Police Shoot Unarmed Man With His Hands Up

[Taylor]

What cop, as part of his regular beat equipment, is strapping a fully automatic M-16 to their body? None.

Dunno... but the article says the man was shot by a rifle (whereas the officers shown in the video have pistols drawn).

 

[apdst]

Well, here are some reasons why I think cops should be required to wear body cameras:

1. The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see.

2. Use of the cameras while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations. And seeing things from the officers perspective goes a long way.

3. Video recorded by body cameras protects officers from any false accusations of misconduct or abuse.

4. Bodycams will increase the transparency and accountability of officers.

5. It can help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.

6. It can provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.

7. Video footage captured by officers may help to speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of certain situations.

Then, after the cameras prove that even more officer involves shootings are justified the activists will demand the cameras be abolished.

 

[Texmex]

We don't know exactly what happened. The cop obviously had his gun drawn and was pointing it at the guy on the ground because that's what cops are supposed to do when they feel like the person is a threat. The question is why he fired the gun -- "because he hates XYZ people" isn't the only conclusion that can be made. It COULD be the conclusion, but we don't know that for sure.

There is no definite WHY until an investigation is done and we know all the facts.

When it is a cop that is killed you folk don't mind rushing to judgment.

 

[Lutherf]

Well, here are some reasons why I think cops should be required to wear body cameras:

1. The necessity to record every interaction with residents is bound to minimize complaints about police officer behavior and the unnecessary use of force, because interactions are captured for everyone to see.

2. Use of the cameras while on-duty provides hard video evidence of decisions made by officers in high intensity situations. And seeing things from the officers perspective goes a long way.

3. Video recorded by body cameras protects officers from any false accusations of misconduct or abuse.

4. Bodycams will increase the transparency and accountability of officers.

5. It can help prevent and de-escalate confrontational situations between officers and civilians.

6. It can provide valuable evidence in obtaining accurate witness and victim statements.

7. Video footage captured by officers may help to speed up court proceedings by providing indisputable proof of certain situations.

Those are all good reasons to use cameras but you might notice that all your replies involve analysis after the fact. If we're going to use cameras to actually reduce the probability of a bad situation then the video also needs to be used as a training tool for BOTH police and the general public. People need to understand how their actions are being perceived by the cops too. In many of the "excessive force" complaints we see the person being engaged isn't being compliant with the cops and doesn't know why the cops are there. The public, like the cops, need to understand that their perception of what's happening may not be the same as the perspective of the party they're dealing with.

My fear is that camera footage will be used more to drive political agendas than it will to actually reduce crime.

 

[apdst]

And if this were somehow a fully automatic (doubt it), we see why they shouldn't be issued fully automatic weapons.

But I highly doubt some cop on his regular patrol is carrying around fully automatic weapons.

It's illegal for a cop to shoot someone with an automatic weapon.

 

[Ikari]

They carry them in the trunk of the car and get them out at a gun incident. They were advised that this was a man with a gun incident on the radio.

Hmm, seems to be stretching. There is no reason to be equipping police with fully automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons are not the norm even now. Police have, at best, semi-automatic rifles hanging out. I don't buy the "fully automatic" excuse, it's too far out of left field.

 

[Vox]

This doesn't tell us anything about what guns were used. Lmao, I don't know much about guns, but you do know that in the 21st century, our guns can hold more than 1 bullet at a time without being automatic?

It's obvious that you don't know much about guns.

With an M16 it only takes one accidental touch to the trigger to fire three rounds.

Keeping the trigger depressed can fire 20 rounds in one to two seconds.

That fits the accidental shooting scenario, so it enhances the possibility of the presence of an M16.

Shooting three rounds with anything else in this situation is less likely, although certainly possible.

 

[Ikari]

Dunno... but the article says the man was shot by a rifle (whereas the officers shown in the video have pistols drawn).

rifles can be semi-automatic.

 

[Taylor]

Did the cop say it?

Was he misunderstood by a wounded man?

Did the man make it up to enhance the possibility of a cash settlement?

Thus it really means nothing at this point.

What the cop has to say means nothing. He'd just be trying to avoid a cash settlement and probably wasn't in the right frame of mind to remember what happened anyway. :roll:

 

[Ikari]

It's illegal for a cop to shoot someone with an automatic weapon.

Tell it to Vox, he's the one using the "fully automatic" excuse.

 

[Taylor]

rifles can be semi-automatic.

Sure, most are.

 

[Vox]

Hmm, seems to be stretching. There is no reason to be equipping police with fully automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons are not the norm even now. Police have, at best, semi-automatic rifles hanging out. I don't buy the "fully automatic" excuse, it's too far out of left field.

Military surplus M16s are common among PDs all over the U.S.

 

[Ikari]

Surplus M16s are common among PDs all over the U.S.

But not common on routine patrol.

 

[Hatuey]

It's obvious that you don't know much about guns.

Umm, I know enough to know when there is no evidence that one was used. There is no evidence that an M16 was used.

You are basing your entire argument on '3 shots were fired', therefor M16. That's an absurd argument behind a lot of chutzpah; but an absurd argument none the less.

 

[Vox]

It's illegal for a cop to shoot someone with an automatic weapon.

Unless it's a justified shooting.

You don't think cops have automatic weapons?

You have a lot to learn.

 

[Lutherf]

Lmao... do you have evidence of anything else happening, Luther?

I don't and I've offered my opinion on what probably happened. What I'm saying is that lack of evidence at present is no guarantee that additional evidence won't come up.

As an example, look at the kid that got shot out in Fresno. The first video showed him on the ground and the cop pumping two more rounds into him. That looked really, really bad. When the additional footage came out you can clearly see that, while on the ground, the kid reached for his waistband. I still don't think those shots were necessary but it definitely clarifies that they were likely justifiable.

 

[Vox]

Umm, I know enough to know when there is no evidence that one was used. There is no evidence that an M16 was used.

You are basing your entire argument on '3 shots were fired', therefor M16. That's an absurd argument behind a lot of chutzpah; but an absurd argument none the less.

No, it's an argument that explains that three shots could have been fired accidentally in a burst.

If not.....the three shots are less likely, although it could happen.

It's more likely than the "cop lost his mind" theory.

 

[matchlight]

She is working really hard to defend shooting a man on the ground while his hands are up, let her.

It seems you are working really hard to prove the officer purposely shot him for no good reason, even though neither you nor anyone else here can possibly know all the relevant facts. How long have you resented police?

 

[Lutherf]

Well that's some great training.

Training has very little to do with just plain blacking out mentally. I'm not saying that's what happened but I've seen people do it before.

 

[Texmex]

Just a guess here but when this comes out in the wash my bet is that the cop who shot was actually aiming at the kid, not the guy on the ground.

That would be worse! Shooting at an unarmed, autistic child is unforgivable!

 

[Vox]

But not common on routine patrol.

They are fairly common and have become more common since 20 cops have been shot recently.

 

[Hatuey]

It seems you are working really hard to prove the officer purposely shot him for no good reason, even though neither you nor anyone else here can possibly know all the relevant facts. How long have you resented police?

I said it's bad police work if you end up shooting somebody on the ground with their hands up. I haven't said whether it was intentional or not.

Try making your argument through a long diatribe, maybe that will work.

 

[Hatuey]

No, it's an argument that explains that three shots could have been fired accidentally in a burst.

An argument based on nothing we know.

If not.....the three shots are less likely, although it could happen.

3 shots are just as likely with any gun used by the police. Lol.

 

[Hatuey]

I don't

Good, then there is nothing to suggest it was an accident and Josie was rushing to judgement. All we know is that it's bad police work.

 

[Vox]

That would be worse! Shooting at an unarmed, autistic child is unforgivable!

The cop doesn't know that. The young man looks normal enough to him and he has been told that there is a gun involved.

He must use normal procedure in that situation........and that would be to shoot if the man reaches as to grab a weapon.