Another Police Shooting, Ho Hum, Wait What The Fuck

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I do know that, I also know that some subjects can be dangerous enough that 3 cops won't be enough to restrain them. Admittedly it doesn't look like it, but it's just I couldn't see the guy clearly.

Except then if he WAS dangerous he would've been cuffed already instead of not having cuffs, or they would have maced him then cuffed him, or tased him and cuffed him, or beat them up and cuffed him. They didn't consider him a threat. By your view, they did- why didn't they then use these, rather than a gun?

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I didn't hear where he voiced his intent to cooperate, and I've learned to distrust the media. But if he did that would hurt the cop's case.

Given that BART has yet to repudiate that evidence, or make a statement at all, we must assume the multiple witnesses are correct since they have not disputed their claims.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Infortunately that's not 100% true. Some suspects are virtually immune to the non-lethal weapons(though I'm not sure about tasers), and will sue any cop that tasers them, right or wrong. Such a suspect who becomes violent enough can indeed pose a threat to the cop.

And how would they know he's immune unless they tried? Even so, shooting someone to avoid a lawsuit is...wrong? Are you seriously arguing that this officer, rather than risk a lawsuit, decided that it'd be a-okay to endanger that man's life? There is a clear protocol for using lethal weapons, such as guns, and quite frankly every police officer knows that if you shoot someone there's a good possibility they'll die. Now, given we have the massive pile of evidence that happens to be the same, it's up to you to give us a situation that this unarmed man, who has three cops surrounding him with one on his back pushing him down with his body weight could have conceivably jumped up and seriously injured a cop while his two companions who are not being attacked twiddle their thumbs because golly gee cops never hit someone from behind.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Please not wikipedia *facepalm*

1. Cuffing someone who is violently shaking like that is NOT that easy. Sure you got him penned but he's shaking violently enough you'll pretty much have to keep him from moving a single muscle to get the cuffs on. Yes they are trained to do it, but it's not as simple as "Okay I'm trained for this. *slaps on cuffs* That was easy." A violent enough suspect can get away.

2. The body armor helps, but not like you think. Police don't necessarily get military grade armor, and it only protects part of them anyway. And it does not stop a subject from beating on you, should he break free(which isn't as implausible as you think it is).

3. You've obviously never seen spastically violent subjects who use every body muscle they have against the cops, but I have. I can tell you it is scary, and at times they can overcome several trained cops at once, if only for short periods of time.

1. It's not easy, no, but cops are trained to do it solo without aid and frequently do so. they're also taught numerous submission techniques that aid in this. None of those techniques were used, and neither of his two fellow officers attempt to grab the guy's hands.

2. Even if he got free and managed to attack an officer, the two officers accompanying him would immediately put an end to it.

3. Yes, I have, and that's why they have mace, tasers, and nightsticks to stop violent people without shooting them. And this man was not a spastic violent person, because spastic violent people usually don't sit down when officers tell them to, they attack them because they're spastically violent. Or they attack them when they start forcing them to the ground. They also tend not to cooperate with the police at all, or beg them not to tase him. Both things he did. You're telling us that somehow a little squirming should be immediately quelled with lethal force.

Also, that definition in wikipedia is fairly accurate. Unless you have a law book handy and are willing to quote me what exactly was wrong with the article?

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Escape? Doubt it, but seriously injure? Yes that is a plausible scenerio. I'm not sure how likely it would have been. If I could see it through the cop's eyes I could tell you.

Once again, 3 vs 1, highly trained officers with melee combat and their various nonlethal weapons, no chance of that happening.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

I've explained that in my above posts and I'm not repeating myself, go back and read through my posts and if you still have questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Except you really didn't explain how a man of average build who so far has completely complied with the police could possibly stand a threat when there's A) three armed officers, B) one of them holding down his body with his body weight, C) no indication whatsoever he was attacking anyone, D) how he would throw the officer off his back, E) how he would disable the other officer, F) how he would, untested, resist mace, taser, and nightstick, and G) manage to kill or severely injure the other officer before at least one of them could respond. Failing this, when someone strikes an officer generally they pull a gun and warn him. Viewing the tape again it took only a few seconds to shoot from drawing the weapon and pointing. (It's around 2:28.) There are no warnings and BART has not said anything in his defense.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

Not if it was done on purpose no, but the question is was it shoot to wound gone wrong, or to kill?

Shooting to wound is only used in rare occassions and in this situation a taser would be better. No, they don't have any proof he's immune because that's very rare and they have yet to tase him. In addition, there is no such thing as shoot to wound, because any shot you fire can be lethal in some way.

Originally Posted by Armake21truth

No the proper assumption to make is, "Let's get to the bottom of this" as opposed to "Oh yeah, you're guilty." I'm agreeing, at least that this is cause for suspicion, I even said it looks suspicious.

The proper reaction is to assess the evidence of one side, assess the evidence of the other side and see which portrayal is A) more factually accurate and B) less contradicted . This has not happened because BART hasn't provided any evidence except that the officer perhaps mistook his gun for his taser, which is unlikely given the reasons I've mentioned before. Now, seeing as BART has yet to deny anything the press has said thus far, or say anything at all, we can pretty much assume the media has it right because the police in general have a very good response time to this sort of thing and it will soon be two weeks since the incident. Given what evidence we have is extremely compelling, it is safe to say we can draw a conclusion from the testimony of many witnesses that is in unison and the numerous videos that have been made available.

Armake, you've gone beyond reasonable doubt and are now arguing in clear violation of police procedure- i.e. don't shoot people lying on the ground who are not actively resisting you beyond what nearly every human does when they're forcibly held in an uncomfortable position which by the way cops know about since it's the most basic grappling lesson you learn - and imagining this man is somehow a ninja that can escape from a prone semi submission position and seriously injure someone, or possibly Superman. You are essentially arguing for one side despite the mountain of evidence against it because you like them more, as Fifth has pointed out, and have attempted to argue every single person here who interprets it differently is incorrect despite your stance is entirely reliant on possibilities while we have the advantage of the video and news report evidence, in collusion with people who were physically present and protesting the way those people were treated, which judging from people who have USED that train and provided their experience with it is far below reasonable expectations in civilian-police interaction on the whole. I mean you're arguing a dude lying on the ground who was shot had it coming. Looking at that sentence alone and agreeing with it is a colossal warning sign your argument may-possibly- have a flaw.