about the time of day - it changes nothing and isn't relevant.
Why are you bending over backwards to justify the police shooting some guy in his own home?
His arms just dangling down by his side and the guns pointing at the floor, he makes no attempt to raise that arm, his other hand with nothing in it is gesturing as he starts talking, but the other arm never moves anywhere. the cop shoots after about 1-2seconds.Was the gun just on the victim or was it in his hand?
No someone shouts "Sheriffs office" it doesn't mean it actually is.That is a hard one to call tbh. The cop does identify himself and the guy answers the door with a gun in his hand.
There's more to it than that, though; most other countries with routinely armed police don't see such regular disproportionate use of lethal force by police as the US does. To some extent that's a reflection of the level of threat they can potentially face, but the minimum amount of force possible should still be used.This is what happens when you have to arm the majority of the police force.. I know armed officers in the UK, any errant instinctual behaviour would be weeded out and unless you can be calm under pressure, you would likely not make the cut.
To an extent yes, but the US-style mag-dumping is in complete contrast to other countries where police are trained to "shoot to stop" by firing once (or twice) then reassessing the threat. There will be exceptions to that of course e.g. immediate threat, terrorist incident etc but it ties back into my point above about using the minimum amount of force necessary.It ain’t the movies. When you discharge your weapon you damn well make sure the person or thing you’re firing at isn’t capable of firing back.
Firing a gun to disarm someone, if you’re John Wick then maybe, Joe Bloggs not so much.
Lol America.
The use of a taser would have worked fine and not killed the guy.
Stupid yanks and their love of guns strikes again.
Tasers don’t always work.Lol America.
The use of a taser would have worked fine and not killed the guy.
Stupid yanks and their love of guns strikes again.
Then you're poo outa luck.You’d want to risk tasering someone holding a gun? What if you miss or it doesn’t disable him?
Tasers don’t always work.
To an extent yes, but the US-style mag-dumping is in complete contrast to other countries where police are trained to "shoot to stop" by firing once (or twice) then reassessing the threat. There will be exceptions to that of course e.g. immediate threat, terrorist incident etc but it ties back into my point above about using the minimum amount of force necessary.
I'm struggling to think why you would answer your door with a gun, especially when you know it's the police?
Just because someone claims to be the police doesn't mean they really are.
A "heated argument".But there is a good chance they are when you've had a loud and heated argument which the whole neighborhood can hear.
There is at least one claim I've seen that he looked through a peephole on the day and didn't see anyone..I think that’s the fourth time someone has replied with this now.
So we live in a society where you just don’t believe anyone and assume the worst? The situation is never going to improve then.
The percentage of people pretending to be police is minuscule in comparison to genuine call-outs.
The friend said the airman heard a knock on his apartment door and asked who was there, but received no response. He then heard a second, "very aggressive knock" but did not see anyone when he looked through the peephole.