Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !

spoffle · 3 Mar 2015 at 12:50

Westyfield2 said:
I don't get the whole "but they were UNARMED" thing.

Okay so you might not have a firearm, but you could have been armed with other things. A knife. A rock. Your fists.

If you give a gun to someone who doesn't have a clue what they're doing (me), and you have someone who's pretty good in a fight, the 'armed' person is gonna lose to the 'unarmed' person.

Unarmed means unarmed. If you look up the definition of "armed" you'll realise it doesn't just apply to firearms.

McGray · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:19

stulid said:
The officers gun, not his own personal gun.

If you haven't read the report then perhaps you should before commenting any further as you seem to be struggling to read the report in the article.

1. He didn't at any point have the officers gun
2. He didn't have his own gun

Despite the the nonsense you've been peddling, he wasn't armed. It's quite clear from the article.

stulid · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:44

McGray said:
1. He didn't at any point have the officers gun
2. He didn't have his own gun

Despite the the nonsense you've been peddling, he wasn't armed. It's quite clear from the article.

You are taking nonsense, he had his hand on the officers gun or was reaching for it (hence the demands that he drops the gun 4-5 times I counted) that makes him a threat and so the police done their duty and protected the public and themselves.

You have zero argument.

spoffle · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:50

stulid said:
You are taking nonsense, he had his hand on the officers gun or was reaching for it (hence the demands that he drops the gun 4-5 times I counted) that makes him a threat and so the police done their duty and protected the public and themselves.

You have zero argument.

He tried to get hold of the officer's gun. However it's very clear that you want to see it with a specific slant, so there's probably no point anyone arguing with you about it because you won't change your stance.

The IPB · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:53

In a 1 on 1 situation I support him being shot if he went for the officers gun. But in this situation 2 people or more could have prevented him getting the gun while others still held him down.

Nothing will come of this, all the officers will cover for each other anyway. Whether the shooting is warranted or not.

lemonade · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:54

stulid said:
You are taking nonsense, he had his hand on the officers gun or was reaching for it (hence the demands that he drops the gun 4-5 times I counted) that makes him a threat and so the police done their duty and protected the public and themselves.

You have zero argument.

That is alleged, not yet proven or claimed. Apparently some of the coppers had cams on them, but they wont release the footage, probably too busy doctoring it.

stulid · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:55

spoffle said:
He tried to get hold of the officer's gun. However it's very clear that you want to see it with a specific slant, so there's probably no point anyone arguing with you about it because you won't change your stance.

I'm not making a black or white thing and have not until now mentioned it once (unlike others in this thread, and some of the cops in the video are black).

Yes he went for the officers gun and that makes him a threat.

Police say that three officers opened fire after the man tried to grab a gun from an officer.

Even if its still in his holster I have seen reports and videos where people get shot in the leg by a holstered gun, some even die when it hits a vital artery in leg), besides before the gun is even used there are many night sticks being used and on the ground so I guess they went for a less violent method first.

cheesyboy · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:55

The irony, of all of this, is that the officers carry those guns to protect the public and themselves (so the PR goes), but here they endangered themselves and killed a member of the public simply because they carried guns.

Tummy · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:55

Very little point in trying to convince certain people away from their concrete opinions.

I watched the video last night, it was really sad that this was the outcome.

cheesyboy · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:57

Tummy said:
Very little point in trying to convince certain people away from their concrete opinions.

I watched the video last night, it was really sad that this was the outcome.

Agreed on both counts.

It's disappointing to see the lack of critical thinking displayed.

Tummy · 3 Mar 2015 at 13:59

cheesyboy said:
Agreed on both counts.

It's scary the lack of critical thinking displayed.

Indeed.

I was having a chat with people at Uni about it this morning, it's just tragic that this was the outcome.

spoffle · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:00

stulid said:
I'm not making a black or white thing and have not until now mentioned it once (unlike others in this thread, and some of the cops in the video are black).

Yes he went for the officers gun and that makes him a threat.

I never said you were making it a black or white thing, it's just clear that you want to staunchly stick to the stance you've taken.

Based on your logic, them having guns at all made them a threat.

stulid · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:03

spoffle said:
I never said you were making it a black or white thing, it's just clear that you want to staunchly stick to the stance you've taken.

Based on your logic, them having guns at all made them a threat.

Not a stance, just easy to see logic that many in this thread fail to see.

He became a threat so was dealt with.

They carry guns to protect against people that have their own/reach for guns/weapons (in what form that may take).

Tummy · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:04

stulid said:
Not a stance, just easy to see logic that many in this thread fail to see.

He became a threat so was dealt with.

They carry guns to protect against people that have their own/reach for guns/weapons (in what form that may take).

That is the worrying attitude in your post.

There are ways to deal with people. In this case, one man already on the floor with several police officers, without killing him.

Wizzfizz · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:05

Awful out come really.

stulid said:
He became a threat so was dealt with.

hmmm ok.

Sliver · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:07

stulid said:
He became a threat so was dealt with.

I guess the question here is how much of a threat was he. He was on the ground surrounded by cops, he was unarmed, but did reach for an officers weapon. Was deadly force really necessary ? I feel it wasn't and I struggle to understand your position that it was.

The IPB · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:07

You seem to hold no value for the mans life, they could have dealt with him without killing him.

spoffle · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:09

stulid said:
Not a stance, just easy to see logic that many in this thread fail to see.

He became a threat so was dealt with.

They carry guns to protect against people that have their own/reach for guns/weapons (in what form that may take).

This is my point, as other have noted as well. You seem to think shooting to kill is an appropriate way to deal with a potential risk. That is a very concerning attitude to have.

Goberpiles316 · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:10

Wasn't he being tasered at the same time? Ive seen vids of real big muscle guys going down like a sack of spuds when they get tasered I am surprised they needed to shoot the guy, if you watch the video around 22-25 seconds you can hear the taser and the women saying they are still tasering him.

cheesyboy · 3 Mar 2015 at 14:10

It's also hardly fair to put someone in a situation whereby they are reasonably fearing for their life (being set upon by half a dozen officers), and failing to control the situation so badly that a gun (which the police introduced to the situation) is allowed within their grasp, and to then shoot them dead.

It's even less fair when you're dealing with someone with mental health issues (a high proportion of homeless people have some form of mental health problems, so police should be appropriately trained and aware).

This was badly handled by police, and it resulted in an unnecessary death.