Cop freed by judge,unbelievable.***Graphic Video in OP***

BlaasForRafa

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Get back to me when people start ranting about white cops shooting white criminals, there's a lot more of that happening there but that doesn't make good racist ranting posts.

You are posting on a thread about a cop shooting an innocent white person, not even a criminal. Where is the racist ranting posts here, please point them out if you wouldn't mind?

darkpagandeath

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You are posting on a thread about a cop shooting an innocent white person, not even a criminal. Where is the racist ranting posts here, please point them out if you wouldn't mind?

I think it's in relation to white cops shooting black people even though lower numbers of black people are shot by the police. This white guys shooting is pretty much going under the radar.

Arsemageddon

Here's a rather interesting article with a breakdown of figures for US police shootings so far in 2015 from The Washington Post.

The article notes that the Post's figures for the total number of fatal shootings are double the federal governments official figures. Out of 385 fatal shootings (as of 30th May) 49 were or unarmed people.

The following paragraph gives a short summary of the racial profile of shooting victims

About half the victims were white, half minority. But the demographics shifted sharply among the unarmed victims, two-thirds of whom were black or Hispanic.
Overall, blacks were killed at three times the rate of whites or other
minorities when adjusting by the population of the census tracts where the
shootings occurred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootings-in-2015-approaching-400-nationwide/2015/05/30/d322256a-058e-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

Naos

RustyNut wrote: »

Like this?

That march up in single file to the victim was like something out of Supertroopers. Poor guy, completely unwarranted.

Liamario

Sickening video, but don't blame the cop (although his care and humanity was lacking). The system is so ****ing skewed in favour of the police force and their training leaves so little to discretion, that these things are bound to happen.

Hagar7

mulbot wrote: »

The "you did the right thing" attitude is sickening,disturbing and typical of not just the cops but most Americans in general-Gun crazy psychos

It's crazy over there,I was on an American forum a few years ago and ended up being banned after I mentioned that folk in Ameirica should wise up and get rid of these guns off the streets,I was told in no uncertain terms to f--- off as I had no right whatsover to tell them what to do,then I said there's something sick about their culture when they let kids at the age of 12 learn how to use weapons.
The NRA has a lot to do with this,especially the dickhead called Charlton Heston,but the police need to train to aim below the body,mainly aim for a leg otherwise the death stats will rise and rise.

mulbot

Hagar7 wrote: »

It's crazy over there,I was on an American forum a few years ago and ended up being banned after I mentioned that folk in Ameirica should wise up and get rid of these guns off the streets,I was told in no uncertain terms to f--- off as I had no right whatsover to tell them what to do,then I said there's something sick about their culture when they let kids at the age of 12 learn how to use weapons.
The NRA has a lot to do with this,especially the dickhead called Charlton Heston,but the police need to train to aim below the body,mainly aim for a leg otherwise the death stats will rise and rise.

yep.,I have had numerous "debates" over the years when i've been there,over how they have this "right" to defend,their right to have guns,etc. It really is disturbing how Americans view these "rights",without having any logical or reasonable explanations for actions involved in any of these instances.

Hagar7

steddyeddy wrote: »

An article from the Economist on the problems of the American police. I cannot understand how people in possession of all the facts wouldn't notice there's something wrong.

Think about how white people would feel of it was black cops killing them on a regular basis,it's a scandal what's happening over there,one big giant mental asylum.

Hagar7

mulbot wrote: »

yep.,I have had numerous "debates" over the years when i've been there,over how they have this "right" to defend,their right to have guns,etc. It really is disturbing how Americans view these "rights",without having any logical or reasonable explanations for actions involved in any of these instances.

It's impossible to get through to these clowns when trying to reason with them,I actually found the women on the forum worse than the guys,why,I have no idea.
Check out this story,it's bonkers.
http://news.sky.com/story/1463807/boy-3-shoots-and-kills-one-year-old-brother

Sand

Liamario wrote: »

Sickening video, but don't blame the cop (although his care and humanity was lacking). The system is so ****ing skewed in favour of the police force and their training leaves so little to discretion, that these things are bound to happen.

Its been widely reported that 108 people were shot in Chicago, Baltimore and New York over a single weekend recently in May. None by police. That's the context in which US cops police, where taking chances can make you victim 109. If anything is inappropriate, its that policing tactics for Chicago, Baltimore and New York influence police forces outside those cities. Utah is about 60% of the population of Ireland, but had two and half times as many murders in 2014. That might inform the cop not taking chances.

The 108 shootings aren't worthy of an AH thread, but a killing by a cop which was ultimately judged as justifiable by a court is.

Egginacup

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I shed no tears for Michael Brown, but this is inexcusable.

He turned over a man in a pool of his own blood, while the officer asked him for his hands. The fella looked clinically dead in that video. I think regardless of whether or not he complied with the order to take his hands out of his pockets, that officer was shooting him either way. Probably would have "had a gun" in his pockets in the second scenario. :rolleyes:

Nice of you to not make excuses once the evidence is right in your face.

blatantrereg

Correct ruling. Reasonable doubt is there.

The papers should not misrepresent finding a reasonable doubt as the same as saying it was justified. It's just saying there is a reasonable doubt that it was unjustified.

In my opinion it was reasonable for the policeman to conclude that the victim was going for a weapon. Wrong, tragic, but reasonable.

Rayne Wooney

Can see why the cop shot him and also why he got out too, your man did himself no favours, I wouldn't be saying "no fool" to a police officer pointing a gun at me

Definitely unfortunate but not the murdering cop some in here badly want it to be

end of the road

Sand wrote: »

a killing by a cop which was ultimately judged as justifiable by a court

a court which is part of a court system in a country who has byass in favour of police officers. them finding it justifiable means nothing. there was no justification for this blatent murder

end of the road

blatantrereg wrote: »

Correct ruling. Reasonable doubt is there.

The papers should not misrepresent finding a reasonable doubt as the same as saying it was justified. It's just saying there is a reasonable doubt that it was unjustified.

In my opinion it was reasonable for the policeman to conclude that the victim was going for a weapon. Wrong, tragic, but reasonable.

not correct ruling. there were no doubts what so ever. the evidence is there for all to see

end of the road

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Can see why the cop shot him

there were no excuses for this

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

your man did himself no favours

rubbish. doesn't matter one bit. no matter what he did he was being shot

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I wouldn't be saying "no fool" to a police officer pointing a gun at me

why not. you should be able to speak to a cop without being shot just because.

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Definitely unfortunate but not the murdering cop some in here badly want it to be

not "unfortunate" an act of pure cold blooded murder. definitely the murdering cop that the vidio shows. the amount of people here making excuses for this is shocking TBH. there was no excuse for this, and hopefully this cop will have no option but to leave the force, as his sort aren't needed.

Bongalongherb

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Can see why the cop shot him and also why he got out too, your man did himself no favours, I wouldn't be saying "no fool" to a police officer pointing a gun at me

Definitely unfortunate but not the murdering cop some in here badly want it to be

There is a saying, that a person who thinks they live and see 'everything' clearly in a visually colourful stable reality is incorrect as it seems.

You see a separate false reality, while the majority see the real reality of the murder.

Kirby

That was murder. Being a police officer doesnt change that. He should be in prison right now.

blatantrereg

No, he's supposed to shoot if he perceives a threat. It is reasonable to think he might have perceived that the suspect was going for a weapon.

Just doesn't make sense for the suspect to defy instructions and the keep his hands down his pants unless he was going for a gun. Only a total idiot doesn't show their hands if a policeman is pointing a gun at them. You can watch this in the context of "horrific police shooting video". Your perception won't reflect the policeman's context, which was probably something closer to "I need to arrest this scumbag with a gun".

Not making any excuses, nor have I any reason to. Just applying objective judgement.

mulbot

blatantrereg wrote: »

No, he's supposed to shoot if he perceives a threat. It is reasonable to think he might have perceived that the suspect was going for a weapon.

Just doesn't make sense for the suspect to defy instructions and the keep his hands down his pants unless he was going for a gun. Only a total idiot doesn't show their hands if a policeman is pointing a gun at them. You can watch this in the context of "horrific police shooting video". Your perception won't reflect the policeman's context, which was probably something closer to "I need to arrest this scumbag with a gun".

Not making any excuses, nor have I any reason to. Just applying objective judgement.

You cannot say how you or anyone else would react to the shock of turning around to seeing two guns being pointed in your face-sensory overload can happen.

blatantrereg

mulbot wrote: »

You cannot say how you or anyone else would react to the shock of turning around to seeing two guns being pointed in your face-sensory overload can happen.

Whatever. The point is you cannot say the policeman could not have thought he was going for a gun.

crybaby

Peruzzi wrote: »

It really p1ssed me off seeing the police officer putting handcuffs on him. Seeing the poor lad in agony struggling for breath while having handcuffs put on him really really angers me.

Greatest country in the world and the land of freedom

mulbot

blatantrereg wrote: »

Whatever. The point is you cannot say the policeman could not have thought he was going for a gun.

So then using that logic,any cop in any circumstance can say the same to justify murdering someone-and it looks like it already has become their excuse of choice

blatantrereg

Peruzzi wrote: »

I don't know how he could shoot a man who was just walking away, I could never do that unless I knew there was an actual threat.

He wasn't just walking away though. He looked like he was getting a gun out.

Most people would prefer to shoot someone they thought was likely to shoot them before actually seeing the gun. If you're legally allowed to shoot at perceived threats - and American police are legally allowed to do so - then you will. Why risk your life unecessarily?

If I had to shoot I'd aim for the legs.

why? Someone shot in the legs can still fire a weapon themselves. More to the point, you are more likely to miss. They are trainer to shoot to stop. That means firing at the centre of the target, for the highest chance of stopping them.

Gun ownership needs to be bAnne over there, it's ridiculous.

Absolutely agree

Canis Lupus

Peruzzi wrote: »

It really p1ssed me off seeing the police officer putting handcuffs on him. Seeing the poor lad in agony struggling for breath while having handcuffs put on him really really angers me.

I don't know how he could shoot a man who was just walking away, I could never do that unless I knew there was an actual threat.

If I had to shoot I'd aim for the legs.

Gun ownership needs to be bAnne over there, it's ridiculous.

You have to secure the person first. No idea if he had a gun or not.

If you were a police officer in the US you'd have shot centre mass as what happened here.

Kirby

blatantrereg wrote: »

No, he's supposed to shoot if he perceives a threat. It is reasonable to think he might have perceived that the suspect was going for a weapon.

Just doesn't make sense for the suspect to defy instructions and the keep his hands down his pants unless he was going for a gun. Only a total idiot doesn't show their hands if a policeman is pointing a gun at them. You can watch this in the context of "horrific police shooting video". Your perception won't reflect the policeman's context, which was probably something closer to "I need to arrest this scumbag with a gun".
Not making any excuses, nor have I any reason to. Just applying objective judgement.

Where was his gun? Did he have one? Can you see it? No? Better shoot him to be safe!

Sorry, this is complete nonsense. "Perceived" threat is not actual threat. You shoot an actual threat. This guy was unarmed and walking away. How very threatening.

Canis Lupus

Kirby wrote: »

Where was his gun? Did he have one? Can you see it? No? Better shoot him to be safe!

Sorry, this is complete nonsense. "Perceived" threat is not actual threat. You shoot an actual threat. This guy was unarmed and walking away. How very threatening.

The guy turned, walked several paces backwards looking at a police officer with a gun pointing at him. He then rapidly moves his hands from his waistband (and imo in a way that suggested he'd pulled a weapon). I'm sure in your lala land giving someone the potential chance to shoot you is fine but I'd probably side with the cop and say it's a fair call to take the shot.

blatantrereg

Kirby wrote: »

Where was his gun? Did he have one? Can you see it? No? Better shoot him to be safe!

Sorry, this is complete nonsense. "Perceived" threat is not actual threat. You shoot an actual threat. This guy was unarmed and walking away. How very threatening.

Perceived threat is all that is required for the policeman to legally shoot him. If you think that's nonsense then you disagree with the law, but that doesn't mean the policeman violated it.

MathDebater

Peruzzi wrote: »

Gun ownership needs to be bAnne over there, it's ridiculous.

Try and ban guns over there and the place would absolutely erupt. A huge number of Americans see it as their fundamental right to own arms. I don't think it will ever change.

ThinkProgress

Alicia Fierce Luggage wrote: »

Taking context into account it's more a damning indictment of gun culture in the states than the individual cop I think. How many hundreds of young men are going to die over that completely fcuked situation in the coming decades, it's relentless.

They might kill a few females too.

Fox Mulder

Why didn't the officer try to give any medical help to the man after he shot him. He handcuffs him, searches him and says its all clear. At this point you would think he would start to try to stop the bleeding. But he just stands there for about a minute and then begins to search him again. Its only after almost two minutes does he take out a bandage and seem to make any attempt to save the man's life.

mulbot

Fox Mulder wrote: »

Why didn't the officer try to give any medical help to the man after he shot him. He handcuffs him, searches him and says its all clear. At this point you would think he would start to try to stop the bleeding. But he just stands there for about a minute and then begins to search him again. Its only after almost two minutes does he take out a bandage and seem to make any attempt to save the man's life.

Because he is a complete and utter c**t

blatantrereg

mulbot wrote: »

So then using that logic,any cop in any circumstance can say the same to justify murdering someone-and it looks like it already has become their excuse of choice

Yes. If it's reasonable to think it might be true then they should not be found guilty of murder, regardless of what is more likely, or what you believe yourself.

I didn't think there was a reasonable doubt that Walter Scott was murdered. He was running away. Can't reasonably claim you thought he was gong to shoot you when he's just running away. But this case is entirely different.

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

Because he is a complete and utter c**t

Or he was hesitant to touch some random dude covered in blood?

Would you be quick to get someone else's blood all over you, when your head is telling you this guy is some low life drug dealer/ gang banger/pimp etc?

We don't know the full back story to this. The anti gun lobby people in the US are totally scewing these incidents to look like meaningless trigger happy killings.

It's quite often the agenda that dictates how they're reported.

mulbot

blatantrereg wrote: »

Yes. If it's reasonable to think it might be true then they should not be found guilty of murder, regardless of what is more likely, or what you believe yourself.

I didn't think there was a reasonable doubt that Walter Scott was murdered. He was running away. Can't reasonably claim you thought he was gong to shoot you when he's just running away. But this case is entirely different.

Well perhaps the fact that the cop didn't administer any first aid would challenge claims in this case

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Or he was hesitant to touch some random dude covered in blood?

Would you be quick to get someone else's blood all over you, when your head is telling you this guy is some low life drug dealer/ gang banger/pimp etc?

We don't know the full back story to this. The anti gun lobby people in the US are totally scewing these incidents to look like meaningless trigger happy killings.

It's quite often the agenda that dictates how they're reported.

Aren't cops required to administer first aid? Whatever the background,the incident that took place is all that matters

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

Aren't cops required to administer first aid? Whatever the background,the incident that took place is all that matters

In his head, he just shot the bad guy... So why would he work tirelessly to save the man's life?

He did make 'some' effort, so he can't be accused of neglect of duties.

I'm sure if that was some innocent person caught in the line of fire, he would have tried much harder.

Like I said, we don't know the full story here. If that cop thought he was some low life criminal, then why work your butt off to save his life?

In some countries they wouldn't call an ambulance. They'd just put a few more bullets in them!

Captain Chaos

Peruzzi wrote: »

The police exist to serve the public, I think they should accept slight risk to their lives and shoot someone in the legs rather than shooting to kill if their is no immediate threat to the public. They are paid to serve the public

They are also trained to shoot centre mass at all times, even elite units that shoot every day. A cop might re-qualify with his gun once a year at most. They are not at a range every day shooting.

Only the movies have people being targeted in the legs.

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

In his head, he just shot the bad guy... So why would he work tirelessly to save the man's life?

He did make 'some' effort, so he can't be accused of neglect of duties.

I'm sure if that was some innocent person caught in the line of fire, he would have tried much harder.

Like I said, we don't know the full story here. If that cop thought he was some low life criminal, then why work your butt off to save his life?

In some countries they wouldn't call an ambulance. They'd just put a few more bullets in them!

Maybe this is the full story,it's procedure to give first aid,he didn't make any effort- it's just this military type attitude drilled into the americans

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

Maybe this is the full story,it's procedure to give first aid,he didn't make any effort- it's just this military type attitude drilled into the americans

He did make 'some' effort to stop the blood. And they called an ambulance... So he did his duties, which is obviously why the judge "let him free".

There was good reason to believe the man was a threat, so they shot him.

You don't work your butt off to save the life of someone you consider to be a low life criminal... I wouldn't. Would you?

RustyNut

ThinkProgress wrote: »

In his head, he just shot the bad guy... So why would he work tirelessly to save the man's life?

In case he had just made a mistake.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I'm sure if that was some innocent person caught in the line of fire, he would have tried much harder.

In this case it was an innocent person.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Like I said, we don't know the full story here. If that cop thought he was some low life criminal, then why work your butt off to save his life?

Because that's his duty.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

In some countries they wouldn't call an ambulance. They'd just put a few more bullets in them!

Would that have made the victim in this case more dead?

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He did make 'some' effort to stop the blood. And they called an ambulance... So he did his duties, which is obviously why the judge "let him free".

There was good reason to believe the man was a threat, so they shot him.

You don't work your butt off to save the life of someone you consider to be a low life criminal... I wouldn't. Would you?

Rustynut summed it up there-It's like i said earlier,american cops are now using this "perceived threat" as an excuse,and hiding behind a badge and uniform to act like thugs,

ThinkProgress

RustyNut wrote: »

In case he had just made a mistake.




In this case it was an innocent person.




Because that's his duty.




Would that have made the victim in this case more dead?

From everything I've watched and read, this young man displayed all the typical signs of someone concealing a weapon.

He even raised his t-shirt up in a manner like someone preparing to draw a gun. (And he was a perfect match for the description of the man seen waving a gun earlier)

When the cops arrived, the victim and his friends were causing a disturbance in the area.

The guy clearly heard and seen the cop, but continued to walk away.

It's unfortunate, but this guy clearly and foolishly caused his own death.

The cops did the bare minimum to help save his life. Call an ambulance!

They acted correctly.

Just because this guy probably threw his gun in a dumpster when the cops came, doesn't mean he's some angel like the media wants to paint him!

I can't see anything the cops did wrong here. They did their job correctly. To the letter!

RustyNut

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The cops did the bare minimum to help save his life. Call an ambulance!

That alone should lead to charges.

NachoBusiness

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He even raised his t-shirt up in a manner like someone preparing to draw a gun.

Or.........he raised his t-shirt in a manner of someone attempting to show that they do not have a gun.

ThinkProgress

RustyNut wrote: »

That alone should lead to charges.

Whenever an incident like this occurs, all the do-gooders crawl out of the woodwork claiming some angel just got murdered by a crazy trigger happy cop!

That's very rarely the case in these incidents.

Just because he was unarmed, doesn't mean he was some angel just out for a quiet evening stroll with his buddies! lol

But that's the picture many people are trying to paint here.

Even though everybody knows that's more than likely complete bs!

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Whenever an incident like this occurs, all the do-gooders crawl out of the woodwork claiming some angel just got murdered by a crazy trigger happy cop!

That's very rarely the case in these incidents.

Just because he was unarmed, doesn't mean he was some angel just out for a quiet evening stroll with his buddies! lol

But that's the picture many people are trying to paint here.

Even though everybody knows that's more than likely complete bs!

It doesn't matter what he was or wasn't. We get a clear viewof the incident here,from the moment the car pulls up,we can clearly see there is no weapon,but we see the military like execution of a person by cops,hiding behind badges and excuses ("perceived threat":rolleyes:) that is becoming more common and accepted in America,and now even up here in Canada

Pumpkinseeds

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You are posting on a thread about a cop shooting an innocent white person, not even a criminal. Where is the racist ranting posts here, please point them out if you wouldn't mind?

Oops, I didn't bother watching the video as it's usually a load of people whining about a cop shooting a black person which is frankly tedious at this point. Rabble rabble rabble someone in America gets shot by a cop, so fricking what, there are far more important things going on in the world.

karma_

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Whenever an incident like this occurs, all the do-gooders crawl out of the woodwork claiming some angel just got murdered by a crazy trigger happy cop!

That's very rarely the case in these incidents.

Just because he was unarmed, doesn't mean he was some angel just out for a quiet evening stroll with his buddies! lol

But that's the picture many people are trying to paint here.

Even though everybody knows that's more than likely complete bs!

With an opinion like this, your username is the most delightful irony I've seen this week.

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

It doesn't matter what he was or wasn't. We get a clear viewof the incident here,from the moment the car pulls up,we can clearly see there is no weapon,but we see the military like execution of a person by cops,hiding behind badges and excuses ("perceived threat":rolleyes:) that is becoming more common and accepted in America,and now even up here in Canada

He displayed all the signs of someone concealing a weapon. (In accordance with their training)

Refused to stop walking away.

Matched the description of a man seen with a gun earlier.

Made movements that appeared like he was reaching for a gun.

Clear cut case here.

He stupidly caused his own death.

Cop did his job correctly. The cops don't make the rules or procedures, they just follow them.

It's not pretty to watch, but the cops did their job here.

Stupid kid.