Cops shoot and kill man, with no legs, in back, trying to run

[Troll]

44 minutes ago, Cossacks said:

And the pundits will say why didn’t they just shoot him in the arms or legs 😂?

going for the "too soon" humor?

picking the low hanging fruit?

why wouldn't you just say,

that "all they had to do was disarm him" ?

 

8 minutes ago, Cossacks said:

Different case with different  cops and different suspects. Did he attempt to flee with his weapon when confronted by L.E. or did he stop? 

Willy explained that to you already. LOL 

48 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said:

The Court held that deadly force would be justified only if "it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

 Running away WITH the weapon

you just randomly attacked the public with unprovoked,

is a bit different than running away unarmed....

shiat...there's that word again. 🤭

 

[Wildcat Will]

7 minutes ago, Troll said:

going for the "too soon" humor?

picking the low hanging fruit?

why wouldn't you just say,

that "all they had to do was disarm him" ?

 

Willy explained that to you already. LOL 

 Running away WITH the weapon

you just randomly attacked the public with unprovoked,

is a bit different than running away unarmed....

shiat...there's that word again. 🤭

 

If you watch the video, you can see the moment the knife leaves his hand. At that moment, he is not shot and fleeing. He was unarmed when he was shot.

Educate yourself boy.

[Troll]

21 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said:

If you watch the video, you can see the moment the knife leaves his hand. At that moment, he is not shot and fleeing. He was unarmed when he was shot.

Educate yourself boy.

I watched a video, assuming it's the same one you saw...

weapon is on the ground, suspect goes for it and Black officer seemingly shoots first almost winging his partner (looked like into the curb) in the process.

suspect turns and flees with weapon glued to hand and gets mowed down,

weapon still in suspects hand as black cop is reloading/going for secondary while white cop still firing. 

 

PS:of course i wasn't there, and video can be deceiving...

 

BTW: you can't hide, yer lyin eyes...

...or your cognitive dissonance. 

👀

 

 

 

[Wildcat Will]

16 minutes ago, Troll said:

I watched a video, assuming it's the same one you saw...

weapon is on the ground, suspect goes for it and Black officer seemingly shoots first almost winging his partner (looked like into the curb) in the process.

suspect turns and flees with weapon glued to hand and gets mowed down,

weapon still in suspects hand as black cop is reloading/going for secondary while white cop still firing. 

 

PS:of course i wasn't there, and video can be deceiving...

 

BTW: you can't hide, yer lyin eyes...

...or your cognitive dissonance. 

👀

 

 

 

You watched Rawhide.

The dead man discarded the knife before he was shot.

[Troll]

18 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said:

You watched Rawhide.

The dead man discarded the knife before he was shot.

then why is it still in his hands at :35 thru :38 of horsefly's video

as the black officer reloads/goes for secondary

what do you think he is waiving around, maybe an ice cream cone?

maybe it's all a psy-op and you didn't see the "actual video"

 

PS: if you saw the one on my feed, you'd be a fool to claim such nonsense...

.....oh wait 

 

BTW: 

[Belly Bob]

3 hours ago, Horsefly said:

Here’s a partial video.  The man is barely moving and absolutely would not have gotten far before tiring.     ↳

It seems pretty damning. But I doubt we have all the relevant evidence. A few things stood out to me.

First, the officers were responding to a report that a man had been stabbed by a man in a wheelchair. So, it was reasonable for them to believe that the suspect was dangerous.

Second, they tried to taser him twice. So, they had tried to use non-deadly force to disarm him.

Third, he made a gesture like he was going to throw the knife at them, and both officers clearly flinched, so it's reasonable to believe that they were afraid. 

Fourth, I couldn't see whether there were bystanders in the direction in which he was fleeing. It's possible, even if unlikely, that they were genuinely concerned for the safety of others.

Still, it seems more reasonable that they could've simply pursued him until further backup arrived.

Finally, it's always easy to say what you would've done in the circumstances. You can train for situations like these, but you never know how a person will respond until he faces the real thing. So, it's too quick to say that they weren't trained properly or that they're racist.

[Troll]

1 hour ago, Wildcat Will said:

If you watch the video, you can see the moment the knife leaves his hand. At that moment,

and what moment is that fool?  your timestamp must be held captive

by all those white hispanics who aren't really white or hispanic ....🤣

 

PS:     

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, Wildcat Will said:

If you watch the video, you can see the moment the knife leaves his hand. At that moment, he is not shot and fleeing. He was unarmed when he was shot.
↳

What video are you watching? That's not rhetorical. 

I've watched the video @Horsefly posted 3 times now. He's holding the knife when the video cuts off. 

[Troll]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

What video are you watching? That's not rhetorical. 

I've watched the video @Horsefly posted 3 times now. He's holding the knife when the video cuts off. 

he must have gone to an "unorganized" antifa meeting for some new "ideas"...

just knowingly lie and claim the opposite of every truth  for attention...🤣

Lie, deny, or don't reply...

a pathetic fool, that fools no one . 💩

 

 

[Horsefly]

20 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

It seems pretty damning. But I doubt we have all the relevant evidence. A few things stood out to me.

First, the officers were responding to a report that a man had been stabbed by a man in a wheelchair. So, it was reasonable for them to believe that the suspect was dangerous.

Second, they tried to taser him twice. So, they had tried to use non-deadly force to disarm him.

Third, he made a gesture like he was going to throw the knife at them, and both officers clearly flinched, so it's reasonable to believe that they were afraid. 

Fourth, I couldn't see whether there were bystanders in the direction in which he was fleeing. It's possible, even if unlikely, that they were genuinely concerned for the safety of others.

Still, it seems more reasonable that they could've simply pursued him until further backup arrived.

Finally, it's always easy to say what you would've done in the circumstances. You can train for situations like these, but you never know how a person will respond until he faces the real thing. So, it's too quick to say that they weren't trained properly or that they're racist.

They have a ton of equipment with them, pepper spray, batons, etc. 

once again, we are back on the trust issue. They failed in deescalating a situation with a double amputee in distress. 

and they didn’t report they shot him in fear for others around, they reported they feared for THEIR lives.  Smh

[Belly Bob]

13 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

They failed in deescalating a situation with a double amputee in distress. 

You mentioned before that they're trained in deescalating situations. Now you say that they failed to deescalate the situation. You make it seem like the police can deescalate any situation. 

ER physicians are trained to treat medical emergencies, but people often die under their care. It doesn't follow that the physicians were culpable. 

13 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

 and they didn’t report they shot him in fear for others around, they reported they feared for THEIR lives.  Smh ↳

I didn't catch that. I don't know when the man was shot, but when the video cuts out, his back is turned. I think it'll be difficult for the officers to claim self-defense (or whatever the close cousin of that may be) if he was indeed shot in the back while fleeing. 

[Troll]

14 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

They failed in deescalating a situation with a double amputee in distress. 

or they successfully prevented an armed psychotic from attacking and injuring any more innocent bystanders in the middle of the crime spree...

depending on viewpoint. of course.

usually it is best in such situations to drop the pre-judgement

but since you apparently know what was written in the officers reports as to motive,  it's easy to see how you could come to such conclusions so quickly

[FreeBird]

39 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

They failed in deescalating a situation with a double amputee in distress. 

 

Or Hear me out, the cops got another crazie off the street, idk about you but that town can sleep now with one less terrorist on their street 

[Horsefly]

7 minutes ago, Troll said:

or they successfully prevented an armed psychotic from attacking and injuring any more innocent bystanders in the middle of the crime spree...

depending on viewpoint. of course.

usually it is best in such situations to drop the pre-judgement

but since you apparently know what was written in the officers reports as to motive,  it's easy to see how you could come to such conclusions so quickly

Did you read the report?  They reported they shot him because he was threatening THEM, not anyone else. They mentioned nothing about others were in danger. 

So now, did they deescalate the situation or not? Coming across ppl that could be having a mental episode is par for the job.  Either they can deal with it or not. Pleading with the public to comply as a default argument is not the answer. (A person that’s possibly psychotic will not comply) 

 

 

[Horsefly]

4 minutes ago, FreeBird said:

Or Hear me out, the cops got another crazie off the street, idk about you but that town can sleep now with one less terrorist on their street 

I’m not applauding their incompetence.  That’s half way what’s wrong with this country, we too easily ignore ineptness.   

[Troll]

55 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

 

and they didn’t report they shot him in fear for others around, they reported they feared for THEIR lives.  Smh

 

15 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Did you read the report?  

all I see is a public statement, not a report, but a listing of series of events...

I didn't see where you claimed  they feared for their lives .

or that other innocent bystanders were or were not in the vicinity etc.

care to quote or footnote them ?

 

PS: That's the problem with prejudice,

always adding and deleting crap that's not even there... 

 

BTW:  FIFY

28 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

They reported they shot him because after he was threatening THEM, not anyone else  and after violently and critically attacking an innocent bystander without the restriction of a wheelchair as apparently he's mobile enough to make good on such threats    They mentioned nothing about others were in danger. <<not much need to when John Q. is randomly getting butchered in the street now is there?

But thank you for the info tho...at least you always bring decent data.

 

[Horsefly]

16 minutes ago, Troll said:

 

all<All>I see is a public statement, not a report, but a listing of series of events...

I didn't see where you claimed  <double spaced>they feared for their lives .

or <Or>that other innocent bystanders were or were not in the vicinity etc.

care <Care> to quote or footnote them ?

 

PS: That's the problem with prejudice,

always adding and deleting crap that's not even there... 

 

BTW:  FIFY

But thank you for the info tho...at least you always bring decent data.

 

Well since we are being anal and correcting text, make sure you capitalize your words beginning of each sentence. 
 

“The suspect continued to threaten officers with the

butcher knife, resulting in an officer-involved shooting.”

there’s your answer for fear of their lives. 

had there been a potential danger to pedestrians they would have stated so. They didn’t.  You don’t get to assume there were others in danger 

 

 

[Troll]

13 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

Well since we are being anal and correcting text, make sure you capitalize your words beginning of each sentence. 
 

“The suspect continued to threaten officers with the

butcher knife, resulting in an officer-involved shooting.”

there’s your answer for fear of their lives. 

had there been a potential danger to pedestrians they would have stated so. They didn’t.  You don’t get to assume there were others in danger 

 

 

some words make a difference, some capitalization's do not... 

and this  general preliminary 'statement' saying "the suspect continued threatening, resulting in"

may sound like a viable defense, but you don't get to assume what the actual officers would be in court etc.... 

They didn't say so, so i get to assume, but you don't...... is a REALLY CUTE TOUCH tho 🤣

 

PS: especially since you are now agreeing with and proving MY point...

...that you can't assume (like you do) lol 👍

 

BTW: even tho we'd all like to assume, that It could have been handled much better...🤷‍♂️

 

 

[Wildcat Will]

2 hours ago, Troll said:

and what moment is that fool?  your timestamp must be held captive

by all those white hispanics who aren't really white or hispanic ....🤣

 

PS:     

Wonder why you have no backing?

Everyone else knows the truth.

[Cossacks]

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

Did you read the report?  They reported they shot him because he was threatening THEM, not anyone else. They mentioned nothing about others were in danger. 

So now, did they deescalate the situation or not? Coming across ppl that could be having a mental episode is par for the job.  Either they can deal with it or not. Pleading with the public to comply as a default argument is not the answer. (A person that’s possibly psychotic will not comply) 

 

 

That is a press release, not a report?

[Horsefly]

13 minutes ago, Troll said:

some words make a difference, some capitalization's do not... 

and this  general preliminary 'statement' saying "the suspect continued threatening, resulting in"

may sound like a viable defense, but you don't get to assume what the actual officers would be in court etc.... 

They didn't say so, so i get to assume, but you don't...... is a REALLY CUTE TOUCH tho 🤣

 

PS: especially since you are now agreeing with and proving MY point...

...that you can't assume (like you do) lol 👍

 

BTW: even tho we'd all like to assume, that It could have been handled much better...🤷‍♂️

 

 

Doesn’t matter,  if you’re going to follow the rules of writing then follow them.  Better yet, just stick to the convo instead of being a prick and grammar queen.  Fair? 

police operate under the same use of force laws as civilians. They can use lethal force when they fear bodily harm or death. 

When they say they used lethal force because they were threatened, that falls under “fear of life”. (You are free to google what fear for one’s life means) 

[Horsefly]

11 minutes ago, Cossacks said:

That is a press release, not a report?

 The report and the statement address the officers’ account of what happened. Don’t lose sight of the forest for a tree. 

[Troll]

Just now, Horsefly said:

Doesn’t matter,  if you’re going to follow the rules of writing then follow them.  Better yet, just stick to the convo instead of being a gotdamn prick. Fair? 

police operate under the same use of force laws as civilians. They can use lethal force when they fear bodily harm or death. 

When they say they used lethal force because they were threatened, that falls under “fear of life”. 

yes well aware...

yet you are still assuming

1 aspect out of many, to be the only reasoning or defense

when it is not...

 

PS: sorry bout the prickly typing fingers lol, fools tend to make this place a mosh pit...

takes a few posts to adjust to normal posters I guess, no guarantees but i'll try LOL

 

 

[Wildcat Will]

3 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

It seems pretty damning. But I doubt we have all the relevant evidence. A few things stood out to me.

First, the officers were responding to a report that a man had been stabbed by a man in a wheelchair. So, it was reasonable for them to believe that the suspect was dangerous.

Second, they tried to taser him twice. So, they had tried to use non-deadly force to disarm him.

Third, he made a gesture like he was going to throw the knife at them, and both officers clearly flinched, so it's reasonable to believe that they were afraid. 

Fourth, I couldn't see whether there were bystanders in the direction in which he was fleeing. It's possible, even if unlikely, that they were genuinely concerned for the safety of others.

Still, it seems more reasonable that they could've simply pursued him until further backup arrived.

Finally, it's always easy to say what you would've done in the circumstances. You can train for situations like these, but you never know how a person will respond until he faces the real thing. So, it's too quick to say that they weren't trained properly or that they're racist.

First, the location of the reported stabbing are two different locations. The dead man had the knife when confronted by police. The police knew this as they requested he drop it. 

Second, nowhere on the video can any attempt to trade him be seen.

Third, he DID throw the knife in their direction, as the cop on the left jumped to avoid. At this point, he is unarmed.

There was no one else on the street except the person whose video we have. The man had no legs. The cops were in walking pursuit.

[Cossacks]

3 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

 The report and the statement address the officers’ account of what happened.

No they don’t? That is written by a PIO.
 

Do really you think that is the officers official statements? I thought you had some military type police background or something similar? If so, I’d figure you should be very familiar with POBAR and also the role of the PIO and how often they misspeak.