Indeed.
Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Indeed.
I think the actual policy is to shoot at stuff if you don't like it until it stops doing stuff you don't like.
So how would you deal with it? talking to him? buy him flowers? oh wait too late he has already shot you.
As I already said , they tried nightsticks first it seems, so didn't go straight for the more lethal gun solution immediately, they have split seconds to make a decision.
What a great demonstration of Reductio ad absurdum.
What an absolutely ridiculous, irrational retort. He at no point in that video had a weapon in his possession.
No, with that many police officers involved, with other options open to them, they could have dealt with him without the loss of life.
It was a horrible, tragic and totally avoidable death.
To suggest that he was 'dealt with', shows a worrying lack of empathy and understanding.
There were 4 police on that man, the man whose gun is being reached for use both hands to secure your weapon, another officer can assist by controlling the arm reaching for it.
Still leaves 2 officers to restrain the man.
I would rather have seen one of the officers kick the man in the head and knock him out cold rather than shoot him, still way more reasonable force than 5 bullets.
What do they even mean?
That aside, you're essentially saying that he was "dealt with how he deserved it".
You deal with trash, not human lives. Your response is incredibly hollow and extremely lacking in empathy.
The guy's actions did not at any point warrant his life being taken from him.
I am quite happy that you're in the minority in regards to 'dealing' (killing) with this unarmed man.
Several police officers had the man on the ground, he was unarmed. The police had more options open to them, they made the wrong decision.
Reaching/having his hand on a gun does (again that's why he is told 4-5 times to drop the gun).
What do they do? wait to see what he does with said weapon and then act after its too late.
So why is the officer still within range of him then? There was plenty of space and there were 4 of them on him. They didn't need to act the way they did. It was very clear they intended to kill him with the order the shots were fired in.
I find it quite disturbing how you're grasping so hard at trying to justify it as if it's okay "because he tried to grab the gun". It's sad that you think that warrants him losing his life.
They are within range as they were trying to arrest him and subdue him, it doesn't take much to slip an arm and reach for something within range.
The witness report in the above posted video says Tazers were also used, so again a less lethal method was attempted.
I am not grasping at anything, just calling it as I have seen it. If you think that is somehow disturbing then you need to take the blinkers off and look at the world more.
If you were drunk, and grabbed at a police officers gun because of a stupid drunken action, you're saying it's perfectly ok for that officer to execute you?
There were more options available to those officers, the officer for whom allegedly had the man reach for his weapon specifically, made the wrong decisions.
Yes because multiple police officers executing an unarmed man in the middle of the day is acceptable the world over.
Lawdy lawd. If anyone has blinkers on it's you.
They shot him AS they were tazering him. There were 4 of them, it really didn't need to end the way it did. As others have already said anyway, the fact that they were all armed with guns in the first place is what caused the threat level to increase.
It's like a text book case of irony, the guns they have there to provide protection has caused the very thing they're supposedly there to stop.
The real issue that you aren't looking at is the police themselves caused the threat, guns were not necessary to deal with what looks like a crazy homeless man acting crazy.
You're simplifying the whole issue down to "he had hold of the gun, so they had to shoot him, so that's ok". The story didn't start at the point he grasped the officer's gun.
The tragedy is that he was no threat to the police or public until the officers' actions made him so. They were in the position of power and responsibility when dealing with this man. They ****ed it up and pushed him (through incompetence, rather than malice. probably) into a situation where it was "ok" to kill him.
That's why it wasn't, in fact, acceptable for this to happen. Failing to see that is severely lacking in deep thinking.
The officers were clearly massively incompetent if 5 of them couldn't control one man.
They are equipped such that you shouldn't be able to grab a gun off them in the middle of a scuffle (I believe their holsters are designed to avoid this very scenario).
Apparently the man was mentally ill and homeless. It's like a microcosm of everything that is wrong in America!
They are equipped such that you shouldn't be able to grab a gun off them in the middle of a scuffle (I believe their holsters are designed to avoid this very scenario).
Apparently the man was mentally ill and homeless. It's like a microcosm of everything that is wrong in America!