KevinthePRF Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788476/ Worst I've seen. Worst as in unjustified if there isn't anything else the tape isn't showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 There must be something else, or the cop went way overboard. Why was the guy doing 100 though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 If there is nothing else to the video, then this is definitely one of the worse that I have seen as far as it being unjustified. I would love to get more details though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Hard to justify shooting an unarmed man as a law enforcement representative. At least the guy is recovering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I heard on the news this a.m. that the guy he shot was in the military... or maybe even a military police officer. This one is going to be hard to spin. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 There must be something else, or the cop went way overboard. Why was the guy doing 100 though? They were in a Corvette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Good thing they have videotapes these days. Another thing: He was a PASSENGER, follows the order to get up (not that NOT following it should have meant gunshots) and then gets shot THREE TIMES. Maybe he stumbled forward or something, but here's an idea--BACK UP. Cops are way too quick to shoot these days. If you think this is the only case, you're out of your mind. THere's another case though--in MISS? I think. Anyways, a guy there was home with his daughter when cops conducted a no-knock search (God, when will those come to an end?!!) on a duplex that was divided into smaller dwellings. One cop came through his door, didn't announce police and this man shot him. Once cops streamed in, he dropped his weapon and surrendered. His baby was with him!! The man is not on DEATH ROW. Wrong dwelling. No-knock. Self-defense with a small child in the room. Surrendered as soon as cops came in and announced themselves. No arrest record. Death row. The cops are our new Lords(Along with the higher-up politicians who want to ban us from carrying weapons but are surrounded by men with automatic weapons like Daley in Chicago.) Even when they are guilty of a bad shoot, what's their punishment? Some suspension? Time off? Are they ever jailed? You or I shoot and we are in the wrong and it's manslaughter or attempted murder or SOMETHING that sends us up the river. It's like the optometrist-bookie that Fairfax SWAT team (as if you needed a tactical unit for a vice crime to arrest one man by himself) that just happened to shoot and kill him by 'accidental discharge' of a weapon in his chest. There was no resistance or even any reason to point guns at him, from everything I've read. And is it a coincidence that they placed bets with him and lost money? (even in prostitution stings, no sex is exchanged. You can't commit a crime in order to bust someone weeks or months later. What the hell kinda operation they runnin' out there?) Let me or you 'accidentally discharge' a weapon at another human being and see what happens. People say the military isn't cut out to do the job of police, but I think the troops are more careful about firing their weapons than cops are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 There must be something else, or the cop went way overboard. Why was the guy doing 100 though? Maybe I should re-watch it but I thought they said he was the passenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I wonder what they will do if the victim turns out to be an innocent person with a good militray record. Normally it's some thug and the police apologist rush in and claim he deserved it and that you "don't understand!" blah blah blah. If there is something else to this video it would have to be HUGE. Because there is very little that would justify shooting a guy you have on the ground for getting up after you told him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Maybe I should re-watch it but I thought they said he was the passenger. He was. Guy pumped three bullets into an unarmed man following orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 The cops are our new Lords(Along with the higher-up politicians who want to ban us from carrying weapons but are surrounded by men with automatic weapons like Daley in Chicago.) I think you would find it very interesting to hear the other side as well. Get to know a police officer on a personal level, and you will think just the opposite. Their lives are in constant danger, yet they are under the threat of lawsuits all of the time. Their hands are tied with almost everything they do. Many cities have passed legislation making the city immune from lawsuits if an officer makes a mistake... leaving the officer and his family to carry the burden of Insurance premiums on a $28k/year ****ty salary. And what about the crack-head who tries to bait the cop into shooting him, or the nutjobs who try suicide by cop. Or the mentally ill, etc. You try making a snap second decision in a tense situation when someone reaches in their pocket. It's not always easy. I'm not defending the idiot cop at the top of this thread... nobody should... but when you make statements like the one you just made, it simply shows your own bias and your own ignorance on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I wonder what they will do if the victim turns out to be an innocent person with a good militray record. Normally it's some thug and the police apologist rush in and claim he deserved it and that you "don't understand!" blah blah blah. If there is something else to this video it would have to be HUGE. Because there is very little that would justify shooting a guy you have on the ground for getting up after you told him to. The cop will get suspended at best. We're but the lowly peasants. Shoot a human being wrongfully, and if you wear a badge and you're on duty? Damn near free pass. It's sad, because there are plenty of cases where the shoot was LEGIT (or times where no one was shot but some moron runs his motorbike or car into a wall) and there's an outcry that practically ruins that cop's life. But when you have cases like this, it should give people pause about these situations in the future. Zoony, I addressed some of what you said here. But point blank, that's what they signed up for. I'm not in favor of lawsuits or holding them to an unrealistic standard. But what I WOULD like is for them to stop serving unconstitutional no-knock warrants, cease militarizing when the threat to US is greater than the threat to THEM, etc. BTW, I applied and got pretty far in the Seattle PD selection process. I don't "know" any cops personally right now, but I've known people who fought in actual wars. Our troops show greater restraint in Iraq than many cops. Gardeners have about the same occupational fatality level as police. Police live with greater constant danger, yes. But let's not go overboard in portraying the risks there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Maybe I should re-watch it but I thought they said he was the passenger. I see. I'm in a computer lab at school so I don't have speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 zoony's stating the rule, Ghost, the exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm not defending the idiot cop at the top of this thread... nobody should... but when you make statements like the one you just made, it simply shows your own bias and your own ignorance on the subject. How is talking about anti-gun politicians who prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights lawfully surrounded by men with guns being hypocritical and an exemplar of the lordly mentality of the overclass and the fact that police most often DO get a pass (meaning no jail time) even on wrongful shoots showing ignorance or bias? One can defend cops when they NEED defending and still spot trends in society. And right now the trend is growing militarization in the name of 'the drug war,' no-knock raids with flimsy excuses like "they could be armed" (Well, no __ it's America, they have a right to be. Try serving a warrant like they used to do and not worrying about drugs being flushed down a toilet,) free passes when they wrongfully shoot civs(if they even classify it as that ), growing distrust between police and civilian and a refusal on the part of most police to acknowledge that they have a duty to not merely 'enforce' whatever law gets made, no matter it's true legality(stop serving no-knocks on anything but kidnap/hostage/shootout situations) No, I'm not saying "All," not even most. But I don't see much thoughtful action on the part of police, mostly 'enforcement.' I prefer the days of the "peace officer" not the busy-body, revenue-generator for the State. I know they're placed in bad positions by their superiors, but they can exercise discretion or exert their own pressure. Most cops are in favor of CCW and a more comprehensive view of American freedom. Those police understand why people like me say what I do and understand the need for a sea change. The thin blue line must be erased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Zoony, I addressed some of what you said here. But point blank, that's what they signed up for. I'm not in favor of lawsuits or holding them to an unrealistic standard. But what I WOULD like is for them to stop serving unconstitutional no-knock warrants, cease militarizing when the threat to US is greater than the threat to THEM, etc. . I think there is some truth to that.... in saying 'that is what they signed up for'. Your other points I think reflect more on our legal system and improvements you would like to see made there -vs- actual police conduct. I have two good friends in law enforcement... one is in the FBI (Knoxville Branch) and the other is a Knoxville City PO. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Being that I am a Bush loving right wing conservative and member of the NRA I take offense Ghost that the police should be restricted in any way. The Government can listen in on your conversations and they can bust down your door without announcing themselves. If a cop accidently shoots someone they should be able to get off with minimal implications. Administration officials get away with bad things all the time. Why can't cops that vote for Bush get off? On a side note, I am not offering an opinion on this video. We don't have all the facts and it is difficult to see. Also, it is more difficult to get a no-knock warrant than a simple standard search warrant. On another side note, "revenue-generator", sometimes a number of citizens want their local law enforcement to write lots of tickets and put pressure on the Department to do so. Unfortunately, these citizens affect the lives of all citizens travelling the roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skinsmatic Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Being that I am a Bush loving right wing conservative and member of the NRA I take offense Ghost that the police should be restricted in any way. The Government can listen in on your conversations and they can bust down your door without announcing themselves.If a cop accidently shoots someone they should be able to get off with minimal implications. Administration officials get away with bad things all the time. Why can't cops that vote for Bush get off? On a side note, I am not offering an opinion on this video. We don't have all the facts and it is difficult to see. Also, it is more difficult to get a no-knock warrant than a simple standard search warrant. On another side note, "revenue-generator", sometimes a number of citizens want their local law enforcement to write lots of tickets and put pressure on the Department to do so. Unfortunately, these citizens affect the lives of all citizens travelling the roads. Since I'm not a police officer, I can't begin to understand what they go through. And normally I agree with 90% of the police shootings that are reported. Being cautious and being scare are two different things. I can forgive if the officer can admit to being scare and shooting someone by mistake. And I think thats the problem with most questionable shootings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Being that I am a Bush loving right wing conservative and member of the NRA I take offense Ghost that the police should be restricted in any way. The Government can listen in on your conversations and they can bust down your door without announcing themselves.If a cop accidently shoots someone they should be able to get off with minimal implications. Administration officials get away with bad things all the time. Why can't cops that vote for Bush get off? Is this part of your post serious? There is nothing I can say about you or any off spring that you have that wouldn't get me ban. But lets just say if anything bad happen to you or anyone like you it would be a day to celebrate. I disagree with him too, but that's a little harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Is this part of your post serious?I disagree with him too, but that's a little harsh. I am hurt, I thought you guys understood that I am in the middle and disagree with Bush. I have talked to Ghost in the past about gun issues so I figured he would understand. I was being sarcastic in my opening paragraph and I am sorry if you thought I was being serious. As to the other poster's response, I am sorry that you feel that way. Concerning this article, I will give the police the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, an honest investigation will take place and they can determine exactly what happened. It could very well be that the deputy fired when he should not have. That is unfortunate, but the police have to deal with thugs all the time and it is a tough job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skinsmatic Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skinsmatic Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I am truly sorry, Mr. Jones. Please forgive my over reaction. I thought you where being serious, since I didn't see a smiley face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I am truly sorry, Mr. Jones. Please forgive my over reaction. I thought you where being serious, since I didn't see a smiley face. Not a problem. Next time I will put the smilie face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I was being sarcastic in my opening paragraph and I am sorry if you thought I was being serious. I was about 80% sure you were being sarcastic, but I asked just to be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Remember when that fellow in London, who ended up being innocent, was shot by police because he was simply moving fast to catch his train? And the number of folks who immediately wanted to blame the citizen? "Accidental" police shootings are happening more and more. Part of the reason is the "War on Drugs" - if you allow police to "no knock" a house, bad mistakes are bound to happen. I remember, during the 80's, several folks in California being killed by police during the CAMP raids. But, it seems, more and more, the issue of heavy handed tactics by the police is arising more frequently. Is it possible because police tactics are becoming more and more heavy handed? And not only that, but the attitude towards permisiveness of the State to exercise these heavy-handed tactics, against those we don't like, is creating an atmosphere that allow the Powers That Be to use these tactics? What about that "Rave" raid from several months back, in Utah, with kids being beat on the head with the buttstocks of rifles, thrown to the ground with rifles aimed at their heads? How many folks on here "appluaded" the officers for doing such a "good job." If we allow the State to grow, expect to see more and more of this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.