Much more than just MY opinion, having many hours being trained in the application of deadly force, paid to work bad areas and making decesions concerning same and traning other LE, I'd once again say the shooting is morally and legally defensible.
The shooter appears to be spitting on the dying man at two places in the video. If true, ask yourself: is that really the way one acts when his position is "I had no choice but to shoot the man"---or is it the way one acts when driven by exteme dislike for the person fired upon? And if the latter, is it reasonable to hate someone to the point of killing him and then spitting upon his dying carcass 'cause he committed a petty theft?
Granted, none of us were there and videos can be misleading, but where on the video is there a threat of force or violence from the petty thief? We are, of course, applying our own legal standards to a shooting in a foreign jurisdiction, but in this country you don't get to just shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum---or even a six pack of beer.
Isn't the reasonable (and moral) response---if you think the guy is potentially dangerous and you're not sure if he is armed, to detain, frisk and arrest (if probable cause exists) rather than just summarily execute and then spit upon his dying carcass?
Something very, very wrong with this picture. The theft appears merely a pre-text to justify a gratuitous killing. And something even worse is wrong with the picture developing here with persons having absolutely no problem with this killing. Where are your morals? Let us hope that none one here, trying to justify this shooting, is a cop.
Last edited by RobJordan; 04/05/12.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Much more than just MY opinion, having many hours being trained in the application of deadly force, paid to work bad areas and making decesions concerning same and traning other LE, I'd once again say the shooting is morally and legally defensible.
The shooter appears to be spitting on the dying man at two places in the video. If true, ask yourself: is that really the way one acts when his position is "I had no choice but to shoot the man"---or is it the way one acts when driven by exteme dislike for the person fired upon? And if the latter, is it reasonable to hate someone to the point of killing him and then spitting upon his dying carcass 'cause he committed a petty theft?
Granted, none of us were there and videos can be misleading, but where on the video is there a threat of force or violence from the petty thief? We are, of course, applying our own legal standards to a shooting in a foreign jurisdiction, but in this country you don't get to just shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum---or even a six pack of beer.
Isn't the reasonable (and moral) response---if you think the guy is potentially dangerous and you're not sure if he is armed, to detain, frisk and arrest (if probable cause exists) rather than just summarily execute and then spit upon his dying carcass?
Something very, very wrong with this picture. The theft appears merely a pre-text to justify a gratuitous killing. And something even worse is wrong with the picture developing here with persons having absolutely no problem with this killing. Where are your morals? Let us hope that none one here, trying to justify this shooting, is a cop.
Are you as gay as the day is long?
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)
Much more than just MY opinion, having many hours being trained in the application of deadly force, paid to work bad areas and making decesions concerning same and traning other LE, I'd once again say the shooting is morally and legally defensible.
The shooter appears to be spitting on the dying man at two places in the video. If true, ask yourself: is that really the way one acts when his position is "I had no choice but to shoot the man"---or is it the way one acts when driven by exteme dislike for the person fired upon? And if the latter, is it reasonable to hate someone to the point of killing him and then spitting upon his dying carcass 'cause he committed a petty theft?
Granted, none of us were there and videos can be misleading, but where on the video is there a threat of force or violence from the petty thief? We are, of course, applying our own legal standards to a shooting in a foreign jurisdiction, but in this country you don't get to just shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum---or even a six pack of beer.
Isn't the reasonable (and moral) response---if you think the guy is potentially dangerous and you're not sure if he is armed, to detain, frisk and arrest (if probable cause exists) rather than just summarily execute and then spit upon his dying carcass?
Something very, very wrong with this picture. The theft appears merely a pre-text to justify a gratuitous killing. And something even worse is wrong with the picture developing here with persons having absolutely no problem with this killing. Where are your morals? Let us hope that none one here, trying to justify this shooting, is a cop.
He is not a "petty thief". He is an armed robber. As far as assuming the shooter is spitting on the armed robber I could just as easily speculate the armed robber was verbally threatening the shooter. Where you ask is the threat of violence. The armed robber walked into a store holding a knife. It may be more commonplace in Kalifornia and looked upon as an everyday occurrence but here it is an act of violence. Stop with the gum and six-pack BS. If he was looking to steal gum and/or a six-pack, why did he walk straight to the counter where the money is kept. Maybe to ask the cashier where the gum and/or six packs were? Obviously if you were in the situation you would only care about your own safety, which is fine. But an LEO cares about protecting others as well. Including the guy standing within arms reach of the armed robber.
The language you used in your post was "very telling" as well. You described the armed robber the same way a liberal defense attorney would and you tried to downplay the fact that he was committing an armed robbery. Very telling indeed. What do your morals say about being less than truthful?
This is something like how I feel the would-be robber should have been handled. There's not much more satisfying to some than giving lessons in manners in a direct fashion. They don't do a thorough job on the punks, but they've got the right general idea. That dude in the black shirt looks a lot like my brother going to work. Except that dude is a lot more compassionate than my big brother.
[video:youtube] [/video]
And this, while straying f-a-r off the topic, made me grin. The guy in the car being sweated by those fools has a downright sporty attitude. I like his style. BTW, that's Hudson St. in Chinatown, a block north of Kneeland. On the corner on the right of Hudson and Beech where the car turns left is a great restaurant. Called Peach Farm. Order the whole crispy seabass with ginger and scallion. The salt and pepper squid and jumbo prawns are excellent there too.
BTW, it's obvious that the drunken idiots are NOT gang bangers, as the description claims. They are suburban wannabe badarses in for a night on the town. The guy with the bat? Definitely a local. Not very thorough, but I give him an 'attaboy anyway. He was probably late to grab his take out before the 4:00 am close. Bonus points for the guy who pulls up to make sure his ride doesn't get scratched, then backs into the spot right after. Those spots are gold down there, man, I'm tellin' ya!
I did not see where he was armed. As far as the spitting, it was something pointed out by a previous poster. If you look at the video closely, it seems like a reasonable conclusion.
Is there evidence of a gun or a knife in the video? I did not see, it but I'm certainly open to new evidence. I take it we are in agreement at least, that if the man was unarmed, the shooting is not defensible?
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Much more than just MY opinion, having many hours being trained in the application of deadly force, paid to work bad areas and making decesions concerning same and traning other LE, I'd once again say the shooting is morally and legally defensible.
The shooter appears to be spitting on the dying man at two places in the video. If true, ask yourself: is that really the way one acts when his position is "I had no choice but to shoot the man"---or is it the way one acts when driven by exteme dislike for the person fired upon? And if the latter, is it reasonable to hate someone to the point of killing him and then spitting upon his dying carcass 'cause he committed a petty theft?
Granted, none of us were there and videos can be misleading, but where on the video is there a threat of force or violence from the petty thief? We are, of course, applying our own legal standards to a shooting in a foreign jurisdiction, but in this country you don't get to just shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum---or even a six pack of beer.
Isn't the reasonable (and moral) response---if you think the guy is potentially dangerous and you're not sure if he is armed, to detain, frisk and arrest (if probable cause exists) rather than just summarily execute and then spit upon his dying carcass?
Something very, very wrong with this picture. The theft appears merely a pre-text to justify a gratuitous killing. And something even worse is wrong with the picture developing here with persons having absolutely no problem with this killing. Where are your morals? Let us hope that none one here, trying to justify this shooting, is a cop.
He is not a "petty thief". He is an armed robber. As far as assuming the shooter is spitting on the armed robber I could just as easily speculate the armed robber was verbally threatening the shooter. Where you ask is the threat of violence. The armed robber walked into a store holding a knife. It may be more commonplace in Kalifornia and looked upon as an everyday occurrence but here it is an act of violence. Stop with the gum and six-pack BS. If he was looking to steal gum and/or a six-pack, why did he walk straight to the counter where the money is kept. Maybe to ask the cashier where the gum and/or six packs were? Obviously if you were in the situation you would only care about your own safety, which is fine. But an LEO cares about protecting others as well. Including the guy standing within arms reach of the armed robber.
The language you used in your post was "very telling" as well. You described the armed robber the same way a liberal defense attorney would and you tried to downplay the fact that he was committing an armed robbery. Very telling indeed. What do your morals say about being less than truthful?
I am a retired career prosecutor who has put alot of violent criminals behind bars for a very long time. Again, where is the evidence of arming? That is the dispositive issue. And was it a knife or a gun???
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
By the way, would it not be some "liberal defense attorney" defending this cop (and trying to help him beat the rap) if some prosecutor tried to charge him with murder??? You can't have it both ways pal.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Much more than just MY opinion, having many hours being trained in the application of deadly force, paid to work bad areas and making decesions concerning same and traning other LE, I'd once again say the shooting is morally and legally defensible.
The shooter appears to be spitting on the dying man at two places in the video. If true, ask yourself: is that really the way one acts when his position is "I had no choice but to shoot the man"---or is it the way one acts when driven by exteme dislike for the person fired upon? And if the latter, is it reasonable to hate someone to the point of killing him and then spitting upon his dying carcass 'cause he committed a petty theft?
Granted, none of us were there and videos can be misleading, but where on the video is there a threat of force or violence from the petty thief? We are, of course, applying our own legal standards to a shooting in a foreign jurisdiction, but in this country you don't get to just shoot someone for stealing a pack of gum---or even a six pack of beer.
Isn't the reasonable (and moral) response---if you think the guy is potentially dangerous and you're not sure if he is armed, to detain, frisk and arrest (if probable cause exists) rather than just summarily execute and then spit upon his dying carcass?
Something very, very wrong with this picture. The theft appears merely a pre-text to justify a gratuitous killing. And something even worse is wrong with the picture developing here with persons having absolutely no problem with this killing. Where are your morals? Let us hope that none one here, trying to justify this shooting, is a cop.
He is not a "petty thief". He is an armed robber. As far as assuming the shooter is spitting on the armed robber I could just as easily speculate the armed robber was verbally threatening the shooter. Where you ask is the threat of violence. The armed robber walked into a store holding a knife. It may be more commonplace in Kalifornia and looked upon as an everyday occurrence but here it is an act of violence. Stop with the gum and six-pack BS. If he was looking to steal gum and/or a six-pack, why did he walk straight to the counter where the money is kept. Maybe to ask the cashier where the gum and/or six packs were? Obviously if you were in the situation you would only care about your own safety, which is fine. But an LEO cares about protecting others as well. Including the guy standing within arms reach of the armed robber.
The language you used in your post was "very telling" as well. You described the armed robber the same way a liberal defense attorney would and you tried to downplay the fact that he was committing an armed robbery. Very telling indeed. What do your morals say about being less than truthful?
I am a retired career prosecutor who has put alot of violent criminals behind bars for a very long time. Again, where is the evidence of arming? That is the dispositive issue. And was it a knife or a gun???
Do you really care if he was armed? He was an innocent soul...deserving of life...no matter his issues...right?
Unicorns and rainbows...
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)
The law cares whether he was armed you frigging moron. Gawd, are you actually that stupid?? These distinctions are important because they differentiate between guilt and innocence. But that apparently doesn't matter to you, does it toothless?
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
By the way, would it not be some "liberal defense attorney" defending this cop (and trying to help him beat the rap) if some prosecutor tried to charge him with murder??? You can't have it both ways pal.
First of all princess, you and I are not pals. If you pay attention to the video you can see the armed robber take something out of his left pocket and point it at the cashier with his right hand. After the armed robber was justifiably shot his right hand falls just off camera. That the armed robber was armed is the only "reasonable conclusion". Spitting? Nothing more than a guess. The armed robber walks in with a plastic bag and throws it on the counter. What would you "conclude" from that?
Having it both ways? Beat the rap? Are you sure you weren't forced into an "early retirement"?
The law cares whether he was armed you frigging moron. Gawd, are you actually that stupid?? These distinctions are important because they differentiate between guilt and innocence. But that apparently doesn't matter to you, does it toothless?
Got all my teeth...but thanks for your concern...you do not care if he was armed...toothpick knife and 12 feet be damned...he was probably a Rinomney voter you just lost...right?
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)
Reversed footage, but as it appears the would-be robber has what appears to be a blade of approximately 5" in his 'left' hand. In his 'right' hand he has what I think is a plastic bag. My guess is that the kid walks up, shows the blade briefly as he puts the bag on the counter, says 'put the effin loot in the bag and no one gets hurt'. He then steps away from the counter, and as he turns to the 'right', just sees the shooter, who has taken a few steps back as he pulls his Roscoe. While the kid is busy imagining his next few days of opiate induced candy cane dreams and showing the world just how stupid he is, the shooter takes the ample opportunity allowed by the soon-to-be deceased idiot robber to take a proper shooting stance, and when the kid turns, drills the kid center of mass. He then kicks aside the blade the kid dropped.
As the kid's lung is collapsing and filling with blood, he frantically but feebly flails his arms and manages to get his sweatjacket unzipped. You can see the area where the round went in, roughly, as there is a blood stain on his chest, high but slightly off center, which grows in the following seconds. Nope, that kid went in to rob that joint. He should've stayed in school.
I wouldn't care if he used a screwdriver for a weapon.
The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
Reversed footage, but as it appears the would-be robber has what appears to be a blade of approximately 5" in his 'left' hand. In his 'right' hand he has what I think is a plastic bag. My guess is that the kid walks up, shows the blade briefly as he puts the bag on the counter, says 'put the effin loot in the bag and no one gets hurt'. He then steps away from the counter, and as he turns to the 'right', just sees the shooter, who has taken a few steps back as he pulls his Roscoe. While the kid is busy imagining his next few days of opiate induced candy cane dreams and showing the world just how stupid he is, the shooter takes the ample opportunity allowed by the soon-to-be deceased idiot robber to take a proper shooting stance, and when the kid turns, drills the kid center of mass. He then kicks aside the blade the kid dropped.
As the kid's lung is collapsing and filling with blood, he frantically but feebly flails his arms and manages to get his sweatjacket unzipped. You can see the area where the round went in, roughly, as there is a blood stain on his chest, high but slightly off center, which grows in the following seconds. Nope, that kid went in to rob that joint. He should've stayed in school.
You got it ALL wrong..he was a good kid named spanish for trayvon and the bad guy was the guy with the gun....spanish for zimmerman. Rob will have the specifics later...
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)
The "kid" would've met all the elements for me to shoot him under my department policy.
Fleeing felon rule would have even allowed me to put a round in his back if he turned and ran.
That "Fleeing felon rule" will get you in a lot of trouble. The US Supreme court has held that the person has to be a imminent threat to other and a reasonable belief that he will kill or cause serious bodily injury if allowed to escape. In this case, it appears that he was leaving and unaware that the cop was a cop. The cop was in no imminent danger as there was no officer-suspect relationship established. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything beyond a display of a knife to the clerk (if that is what it was).
Those of you that say you would have immediately shot (even those of you who are/were cops) are not being realistic. You have to weigh all the circumstances that exist at the time. I have been in two situations where I had a suspect confront me with a knife. In one instance, I was only 4-5' away. I quickly created some space while pointing my pistol at him and screaming at him to drop the knife. This suspect was only 16 and had stolen a car. I did not want to shoot him if I could possibly avoid it. Could he have cut me? maybe-probably but he could not have done more that a cut on the arm and I was willing to trade that possibility for not having to shoot a 16-year old. He finally threw the knife down and I arrested him.
There is no perfect answer to these situations. This video is all we know about this. As it stands on it's own, I would like to think that I would not have shot this guy. That said, he could have been an under-cover that was in there waiting for this guy who had committed other robberies- maybe with violent tendencies. Does that change anything? absolutely.
As for the 21' rule. It doesn't necessarily apply when you are already in a firing stance and ready to shoot. I want me know that I can live with myself after I use force on someone.
I concur in your analysis completely.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
By the way, would it not be some "liberal defense attorney" defending this cop (and trying to help him beat the rap) if some prosecutor tried to charge him with murder??? You can't have it both ways pal.
First of all princess, you and I are not pals. If you pay attention to the video you can see the armed robber take something out of his left pocket and point it at the cashier with his right hand. After the armed robber was justifiably shot his right hand falls just off camera. That the armed robber was armed is the only "reasonable conclusion". Spitting? Nothing more than a guess. The armed robber walks in with a plastic bag and throws it on the counter. What would you "conclude" from that?
Having it both ways? Beat the rap? Are you sure you weren't forced into an "early retirement"?
You're dreaming if you think you're gonna make me your princess. I don't particularly care for [bleep], so lets get that straight right now. I have repeatedly said, if the guy is armed the equation changes. I don't see arming. But even assuming he was armed with a knife, he has threatened the store clerk (that's what robbery is---taking property by threat of force or fear of force). The issue is whether the off-duty copy reasonably believed in the need to use deadly force to protect himself or others. The theft is complete when the cop draws on the perp. Once he has drawn his weapon, he had him at bay and at a complete disadvantage. The perp made no motion toward him. The shooting was gratuitous. It looks alot more like a pretextual execution than a reasonable use of deadly force.
Last edited by RobJordan; 04/06/12.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
You got it ALL wrong..he was a good kid named spanish for trayvon and the bad guy was the guy with the gun....spanish for zimmerman. Rob will have the specifics later...
Oh, OK. I stand corrected, then.
BTW, Trayvon, is it? Let's see, I guess that'd be a name derived from Travis and Crayon? Tom, Ray and Von Richtenbacher? Tim, Robert, Albert, Yousef, Vincent, Octavius, maybe? Either way, that's what Obama's kid would've looked like if he had a son, y'know!
The "kid" would've met all the elements for me to shoot him under my department policy.
Fleeing felon rule would have even allowed me to put a round in his back if he turned and ran.
That "Fleeing felon rule" will get you in a lot of trouble. The US Supreme court has held that the person has to be a imminent threat to other and a reasonable belief that he will kill or cause serious bodily injury if allowed to escape. In this case, it appears that he was leaving and unaware that the cop was a cop. The cop was in no imminent danger as there was no officer-suspect relationship established. Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything beyond a display of a knife to the clerk (if that is what it was).
Those of you that say you would have immediately shot (even those of you who are/were cops) are not being realistic. You have to weigh all the circumstances that exist at the time. I have been in two situations where I had a suspect confront me with a knife. In one instance, I was only 4-5' away. I quickly created some space while pointing my pistol at him and screaming at him to drop the knife. This suspect was only 16 and had stolen a car. I did not want to shoot him if I could possibly avoid it. Could he have cut me? maybe-probably but he could not have done more that a cut on the arm and I was willing to trade that possibility for not having to shoot a 16-year old. He finally threw the knife down and I arrested him.
There is no perfect answer to these situations. This video is all we know about this. As it stands on it's own, I would like to think that I would not have shot this guy. That said, he could have been an under-cover that was in there waiting for this guy who had committed other robberies- maybe with violent tendencies. Does that change anything? absolutely.
As for the 21' rule. It doesn't necessarily apply when you are already in a firing stance and ready to shoot. I want me know that I can live with myself after I use force on someone.
I concur in your analysis completely.
Are you all going to live just so okie-dokie with yourselves after you don't shoot, and he grabs the wanna-be hostage an arms length away in less than a second and slashes his throat? ARE YOU?
The officer had less than 2 seconds to make a decision, a life and death decision, on situation he LIVED, in person, regarding not only his safety, but that of several INNOCENT bystanders as well, and not being able to sit back on his [bleep]' high horse and computer after a few cocktails, having the luxury of no time limit and "prosecutor / defense attorney hindsight" and watching the video countless times and drawing dumbphuck conclusions (he was "spitting" on the "kid", that "didn't conclusively have a weapon").
Some stupid little chit like that ever threatens me or mine in some similar situation, I hope to hell YOU guys are not the ones there to help the true victims. The little turd sealed his fate the moment he walked into that store and brandished a weapon. He knew full well before he did so what the possible consequences were. "Play those kinda stupid games, win those kinda prizes" comes to mind. Everyone else he involved in that scenario did not have the luxury of knowing they were possibly facing death or maiming when they walked into that store. HE DID. He made the choice, now he has died by..and forced not only his loved ones, but all innocent parties to this incident (to include the officer), to live with the consequences of his actions.
Yeah, I'm gonna go shed a tear for the dumb chit now....
Guns are responsible for killing as much as Rosie O'Donnel's fork is responsible for her being FAT.
So, that kid was only playing possum, and had that fellah not perforated him, no doubt the kid was going to go all satanic, and would've proceeded to start cutting heads off, and taking hostages and whatnot, eh?
I guess I'm getting that most responding truly believe in their heart of hearts that that kid was a hardened, stone cold killer bent on killing? One whom, had he not been shot dead, would've almost certainly tried killing everyone in the joint?
