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

mulbot

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

Such as?

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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.

Have you considered the fact that it might be extremely shocking and confusing to turn around to two guns being pointed at you?

What are the "signs" of someone concealing a gun?In your expert opinion

Was asked to take his hands out,which he did-

Eugene Norman

mulbot wrote: »

Such as?

Such as killings in Mexico, violence in North Africa, the Middle East and on and on. There was a mafia killing of a politician in Italy today.

The sheer fcuking obsession in this country with the U.S. Is beyond belief. The "left" and the "right" repeat CNN and Fox News sound bites and argue as if they were living in the U.S.

Eugene Norman

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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!

And back in the real world you live in rather than the internet you pick your "cop rules" up from, the unarmed cops in this country would have done nothing when this guy turned around. Number of killings by cop per year rounds down to zero.

mulbot

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Such as killings in Mexico, violence in North Africa, the Middle East and on and on. There was a mafia killing of a politician in Italy today.

The sheer fcuking obsession in this country with the U.S. Is beyond belief. The "left" and the "right" repeat CNN and Fox News sound bites and argue as if they were living in the U.S.

Well i think people looking at the state of the US is because it's supposed to be a "free" country, you are supposed to have rights etc,it earmarks itself as a role model around the world for peace etc(oh the irony),yet you have this kind of thing becoming more and more frequent and accepted there

Kenny Logins

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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.

So it was judge, jury and executioner all in one? That's very efficient.

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

Have you considered the fact that it might be extremely shocking and confusing to turn around to two guns being pointed at you?

What are the "signs" of someone concealing a gun?In your expert opinion

Was asked to take his hands out,which he did-

You're right man. I'm wrong... He's just some angel kid, out for an evening stroll with his fellow angel buddies! lol

And the person who called the cops, did so because he dislikes nice quiet young men going for peaceful evening strolls!

Some people will make all the excuses in the world for the victim here. But would happily see a cop go to prison even though he followed all the correct procedures!

Believe what you want man... If you wanna believe this dude was some angel, murdered by the cops - that's your prerogative.. But my eyes are open here!

Vast majority of cops are just following procedures trying to do their jobs and protect innocent vulnerable people!

Some delusional people think they are all murdering scum. Ridiculous!

These cops followed procedures and did nothing wrong!

That kid killed himself through stupidity IMO!

The world will not miss one more idiot/drug dealer/gangbanger etc. (there's millions more to replace him)

Dan_Solo

I guess when cops get shot dead we can call them idiots too and "suicide by criminal". Asking to be shot being so stupid those cops aren't they?

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You're right man. I'm wrong... He's just some angel kid, out for an evening stroll with his fellow angel buddies! lol

And the person who called the cops, did so because he dislikes nice quiet young men going for peaceful evening strolls!

Some people will make all the excuses in the world for the victim here. But would happily see a cop go to prison even though he followed all the correct procedures!

Believe what you want man... If you wanna believe this dude was some angel, murdered by the cops - that's your prerogative.. But my eyes are open here!

Vast majority of cops are just following procedures trying to do their jobs and protect innocent vulnerable people!

Some delusional people think they are all murdering scum. Ridiculous!

These cops followed procedures and did nothing wrong!

That kid killed himself through stupidity IMO!

The world will not miss one more idiot/drug dealer/gangbanger etc. (there's millions more to replace him)

Maybe procedure needs changing,maybe cops need to have some degree of discretion in each situation,instead of the American,military gung ho attitude. I don't care if he was some scum,you can't say or see from this that he was or wasn't.

ThinkProgress

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I guess when cops get shot dead we can call them idiots too and "suicide by criminal". Asking to be shot being so stupid those cops aren't they?

Literally have no idea what you're trying to say here? You're making no sense!? lol

Dan_Solo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Literally have no idea what you're trying to say here? You're making no sense!? lol

Smaller words or shorter sentences? Both?

Dan_Solo

Tellingly not a single one of the psycho-cop apologists can make even the first suggestion what this kid could have done to avoid being murdered. Not have hands? Not wear trousers? Not "look like a criminal"? Move his hands faster, slower?
Not one single suggestion.

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

Maybe procedure needs changing,maybe cops need to have some degree of discretion in each situation,instead of the American,military gung ho attitude. I don't care if he was some scum,you can't say or see from this that he was or wasn't.

And you know nothing about the cop. Other than the fact he followed procedures correctly.

Yet you're quicker to paint the cop as a criminal.

Which person do think is more likely to be engaging in criminality in this situation?

I'm not saying you don't get some nasty cops too. But lately everybody seems to want all cops painted with the same brush, just because a small minority abuse their power!

That's a stupid way of viewing all law inforcement IMO.

ThinkProgress

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Tellingly not a single one of the psycho-cop apologists can make even the first suggestion what this kid could have done to avoid being murdered. Not have hands? Not wear trousers? Not "look like a criminal"? Move his hands faster, slower?
Not one single suggestion.

Stand still with his hands in the air. Don't turn your back and walk away?

Might be a good start!

Dan_Solo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Which person do think is more likely to be engaging in criminality in this situation?

The cop obviously. He's the maniac shooting people to death randomly. Yes, definitely the cop.

Dan_Solo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Stand still with his hands in the air. Don't turn your back and walk away?

Might be a good start!

He went to put his hands in the air and got shot for doing as he was ordered.
Want to try again?

Kenny Logins

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And you know nothing about the cop. Other than the fact he followed procedures correctly.

Yet you're quicker to paint the cop as a criminal.

Which person do think is more likely to be engaging in criminality in this situation?

I'm not saying you don't get some nasty cops too. But lately everybody seems to want all cops painted with the same brush, just because a small minority abuse their power!

That's a stupid way of viewing all law inforcement IMO.

Are they trained to shoot to kill though? TBF, the lad did look like he could have had a weapon, but a bullet to the arm would have sorted that, no?

Witcher

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Are they trained to shoot to kill though? TBF, the lad did look like he could have had a weapon, but a bullet to the arm would have sorted that, no?

No police force shoots for extremities, too easy to miss.

ThinkProgress

Dan_Solo wrote: »

He went to put his hands in the air and got shot for doing as he was ordered.
Want to try again?

No he didn't. He had his hands down his pants, and he then reached under his t-shirt like he was reaching for a fire arm! ( the exact signs the cops are trained to recognise)

You try again!

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Stand still with his hands in the air. Don't turn your back and walk away?

Might be a good start!

He didn't turn his back and walk away,he turned to face the cops

mulbot

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And you know nothing about the cop. Other than the fact he followed procedures correctly.

Yet you're quicker to paint the cop as a criminal.

Which person do think is more likely to be engaging in criminality in this situation?

I'm not saying you don't get some nasty cops too. But lately everybody seems to want all cops painted with the same brush, just because a small minority abuse their power!

That's a stupid way of viewing all law inforcement IMO.

And you know nothing about the guy that was killed-I don't view all law enforcement that way,you don't see that military attitude as prevalent in other countries police forces,shooting statistics will show that

Also,i know a (retired) captain from a vice squad in milwaukee who told me in over 30 years he never once had to point his weapon at anyone-drew it from holster yes,but never pointed-that bwill tell you something about the way American law has changed,recruiting this military type attitude

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

He didn't turn his back and walk away,he turned to face the cops

Only AFTER he had initially tried to walk away!

Witcher

mulbot wrote: »

Also,i know a (retired) captain from a vice squad in milwaukee who told me in over 30 years he never once had to point his weapon at anyone-drew it from holster yes,but never pointed-that bwill tell you something about the way American law has changed,recruiting this military type attitude

Sounds like something out of Magnum Force;

Lieutenant Briggs : I never had to take my gun out of its holster once. I'm proud of that.

Harry Callahan : Well, you're a good man, lieutenant.
A good man always knows his limitations.

ThinkProgress

mulbot wrote: »

And you know nothing about the guy that was killed-I don't view all law enforcement that way,you don't see that military attitude as prevalent in other countries police forces,shooting statistics will show that

Also,i know a (retired) captain from a vice squad in milwaukee who told me in over 30 years he never once had to point his weapon at anyone-drew it from holster yes,but never pointed-that bwill tell you something about the way American law has changed,recruiting this military type attitude

That's funny, many police forces are semi-military organisations.

Look at Mexican or Brazilian police forces... They look no different to military.

Even some european forces too.

The big difference in a place like the US is that the civilians are often better armed than law enforcement.

Make no mistake, in some areas it's basically like a war. If you wait to see the gun... You might not make it back to your family that night.

This kid acted stupidly and got himself killed as a result.

RustyNut

ThinkProgress wrote: »

That's funny, many police forces are semi-military organisations.

Look at Mexican or Brazilian police forces... They look no different to military.

Even some european forces too.

The big difference in a place like the US is that the civilians are often better armed than law enforcement.

Make no mistake, in some areas it's basically like a war. If you wait to see the gun... You might not make it back to your family that night.

This kid acted stupidly and got himself killed as a result.

Just to be clear, in your opinion its ok for a cop to shoot someone who has done nothing wrong and just let him bleed out on the ground after the shooting without making every reasonable effort to save the innocent person then blame the victim and call them stupid?

Anything you say officer.
:P:confused::pac::p;):D:):rolleyes::o:eek::(:mad::cool:

Witcher

Peruzzi wrote: »

It would be better if they aimed for the legs rather than kill him. It reduces the risk of killing innocent people.

Again, no police force in the world shoots for arms, legs etc.

salamanca22

Peruzzi wrote: »

It would be better if they aimed for the legs rather than kill him. It reduces the risk of killing innocent people.

No it wouldn't, aiming for extremities except for the most trained marksmen is a terrible strategy. It is not as easy as pointing and shooting and always hitting your mark, you would miss most of the time depending on where you are if aiming for the legs, especially if a person is moving. Also, if you miss and are aiming downwards at an angle you can be sure there will be ricochet which might kill someone anyway.

The best thing to do is to aim for the largest targest, which is the torso.

Witcher

Peruzzi wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that that's what they should do.

No they shouldn't, it's contrary to good markmanship..it would be incredibly easy to miss.

Anyone who suggests shooting people in the legs etc. has never fired a pistol at any serious level or they would now how difficult it is.

ThinkProgress

RustyNut wrote: »

Just to be clear, in your opinion its ok for a cop to shoot someone who has done nothing wrong and just let him bleed out on the ground after the shooting without making every reasonable effort to save the innocent person then blame the victim and call them stupid?

Anything you say officer.
:P:confused::pac::p;):D:):rolleyes::o:eek::(:mad::cool:

Clear as mud... lol

If you act guilty, you can't expect to be treated like you're innocent.

And they called an ambulance straight away. So they followed procedures correctly!

Job done!

Dan_Solo

Peruzzi wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that that's what they should do.

The way these cops are trained, they'd have to aim for the torso or the might shoot their own mother by accident.

RustyNut

Strider wrote: »

Again, no police force in the world shoots for arms, legs etc.

Really

salamanca22

Peruzzi wrote: »

The cop in the video could have easily hit the legs.

Again, it's not as easy as pointing and shooting and always hitting the mark. If you shoot at the leg you are going to miss most of the time. Look at the video just posted above and see how many times the officers shot before hitting their mark.

Also, shoot an armed or suspected armed person in the leg and what is going to happen? They are not disarmed and could just shoot back. Shooting the torso will more often than not disable the mark, for the safety of the officers and any bystanders.

Witcher

RustyNut wrote: »

Really

Video contains no proof that they intentionally shot him in the leg, pure chance that they did. Given their poor accuracy when they fired two rounds at him when he was standing about 15 yards away and missed, I'm going out on a limb and saying hitting him in the leg when he ran was blind luck.

The fact that it took them 15 or so rounds to actually hit him in the leg, intentional or not, tells you all you need to know about how difficult it is and why it's not done as standard practice.

mynamejeff

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58287556-78/taylor-lake-police-salt.html.csp

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31104149


a suicidal gang member with warrants for his arrest and a significant criminal history and a brother who doesnt tell the truth .

not that any one would care to look at some evidence

Dan_Solo

mynamejeff wrote: »

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58287556-78/taylor-lake-police-salt.html.csp

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31104149


a suicidal gang member with warrants for his arrest and a significant criminal history and a brother who doesnt tell the truth .

not that any one would care to look at some evidence

You're right they wouldn't when none of this is relevant to him getting shot by a psycho cop.
Unless your new theory is they were trying to arrest him for those warrants? Go on, you know you want to.

Reoil

Right so, AH is the front page of Reddit now?

Sand

In terms of shooting people in the leg, they need to go back and look at the videos of the end of the siege of that deli in Paris in January this year. A half dozen cops repeatedly shooting at a target no more than 4 or 5 meters away and the guy kept coming. There is a perception that a person gets shot once and they immediately fall down and are immediately no longer a threat, just like in the movies. Its not reality.

There is also a bizarre perception that shooting someone in the leg is somehow safe. The leg contains the femoral artery - if that is even nicked, the person bleeds out and dies in a matter of minutes, before any ambulance arrives. If a bullet enters a persons body and glances of a bone in the leg then it can go anywhere. You should never shoot someone on the assumption its non-lethal or less-lethal. You should only shoot someone you intend to kill, when they have taken actions that justify that decision.

The court examined all the actions in this case and determined that the decision to shoot was justified based on the factors in the case. Its unfortunate for the victim and his family, but the decision to shoot was valid.

Little CuChulainn

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Are they trained to shoot to kill though? TBF, the lad did look like he could have had a weapon, but a bullet to the arm would have sorted that, no?

Peruzzi wrote: »

The cop in the video could have easily hit the legs.

If a cop makes the decision to shoot someone they have decided that the person poses a threat to them or others. Shooting them in the arm or leg is not only difficult but it does not eliminate the threat. They shoot centre mass, the easiest target and most efficient way to ensure they will go down.

Sand

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If a cop makes the decision to shoot someone they have decided that the person poses a threat to them or others. Shooting them in the arm or leg is not only difficult but it does not eliminate the threat. They shoot centre mass, the easiest target and most efficient way to ensure they will go down.

Yep, and if they miss the target the bullet keeps travelling. Risking missing the target means risking hitting some bystander.

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

Yep, and if they miss the target the bullet keeps travelling. Risking missing the target means risking hitting some bystander.

I thought the objective was to shoot innocent bystanders...

Little CuChulainn

Quite relevant to the video. A description of his previous robbery.

Taylor's co-defendant stole a case of beer at a 7-Eleven at 2700 S. Adams St. (450 East). When the clerk followed him to a car, Taylor placed a hand into his waistband and told the man, "Don't be a hero ... or I'll ... shoot you," according to court documents.

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Quite relevant to the video..

Not at all relevant. The cops has no idea who he was or his previous when they shot him. Are you going to pretend now they did? I wonder why you'd like to do that?

mulbot

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Quite relevant to the video. A description of his previous robbery.

no relevance whatsoever to this case-

Little CuChulainn

mulbot wrote: »

no relevance whatsoever to this case-

You think the fact that he previously threatened someone by putting his hand to his waistband and saying he had a gun and would shoot them would not give a cop cause to think he may have a gun in his waistband?

mulbot

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You think the fact that he previously threatened someone by putting his hand to his waistband and saying he had a gun and would shoot them would not give a cop cause to think he may have a gun in his waistband?

So are you saying that the cop knew who he was

ThinkProgress

Peruzzi wrote: »

No you should not only shoot someone you intend to kill, shooting in the leg is less likely to kill someone. It's not a black and white scenario, there are trade offs to consider. The cop in the video had a chance to shoot the victim in the leg, if he then went to grab something out of hi pocket urgently it would be reasonable to shoot him again to fully incapacitate him.

He's already explained how difficult it can be to aim for an extremity like someone's leg.

Go out hunting some time, and try to tag an animal in it's leg... VERY difficult.

We live in a world where the bad guy doesn't care about a cop's life or his family. Why should the cop have to wait until he has a gun pointed at him to take action?

If he considers a person to be acting in a manner that suggests danger or a threat he has the right to use force, based on years of training!

If you think someone is going to punch you in the face, do you wait until they're swinging their knuckles in the direction of your skull? Or do you take action before they do?

Little CuChulainn

mulbot wrote: »

So are you saying that the cop knew who he was

I think it's very likely as he was wanted on warrant and had a history of armed robbery and obstructing arrest, as did his brother.

mulbot

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think it's very likely as he was wanted on warrant and had a history of armed robbery and obstructing arrest, as did his brother.

Now your going to presumptions of your own-it never said anywhere that it was this guy,the cops responded to a call,nothing else. You cannot say that the cop more than likely knew,it has not been a factor,so no,touching his pants because he did it in another instance has no relevance

blatantrereg

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Go out hunting some time, and try to tag an animal in it's leg... VERY difficult.

What kind of person shoots animals' legs?

Dan_Solo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think it's very likely

Translation: I guess.