# More great footage of officer friendly at work!



## flexkill (Mar 25, 2014)

Fvcking MURDERERS!!!! The fvcking Albuquerque Police Chief tried to pass this off as justified....called it a "text book shooting" LOL what a FVCKING JOKE! 

I really like the part where the use the Beanbags AFTER shooting him down, In the BACK no less, with REAL bullets!!!


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 25, 2014)

If real bullets were used, where is the "real" bleeding? A white jacket/jumper would show bleeding quite obviously. A little blood goes a long long way.
To me looks like he was bagged, and knocked himself out on that rock when he went down....


----------



## flexkill (Mar 25, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> If real bullets were used, where is the "real" bleeding? A white jacket/jumper would show bleeding quite obviously. A little blood goes a long long way.
> To me looks like he was bagged, and knocked himself out on that rock when he went down....



Dude he was shot...he died from the gun wounds.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/james-boyd/

And I know that site is biased....but it's a pretty accurate synopsis of this event.


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 25, 2014)

flexkill said:


> Dude he was shot...he died from the gun wounds.
> 
> Homeless man shot to death by police while "illegally camping" in the foothills of NM | Police State USA
> 
> And I know that site is biased....but it's a pretty accurate synopsis of this event.



Doesnt say he died from gun shots though, says he died from use of lethal force. A peppering of rubber bullets and tazer might have been enough to set off his ticker.
I just don't believe he was shot with a live round. I would go as far as to say if live rounds were used they were fired to the side or above the victim as part of a display of an escalation of force... I also doubt that if they slotted him with live rounds that they would be bothering to handcuff him...

Hell I could be wrong, but it just really seems like one of those people trying to stick it to the man conspiracy stories.

Lets not overlook the fact that he did in fact pull out two knives also, I don't blame them for using force, I guess you have to put yourself in their position, you have someone who has displayed an intention to cause harm, who do you want to go home to their family that night, you or them? (I know hes homeless, just generalizing.)


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Mar 25, 2014)

It's really difficult to judge how someone might feel in a given instance. They started off using non-lethal force, which was the grenade. To be honest though, having a concussion grenade/whatever the .... go off next to me would have me get confused, scared and defensive. He pulled out knives and showed no sign of backing down. They open fired and the guy fell. He couldn't move, and he exclaimed as much when they told him to drop the knives. They shot him with beanbags and he didn't flinch, which should have been a red flag that he couldn't move. Still, they released a dog on him, which appeared to be overkill even if everything leading up to it was 100% justified. It really seems to be a case of excessive force for the simple fact that they started off with a ....ing grenade. If you really want to incapacitate somebody, use a taser, mace, or beanbags from the get go. 

At the very least, it was a handful of piss poor decisions all around, and I'm not sure if I can buy that the cops couldn't have done something else, easily. The man never approached the cops, even with knives drawn, he was in a defensive position. Something a taser, mace, the dog, or a combo of these could have deterred easily. Sure the cops could be acting reasonably on fear, but the man didn't draw his knives and get overly spooked until after having a god damn grenade thrown at him. 

For the records, I'm not at all for conspiracy "cops are out to get us" kind of things. But there are lots of cops who use excess force, and this appears to be one of those cases. Maybe they legit thought they did things the way they should, but anyone with eyes can see that there was a better alternative. If they can't make the proper judgement on something so obvious, in my eyes they don't deserve the ability to make those choices. You don't give a car mechanic surgeons tools and tell him to operate, why would you give someone who lacks critical thinking skills a gun? I hate to agree with it, but this really just seems wrong.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 25, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Doesnt say he died from gun shots though, says he died from use of lethal force. A peppering of rubber bullets and tazer might have been enough to set off his ticker.
> I just don't believe he was shot with a live round. I would go as far as to say if live rounds were used they were fired to the side or above the victim as part of a display of an escalation of force... I also doubt that if they slotted him with live rounds that they would be bothering to handcuff him...
> 
> Hell I could be wrong, but it just really seems like one of those people trying to stick it to the man conspiracy stories.
> ...


It was REAL bullets fired man. I have read many reports on this....and real bullets were used first.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 25, 2014)

Fvck the police.


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 26, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3976114 said:


> It's really difficult to judge how someone might feel in a given instance. They started off using non-lethal force, which was the grenade. To be honest though, having a concussion grenade/whatever the .... go off next to me would have me get confused, scared and defensive. He pulled out knives and showed no sign of backing down. They open fired and the guy fell. He couldn't move, and he exclaimed as much when they told him to drop the knives. They shot him with beanbags and he didn't flinch, which should have been a red flag that he couldn't move. Still, they released a dog on him, which appeared to be overkill even if everything leading up to it was 100% justified. It really seems to be a case of excessive force for the simple fact that they started off with a ....ing grenade. If you really want to incapacitate somebody, use a taser, mace, or beanbags from the get go.
> 
> At the very least, it was a handful of piss poor decisions all around, and I'm not sure if I can buy that the cops couldn't have done something else, easily. The man never approached the cops, even with knives drawn, he was in a defensive position. Something a taser, mace, the dog, or a combo of these could have deterred easily. Sure the cops could be acting reasonably on fear, but the man didn't draw his knives and get overly spooked until after having a god damn grenade thrown at him.
> 
> For the records, I'm not at all for conspiracy "cops are out to get us" kind of things. But there are lots of cops who use excess force, and this appears to be one of those cases. Maybe they legit thought they did things the way they should, but anyone with eyes can see that there was a better alternative. If they can't make the proper judgement on something so obvious, in my eyes they don't deserve the ability to make those choices. You don't give a car mechanic surgeons tools and tell him to operate, why would you give someone who lacks critical thinking skills a gun? I hate to agree with it, but this really just seems wrong.



I wouldn't get to worked up over a distraction grenade, we throw them at each other at work for fun when we have them left over at the end of an ex, its just a big fire cracker...


----------



## flexkill (Mar 26, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I wouldn't get to worked up over a distraction grenade, we throw them at each other at work for fun when we have them left over at the end of an ex, its just a big fire cracker...


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 26, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3976114 said:


> It's really difficult to judge how someone might feel in a given instance. They started off using non-lethal force, which was the grenade. To be honest though, having a concussion grenade/whatever the .... go off next to me would have me get confused, scared and defensive. He pulled out knives and showed no sign of backing down. They open fired and the guy fell. He couldn't move, and he exclaimed as much when they told him to drop the knives. They shot him with beanbags and he didn't flinch, which should have been a red flag that he couldn't move. Still, they released a dog on him, which appeared to be overkill even if everything leading up to it was 100% justified. It really seems to be a case of excessive force for the simple fact that they started off with a ....ing grenade. If you really want to incapacitate somebody, use a taser, mace, or beanbags from the get go.
> 
> At the very least, it was a handful of piss poor decisions all around, and I'm not sure if I can buy that the cops couldn't have done something else, easily. The man never approached the cops, even with knives drawn, he was in a defensive position. Something a taser, mace, the dog, or a combo of these could have deterred easily. Sure the cops could be acting reasonably on fear, but the man didn't draw his knives and get overly spooked until after having a god damn grenade thrown at him.
> 
> For the records, I'm not at all for conspiracy "cops are out to get us" kind of things. But there are lots of cops who use excess force, and this appears to be one of those cases. Maybe they legit thought they did things the way they should, but anyone with eyes can see that there was a better alternative. If they can't make the proper judgement on something so obvious, in my eyes they don't deserve the ability to make those choices. You don't give a car mechanic surgeons tools and tell him to operate, why would you give someone who lacks critical thinking skills a gun? I hate to agree with it, but this really just seems wrong.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Mar 26, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I wouldn't get to worked up over a distraction grenade, we throw them at each other at work for fun when we have them left over at the end of an ex, its just a big fire cracker...




Flash bangs are not just big fire crackers, which is beside the point since a big fire cracker (or an m80) would be enough to scare and confuse an unwilling/unknowing victim. Sudden loud noises piss me off even when I'm in a good mood, not having people shout demands at me. The video shows they even shot him in the ....ing back. He never approached them, and even putting myself in their shoes (which I always do in situations like this) I saw no reason to use lethal force, plain and simple.

For serious dude, you should just accept that this is a really ....ed up case. Like I said, I normally don't jump to the "cops are assholes out to get you" conclusion. I've never been stopped or harassed by police, and my closest friend IS a cop. What they did was beyond excessive, which is easily evidenced by the fact that, even if everything leading up was justified, (and it wasn't) they sent a dog after a man who didn't so much as flinch when shot with bean bags. He didn't even slightly resist the dog, which if you've seen what police dogs can do, you know it's a damn big red flag.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you and your buddies are really throwing flash bangs at each other at work, your judgement is also very questionable and I hope lives aren't in your hands.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 26, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3977603 said:


> Flash bangs are not just big fire crackers,



Not only are they not "just firecrackers", but they are used as concussive grenades as well to stun and disorientate the person used against.


----------



## Necris (Mar 26, 2014)

There are reports that last night the Albuquerque Police Department shot and killed another person.
Police say he fired a weapon at officers.
Witnesses say the man was unarmed but had a phone to his ear.

Man dies following overnight APD shooting | Albuquerque News & Weather | Abq, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe, NM | krqe.com


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 26, 2014)

How is it possible for such corruption to go unchanged?


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2014)

A) This is horrible and does make the officers look bad.

B) They obviously had an excess of force on hand and chose to engage in its use unnecessarily. I mean, one or two well placed beanbag rounds would have subdued him to the point where they could have easily cuffed him.

...

That said....If 4+ armed officers with guns and a dog tell you to get on the ground with your hands on your head....*You get on the god damned ground with your hands on your head.*

It still baffles me that people resist in this sorts of situations and the cops are forced (not to the extent here, of course) to use less desirable means of subduing the criminal. If I understood the issue, the guy was illegally camping out in this area. Why that would be a crime, I don't know, but that's obviously not what sparked the deadly confrontation in the end. They instructed him to get on the ground and instead, he chooses to pull out two knives and take a stance that showed he wasn't planning on complying without trying to fight. I don't see how an application of force (again, not to this extent) would be unjustified in this situation. 

I'm not saying that the police are never at fault, that there isn't corruption that exists within the system, or that events like this are trivial, but throwing out phrases like "fvck tha police" after seeing this is being dishonest about the conditions involved.

If a cop tells you to do something. You do it. If he's in the wrong, you can roast his ass later (i.e. in court, not taking revenge). Honestly, there is NO reason not to comply that could possibly work out in your best interests.


----------



## Nile (Mar 26, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I wouldn't get to worked up over a distraction grenade, we throw them at each other at work for fun when we have them left over at the end of an ex, its just a big fire cracker...



I assume you have no clue what one is or don't have literal ones. If in fact you guys are throwing concussion grenades at each other, you guys are stupid.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Mar 26, 2014)

Watty said:


> A) This is horrible and does make the officers look bad.
> 
> B) They obviously had an excess of force on hand and chose to engage in its use unnecessarily. I mean, one or two well placed beanbag rounds would have subdued him to the point where they could have easily cuffed him.
> 
> ...



+1 The dipshit had it coming IMO. Always do whatever a policeman says.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 26, 2014)

Yo_Wattup said:


> +1 The dipshit had it coming IMO. Always do whatever a policeman says.



Ummmmm NO.


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2014)

flexkill said:


> Ummmmm NO.



He might not have had "death" coming, as per what I discussed above, but if he thought he was getting out of that confrontation unscathed after pulling two knives.....he'd be insane.

The killing was not justified; the officers using force was.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 26, 2014)

flexkill said:


> Ummmmm NO.


Yeah, gotta agree with Flex on this one, police have proven to not always be the upstanding good guys who protect and serve. From the abusing black people in the south, the stuff going on in Arizona with immigrants or people who look like immigrants (though it's not entirely there fault there) and whatever cop video you've seen caught on tape. You just never know, nut there's no shortage of good cops either, it's just that the bad ones seem to get more attention than the good ones get praise.


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Yeah, gotta agree with Flex on this one, police have proven to not always be the upstanding good guys who protect and serve. From the abusing black people in the south, the stuff going on in Arizona with immigrants or people who look like immigrants (though it's not entirely there fault there) and whatever cop video you've seen caught on tape. You just never know, nut there's no shortage of good cops either, it's just that the bad ones seem to get more attention than the good ones get praise.



Well of course the bad ones get more attention.....the media, and by extension the general public, sensationalize stories like this for effect. 

Again, while they were not justified in killing him, he pulled two knives on the officers and took a stance that said "don't .... with me." Your side of the argument really only works if they went out into that desert to hunt him down and kill him, which was obviously not the case.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 26, 2014)

Watty said:


> Well of course the bad ones get more attention.....the media, and by extension the general public, sensationalize stories like this for effect.
> 
> Again, while they were not justified in killing him, he pulled two knives on the officers and took a stance that said "don't .... with me." Your side of the argument really only works if they went out into that desert to hunt him down and kill him, which was obviously not the case.



There is no defending this dude. NONE. I don't care if that guy had a sword in his hand. These guys are SWAT...it should NOT have ended with this guy being killed. If he had a gun I would totally understand. Between the time the cops hit him with the grenade and then shoot him is wicked fast. 

He had already agreed to walk down with them. He was not given the chance to comply. He turned around to pick up his belongings and was flash banged. Then when it looks as if he turned away from them to get on the ground was shot.

Everyone must remember, these are supposed highly trained individuals who's job it is to deal with these exact types of situations While protecting themselves AND THE SUSPECT!

remember the motto is "To protect and serve" not "To demand and murder"


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 26, 2014)

Watty said:


> Well of course the bad ones get more attention.....the media, and by extension the general public, sensationalize stories like this for effect.
> 
> Again, while they were not justified in killing him, he pulled two knives on the officers and took a stance that said "don't .... with me." Your side of the argument really only works if they went out into that desert to hunt him down and kill him, which was obviously not the case.


I wasn't really arguing about the video, I was just elaborating on why you shouldn't always trust a cop. And as Flex said, there's no defending what the cops did, they had numerous ways of incapacitating him, and they choose the most lethal method first then the least lethal afterwards. Though your right he should have just given himself up immediately, instead of creating a commotion.


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2014)

flexkill said:


> There is no defending this dude. NONE. I don't care if that guy had a sword in his hand. These guys are SWAT...it should NOT have ended with this guy being killed. If he had a gun I would totally understand. Between the time the cops hit him with the grenade and then shoot him is wicked fast.
> 
> He had already agreed to walk down with them. He was not given the chance to comply. He turned around to pick up his belongings and was flash banged. Then when it looks as if he turned away from them to get on the ground was shot.
> 
> ...



I think I made it quite clear I wasn't defending them in this case (see the portions in parentheses in my first post) as they did act poorly and killing the man was completely uncalled for. They should not have even had a gun with live ammo ready to go when they approached him as the beanbag would have been sufficient for anyone they did not suspect to be armed himself (with a gun, that is).

I am, however, defending that they did take action. The perp obviously had no desire to cooperate initially, and I'd imagine even highly trained individuals get a bit tense when this occurs. He might have turned to comply, but that was after he pulled two knives and took the defensive stance. If he was going to "go quietly," why the hell would he have risked doing that in the first place?

At the end of the day, I think most people find it easy to talk about these sorts of things after the fact without knowing the whole situation/story (not necessarily applicable to this situation with the FP perspective). I remember a previous post about police brutality that showcased a video with several examples. I watched the first three and didn't see any cause for wrong doing as in each case, the perp did something to provoke the officer. Again, I'm not condoning the extent to which aggressive action is taken on the part of the police, but you at least have to acknowledge that the perp could have avoided ALL of this by simply getting on the ground with his hands behind his head.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 26, 2014)

Watty said:


> but you at least have to acknowledge that the perp could have avoided ALL of this by simply getting on the ground with his hands behind his head.



The guy had mental problems and was just stunned by a Concussive grenade. Clear thinking is not going to happen in this situation. The police are the ones who are tasked with showing restraint and good judgement as they are supposedly trained and paid to do. The Police enforce the law, they are not above the law. The fact of the matter is, Most of the police shootings that they get away with...the average citizen would be imprisoned. It should not be this way. The law should work for everyone the same way.


----------



## Leuchty (Mar 26, 2014)

So many people with "authority" are always ITCHING for some "action".

Cops, Bouncers, security guards, Traffic controllers, etc...


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 27, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3977603 said:


> Flash bangs are not just big fire crackers, which is beside the point since a big fire cracker (or an m80) would be enough to scare and confuse an unwilling/unknowing victim. Sudden loud noises piss me off even when I'm in a good mood, not having people shout demands at me. The video shows they even shot him in the ....ing back. He never approached them, and even putting myself in their shoes (which I always do in situations like this) I saw no reason to use lethal force, plain and simple.
> 
> I don't know what you do for a living, but if you and your buddies are really throwing flash bangs at each other at work, your judgement is also very questionable and I hope lives aren't in your hands.



DISTRACTION GRENADE! How ....ing simple is it to miss that, DISTRACTION, not flash. You need to get a grip if you think they are going to throw a flash grenade in-front of their own faces.
To everyone getting their panties in a bunch, never once did I say we throw "flash" or "concussion" grenades at each other. If you think throwing a measly distraction or "sim" grenade at each other is OTT then you really need to harden up. Also, stop playing so much COD....


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 27, 2014)

Nile said:


> I assume you have no clue what one is or don't have literal ones. If in fact you guys are throwing concussion grenades at each other, you guys are stupid.



Re-read what you quoted mate..... Did I say concussion?


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 27, 2014)

Can anyone link a report that states live rounds were actually used? Or that the cause of death was due to the use of live rounds?


----------



## flexkill (Mar 27, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Can anyone link a report that states live rounds were actually used? Or that the cause of death was due to the use of live rounds?



I am not going to sit here and spoon feed you links! He was shot with live rounds first! If you care to know so you can keep up defending the situation....find me the link that says rubber bullets were used! To many "Distraction grenades" to the head for you? Maybe you and your friends should find a new hobby.


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 27, 2014)

Don't get butt hurt because there is a lack of evidence rather than hearsay.... I get it, the guy died, but it may very well be that he had a weak ticker and combining a stressful situation with a "tasing" and peppering of rubber bullets might have set him off. As I said earlier, if he was shot with live rounds then I'm happy to accept that, but until then it just doesn't seem like he was actually shot with live rounds.

Regarding your desperate attempt at a having a personal dig, the purpose of us having the sim/distraction grenades are to throw into rooms with role players in them to simulate live or a flash grenades, you might care to understand that they will not harm you, unless you are not wearing adequate hearing protection.... Get a basic understanding before you make yourself look too foolish.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 27, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Don't get butt hurt because there is a lack of evidence rather than hearsay.... I get it, the guy died, but it may very well be that he had a weak ticker and combining a stressful situation with a "tasing" and peppering of rubber bullets might have set him off. As I said earlier, if he was shot with live rounds then I'm happy to accept that, but until then it just doesn't seem like he was actually shot with live rounds.
> 
> Regarding your desperate attempt at a having a personal dig, the purpose of us having the sim/distraction grenades are to throw into rooms with role players in them to simulate live or a flash grenades, you might care to understand that they will not harm you, unless you are not wearing adequate hearing protection.... Get a basic understanding before you make yourself look too foolish.



Dude youtube it. It was real bullets....believe what you want. You started being the smart ass here not me. I'm done...have fun.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Mar 27, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Can anyone link a report that states live rounds were actually used? Or that the cause of death was due to the use of live rounds?



The cops never denied, and even defended, the use of live rounds. It's all reported as "shot and killed." It's not a mystery how he died. The only one who seems not to know is you.

As for listening to the police, I generally agree. 99% of the time you may have a cranky rough cop! but it's part of their job. Being lied to and looked down upon has them take every amount of caution that they need to. If your eyes are darting, you're refusing to comply with simple demands, etc, you are a suspicious individual and they will do everything they can to find out why you're acting mega suspicious. But when somebody agrees to come down the mountainside with you with no harm or confrontation and then you throw a grenade at him... The guy didn't really do anything that warranted any of the shit that happened.


Edit: Here's an article that mentions the cops calling it justified. http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/apd-officer-involved-shooting-was-justified/

He definitely needed to be arrested or something, but I still stand by the fact that from beginning to end, it was unjustified the way the cops handled it.


----------



## Necris (Mar 27, 2014)

At least one of the cops in the video even confirms having "lethal" rounds in his weapon. Whether he was one of the ones who fired at the guy, I can't say.

As an aside, apparently since November 2012 the APD has been under investigation by the Department of Justice "on allegations that APD officers engage in use of excessive force, including use of unreasonable deadly force, in their encounters with civilians. " 

Since 2010 they've shot and killed 23 people. It's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt with those facts.


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 27, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3978981 said:


> The cops never denied, and even defended, the use of live rounds. It's all reported as "shot and killed." It's not a mystery how he died. The only one who seems not to know is you.
> 
> As for listening to the police, I generally agree. 99% of the time you may have a cranky rough cop! but it's part of their job. Being lied to and looked down upon has them take every amount of caution that they need to. If your eyes are darting, you're refusing to comply with simple demands, etc, you are a suspicious individual and they will do everything they can to find out why you're acting mega suspicious. But when somebody agrees to come down the mountainside with you with no harm or confrontation and then you throw a grenade at him... The guy didn't really do anything that warranted any of the shit that happened.
> 
> ...



Well there you go, will be interesting to see what the coroner says in regards to cause of death.

That said, he hadn't agreed to go down the hill with them. Your article you just linked states that during the hours of the incident and right up to the shooting he was threatening with violence claiming to be a member of Defense. Pull knives on cops at a close proximity, expect to be shot, pretty black and white.
I seriously don't envy the life of an American police officer, with the amount of weaponry readily available on the streets I cannot see how anyone could blame them for being on edge all the time....


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Mar 27, 2014)

Necris said:


> At least one of the cops in the video even confirms having "lethal" rounds in his weapon. Whether he was one of the ones who fired at the guy, I can't say.
> 
> As an aside, apparently since November 2012 the APD has been under investigation by the Department of Justice "on allegations that APD officers engage in use of excessive force, including use of unreasonable deadly force, in their encounters with civilians. "
> 
> Since 2010 they've shot and killed 23 people. It's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt with those facts.



No shit. I didn't know that, but it's a massive cause for concern. Also I keep hearing that they used tasers, but for the life of me I didn't hear one. Also, I'm not positive, and maybe I misheard, but wasn't the helmet cam guy the one who confirmed having lethal rounds? After looking into it a bit more, the homeless guy was definitely cause for concern, and I wouldn't feel comfortable letting him walk away, but every move the cops made was sketch as .... from the beginning.

Edit: generally I agree with you vrollin, but this case just screams ....ed up. Like I said before this edit, the guy was way more sketchy than I initially understood, but he never made a physically hostile move. He needed to be arrested, but not shot and killed. The article also says they fired beanbags pretty much exactly when they fired live rounds, and I honestly didn't hear a taser deploy. If one did, it's possible it missed and they should have made a second attempt. My whole beef is that they didn't exhaust their non-lethal means of solving the situation before resorting to lethal. The report even says he was 8 feet away from the unarmed officer. That's easily 2-3 seconds of reaction time they had.

Edit edit: also, what immediate threat did he pose with his back turned to them?


----------



## flexkill (Mar 27, 2014)

Señor Voorhees;3979014 said:


> Edit edit: also, what immediate threat did he pose with his back turned to them?



This


----------



## Randy (Mar 27, 2014)

All this debating on whether or not the guy was struck by a 'bullet' just because some people determine the language to be murky, or the sources to be suspect, or because they don't have any sympathy for the guy is foolish. I didn't bother reading into this story much until this morning, and when I saw all the speculation on what kind of ammunition was/wasn't used, so I looked up as many versions of this article as I could find. All or nearly all the articles I found pretty clearly distinguish between the bean bags and the bullets used.



> He was struck by at least one live round



Albuquerque homeless man shooting: Albuquerque police department under fire for use of deadly force - CBS News

I'd say that's conclusive enough for me. Whether that's what killed him or not, I don't know and we'll find out, but let's move off of arguing whether or not he was shot with a bullet.


----------



## Randy (Mar 27, 2014)

Also, typically pro-police force Fox News



> In the foothills shooting, authorities said James Boyd, 38, died after officers fired stun guns, bean bags and six live rounds.



Albuquerque police under new scrutiny after second shooting in 10 days | Fox News

The Guardian



> In that shooting, authorities said Boyd, 38, died after officers fired stun guns, bean bags and six live rounds on 16 March.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...olice-kill-man-hours-protest-police-shootings


----------



## wat (Mar 27, 2014)

I find it profoundly disturbing that anybody can see this as anything but a bloodlust-fueled brutal murder, which it clearly is as shown in the video.


----------



## asher (Mar 27, 2014)

Randy said:


> Also, typically pro-police force Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, that seems to be true, strictly speaking. Just leave out that it all happened in intervals of a quarter of a second...


----------



## Randy (Mar 27, 2014)

Also, 11 days and still no official cause of death?


----------



## Watty (Mar 27, 2014)

wat said:


> I find it profoundly disturbing that anybody can see this as anything but a bloodlust-fueled brutal murder, which it clearly is as shown in the video.



I agree but still say that I find it disturbing that people think pulling knives on police officers in a situation like this is an appropriate response to their instructions.


----------



## Randy (Mar 27, 2014)

Watty said:


> I agree but still say that I find it disturbing that people think pulling knives on police officers in a situation like this is an appropriate response to their instructions.



The guy was a vagrant who'd been in and out of jail several times and was known to be confrontational with law enforcement. I don't know who you're referring to when you say "people" but if you're referring to the guy who was shot, I wouldn't put much stock in what "he considered appropriate" because all of what I just mentioned indicate to me the guy was irrational.

All that said, I've gone over this before in other police brutality threads, so I'll try not to retread it to much but here goes...

The very nature of what police do is dealing with people who act irrationally or are "on the wrong side of the law". They're expected to be the sound voice when things go off the rails, and they're supposed to be trained to expect that they might not be met with a warm reception. As such, there are criteria that apply to every different situation under the sun with regard to HOW MUCH force is authorized (ie. how much you can use without getting in trouble) and how much finesse can be used to deescalate or resolve the situation. 

To just white wash this situation by saying "Yeah, they killed him but he pulled a knife so he deserved it" (I know that not what you said but that being the trajectory of your argument, with little to the contrary, it's implied) is tone deaf to the nuance of the job. At a minimum, in a split second the guy got hit with a volley of lethal and non-lethal ammunition. Thinking from a neutral standpoint, depending on how justified lethal force was in that scenario, one way or the other one of those actions was incorrect.... if the guy is a direct threat, it was a waste to use anything but bullets, if he could've been subdued without bullets, it was inappropriate to use them. The mismatch of what kind of tactic was used should be a clear enough indication that the police involved had no fvcking clue what they were doing, one way or the other.


----------



## Watty (Mar 27, 2014)

I was intending to mean that in the broader context, not necessarily for this event. Disregard for authority is all too commonplace and provides an environment in which the perceived justification for excess force can grow...


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 28, 2014)

Randy said:


> if the guy is a direct threat, it was a waste to use anything but bullets, if he could've been subdued without bullets, it was inappropriate to use them. The mismatch of what kind of tactic was used should be a clear enough indication that the police involved had no fvcking clue what they were doing, one way or the other.



If the guy was a direct threat you would use what ever means necessary to subdue him, ideally starting with non lethal and progressing. If all you have is bean bag rounds it is not a waste to use them on a an individual who is a direct threat. Are you saying that someone with bean bag rounds should simply wait for another officer to use live rounds? What if that other officer hesitates, deems live inappropriate, or misses? You know if you were in that position and the weapon you had at the ready was loaded with beanbag rounds and you felt threatened you would be using them. It doesn't really prove that they have "no ....ing clue."


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Mar 28, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> If the guy was a direct threat you would use what ever means necessary to subdue him, ideally starting with non lethal and progressing. If all you have is bean bag rounds it is not a waste to use them on a an individual who is a direct threat. Are you saying that someone with bean bag rounds should simply wait for another officer to use live rounds? What if that other officer hesitates, deems live inappropriate, or misses? You know if you were in that position and the weapon you had at the ready was loaded with beanbag rounds and you felt threatened you would be using them. It doesn't really prove that they have "no ....ing clue."



He's not a direct threat if you can wait for backup. "Direct threat" means charging at you with knives drawn with no intent of letting up. And that's why I feel this whole thing is ....ed. The guy was a threat, but he wasn't posing any immediate danger to anyone. He wasn't charging, in fact he was facing away from people when he was shot. I don't deny that the police needed to do something, but they didn't need to kill him. If all you have is non lethal, then by all means use it on a charging suspect, but if you've got live rounds use them.

Edit:misread your post, but I still figure they meant use what you have, up to and including lethal force. Just because you lack lethal rounds doesn't mean you shouldn't pull the trigger.

Edit edit: I need to more closely read things. He was saying that if the guy was a direct threat, they would have skipped flash bangs, tasers, and beanbags and went straight to lethal. He wasn't a direct threat, and as such they spent 30 seconds or so pelting him with non lethal, after which he still didn't charge them which would then warrant lethal rounds.


----------



## flexkill (Mar 28, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> If the guy was a direct threat you would use what ever means necessary to subdue him, ideally starting with non lethal and progressing. If all you have is bean bag rounds it is not a waste to use them on a an individual who is a direct threat. Are you saying that someone with bean bag rounds should simply wait for another officer to use live rounds? What if that other officer hesitates, deems live inappropriate, or misses? You know if you were in that position and the weapon you had at the ready was loaded with beanbag rounds and you felt threatened you would be using them. It doesn't really prove that they have "no ....ing clue."


----------



## Randy (Mar 28, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> If the guy was a direct threat you would use what ever means necessary to subdue him, ideally starting with non lethal and progressing. If all you have is bean bag rounds it is not a waste to use them on a an individual who is a direct threat. Are you saying that someone with bean bag rounds should simply wait for another officer to use live rounds? What if that other officer hesitates, deems live inappropriate, or misses? You know if you were in that position and the weapon you had at the ready was loaded with beanbag rounds and you felt threatened you would be using them. It doesn't really prove that they have "no ....ing clue."



Considering all police carry a pistol which have "real" bullets in them, they could've used those instead. They chose not to.


----------



## Vrollin (Mar 29, 2014)

Randy said:


> Considering all police carry a pistol which have "real" bullets in them, they could've used those instead. They chose not to.



On one hand you guys are calling them murderers, then on the other you are having a go at them for using non-lethal rounds as opposed to their pistols with live rounds..... Pick a side.....


----------



## flexkill (Mar 29, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> On one hand you guys are calling them murderers, then on the other you are having a go at them for using non-lethal rounds as opposed to their pistols with live rounds..... Pick a side.....



Do you make this up as you go along? I said why didn't they use the NON LETHAL first!? And Randy's point is that by them shooting everything at once basically....shows that they really didn't know WHAT to do....And I agree with him. Shows they were confused and just shot off everything in a panic.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 29, 2014)

flexkill said:


> 1) I said why didn't they use the NON LETHAL first!?
> 2) And Randy's point is that by them shooting everything at once basically....shows that they really didn't know WHAT to do....And I agree with him. Shows they were confused and just shot off everything in a panic.



So, regardless of most of the back-and-forth arguments of dipshittery on the part of either the police or the 'perp', these are the two statements that we all more or less agree on.

If this particular police department is under investigation for 23 other incidents of using deadly force, then I'd say they either have a serious culture problem or are so poorly trained they barely qualify as police. 

In Vrollin's defence, it looks like he's from Aus, and we're just not used to seeing that kind of shit from police. Our States tend to make a point of ensuring police are generally well paid, are given a lot of money for constant, up to date training, and face consequences for ....ups before a further 23 incidents pop up. I'm not saying Aus police are perfect, but when you combine decent pay for police with a society that has few lethal weapons and a health system that means crazy people usually receive early treatment instead of having guns pointed at them once they've finally gone off the deep end, you find it hard to rationalise the footage in the original video. That shit very rarely happens here - certainly compared to the extent that people say it does in the US.

I hope the people in charge of reviewing this case deal with it quickly and transparently. Regardless of who is to blame for the incident, the deceased man or the cops, the people who care about the deceased man deserve a comprehensive answer as to how and why he died.


----------



## Randy (Mar 29, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> On one hand you guys are calling them murderers, then on the other you are having a go at them for using non-lethal rounds as opposed to their pistols with live rounds..... Pick a side.....



Thats exactly you problem, you're arguing sides and you've already made obvious what side you're on. 

I'm not on a side. There is no side, this incident happened as a result of numerous errors on the part of everybody involved (the victim included). My focus is primarily on facts and whether or not this situation was handled correctly by law enforcement since they were the ones who walked away from the altercation and they're the ones trained and authorized to use force.

My point was that you cant have it both ways, either the guy needed to be killed or he didn't. To argue or imply the police did the right thing in this case, yet the response among all of them was mismatched implies haphazardly unleashing a volley of whatever willy nilly qualifies as a calculated response. Police justly use lethal and non lethal force all the time, and such, j don't make it a point to bitch about every instance because they're frequently justified. This story was murky from the beginning and the video and the suspect response from the department has made it all the murkier.

Where I'm at, I think the victim was clearly mentally unhinged and had an issue with authority. All these things considered, it was almost a foregone conclusion that the guy wouldn't face a pleasant end (either in jail or being murdered). Leading that life and reacting to authorities the way he was clearly prone to do was his undoing. I understand and rstionize those things and still fall short on saying the guy deserved to die or that his short comings cover for the fact the police did a piss poor job defusing the situation.


----------



## Necris (Mar 30, 2014)

Protesters march on APD headquarters | Albuquerque News & Weather | Abq, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe, NM | krqe.com

Police and protesters have standoff near Girard and Central | Albuquerque Journal News


----------



## dlsmith976 (Mar 30, 2014)

Well, grabbing for a weapon when you have cops pointing guns at you is probably not a good idea. Sorry the dude got himself KO'd, but he should not have got himself in that predicament. It's no surprise that police departments all over the World have corruption in them, so folks like this should think even harder before going out and committing crimes.


----------



## Watty (Mar 30, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> On one hand you guys are calling them murderers, then on the other you are having a go at them for using non-lethal rounds as opposed to their pistols with live rounds..... Pick a side.....



Well, considering they basically needlessly shot a corpse with said non-lethals (more than once), I don't think there's a incongruity in the logic...you'd be justified in getting angry about both in this case.


----------



## Randy (Apr 1, 2014)

Honestly, not far from what I would've prescribed out of this:

Police shootings push mayor to seek training money - Times Union


----------



## loqtrall (Apr 2, 2014)

There's absolutely no need for someone to take another's life if their life isn't in danger. For fvck's sake, the man had fvcking knives! KNIVES. They could have tased the mortal shit out of him ON THE SPOT when he revealed the knives, but no, they waited until he turned his back, completely passive, and shot him in the back and killed him for no reason. "We thought he was pulling a gun" psh, bullshit. Shooting and killing someone "because you thought they were pulling a gun" is the dumbest shit a police officer could do. You shouldn't shoot until you SEE a firearm present. Go ahead and kill a guy for pulling a fvcking pack of gum out of his pocket, idiotic pieces of shit. And then they get away with it, like taking lethal action was "their duty". The transformation of a badge into a crown is one of the worst things that have happened in human history.


----------



## WhoThenNow7 (Apr 2, 2014)

The guy with the helmet cam had a gun with real bullets.. The fake ones are marked with yellow. And if you pay attention, it's not hard to miss, the helmet cam cop shoots his weapon and you can tell that he hit the target.


----------



## Necris (Apr 2, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> There's absolutely no need for someone to take another's life if their life isn't in danger.


It could be argued that the life of the Police Dog was in danger since he seems to have pulled out the knives in an attempt to defend himself from
the dog. Some departments deem it acceptable to use deadly force to protect the life of the dog, since in many states they are considered full police officers.



> For fvck's sake, the man had fvcking knives! KNIVES. They could have tased the mortal shit out of him ON THE SPOT when he revealed the knives, but no, they waited until he turned his back, completely passive, and shot him in the back and killed him for no reason.


They could have tased him, but tasers aren't always effective. They could also have beanbagged him. They clearly had both readily available. I recall part of their story being as the situation unfolded over the course of hours they repeatedly tried to take him down with rubber bullets and it didn't work. If I can find a link to that I'll post it.




> "We thought he was pulling a gun" psh, bullshit. Shooting and killing someone "because you thought they were pulling a gun" is the dumbest shit a police officer could do. You shouldn't shoot until you SEE a firearm present.


This ignores the fact that a human being can absorb multiple gunshot wounds before falling. If he had trained consistently with his weapon there was some possibility he would have been capable of producing and firing it with reasonable accuracy very quickly, with a caveat being that there is also a strong possibility that even if he were to produce his weapon at such a close distance and empty it at the officers he would never actually hit anyone or only would have done superficial damage.

Either way, considering they were within a few feet of the suspect there was a risk if he were to produce a firearm. 
The officers had the upper hand in the sense that their weapons were already pointed at him but that doesn't necessarily mean they were safe.


----------



## loqtrall (Apr 2, 2014)

Necris said:


> It could be argued that the life of the Police Dog was in danger since he seems to have pulled out the knives in an attempt to defend himself from
> the dog. Some departments deem it acceptable to use deadly force to protect the life of the dog, since in many states they are considered full police officers.



Oh, that's a completely valid point: Kill a man for defending himself against a "police officer" with sharp inches long teeth that's trying to rip into your flesh. BUT, they didn't shoot him when he presented the knives, they shot him when he turned his back. He presented the knives and got defensive when the dog came at him, yet the officers didn't take him down. And when the dog backed up, and the guy turned around and posed NO threat to the dog, they shot him in the back multiple times.




Necris said:


> They could have tased him, but tasers aren't always effective. They could also have beanbagged him. They clearly had both readily available. I recall part of their story being as the situation unfolded over the course of hours they repeatedly tried to take him down with rubber bullets and it didn't work. If I can find a link to that I'll post it.



There's a difference between shooting a man with a hard piece of rubber that could just end up just bruising his arm or pissing him off, and shooting him with a taser that will electrocute him and most likely incapacitate him, and that can be used over and over again, virtually infinitely, until the man gives in and follows orders.




Necris said:


> This ignores the fact that a human being can absorb multiple gunshot wounds before falling. If he had trained consistently with his weapon there was some possibility he would have been capable of producing and firing it with reasonable accuracy very quickly, with a caveat being that there is also a strong possibility that even if he were to produce his weapon at such a close distance and empty it at the officers he would never actually hit anyone or only would have done superficial damage.
> 
> Either way, considering they were within a few feet of the suspect there was a risk if he were to produce a firearm.
> The officers had the upper hand in the sense that their weapons were already pointed at him but that doesn't necessarily mean they were safe.



Now this, this comment is just mind-numbingly dull. You're basically saying: "Well, even though they're in a situation where they entirely have the upper hand, they outgun the guy, they outnumber the guy, they have means of non-lethal takedown, even though they could just as easily run up behind the guy and tackled/tased him while he turned his back: There was a POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT have had a gun on his person, and MIGHT be highly trained with this weapon, and MIGHT be able to draw and shoot it in quick succession, and him turning his back on us seems like a reason to believe he's pulling said weapon, so we better shoot and kill him just to make sure we're safe and will leave this altercation unharmed." How is that a solution? Somebody might have a weapon, so if they pull something out of their pocket quickly, we might as well shoot them to be safe? That's completely wrong. Police are supposed to serve and protect, not assume everyone they encounter is packing and is going to harm them. Just seeing a cop with his hand on his pistol as he approaches a car in a traffic stop makes me sick.

Of course there are situations that present themselves where officers needed to defend themselves to save their own lives, but there are more videos recorded of officers harming people for no reason.

Being a police officer doesn't give you a right to harm people who you believe are doing bad things. They're supposed to serve and protect, not oppress and harm. How was shooting that man (who ended up NOT having a firearm) in the back while he posed no immediate threat to anybody considered serving and protecting anyone? He was a homeless man camping (gee, who would have thought you'd need a knife while camping, huh?) in an "illegal camping spot" who just wanted to be left alone, and that warranted swat officers with assault rifles? Bullshit. Just think, a man lost his life, HIS LIFE, the most important thing a human being can possess, because some cops didn't want him camping in a certain place.


----------



## Necris (Apr 2, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Now this, this comment is just mind-numbingly dull. You're basically saying: "Well, even though they're in a situation where they entirely have the upper hand, they outgun the guy, they outnumber the guy, they have means of non-lethal takedown, even though they could just as easily run up behind the guy and tackled/tased him while he turned his back: There was a POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT have had a gun on his person, and MIGHT be highly trained with this weapon, and MIGHT be able to draw and shoot it in quick succession, and him turning his back on us seems like a reason to believe he's pulling said weapon, so we better shoot and kill him just to make sure we're safe and will leave this altercation unharmed." How is that a solution? Somebody might have a weapon, so if they pull something out of their pocket quickly, we might as well shoot them to be safe?


 You seem not to understand that the knives alone in that situation are extremely dangerous, easily as dangerous as a firearm. It takes only a couple of seconds to close a 30 foot gap between 2 people and there is no real _reliable_ defense against a knife attack that doesn't involve killing the attacker. If a taser or beanbag failed to take the man down he likely could have easily closed the gap and severely injured or killed the nearest officer before being killed himself if he had the intent to.


I'll agree it the idea of killing a man who "may" have a weapon seems utterly paranoid on its face, however in the context of this situation he had already stated to the officers that he believed "if you were at a bar or a bus stop I'd have the right to kill you because you're trying to take me over"; which by the way is completely untrue. This was his first mistake since now the officers are no longer going to attempt to simply walk up and attempt to cuff him since he has now verbally threatened them; at that moment he is no longer a non-compliant illegal camper, he is non-complaint illegal camper who is a potential threat to the officers.
Moments later they threw the distraction grenade at him in an attempt to buy time to move in and take him down and sent the dog towards him.

After that he produced two knives despite the officers having moved in to close proximity to him; his second mistake. Now he is an actual threat; not a potential one. 

The K-9 officer who handled the dog had moved in too close for his own safety while attempting to retrieve the dog; that is a failure on the part of the officer but still the officer was in a position that at the time could only have been viewed as life threatening.

You will also notice that just a moment before the man turned his back he was reaching behind himself; given the context of the situation the assumption made by the police that he may have been reaching for another weapon is reasonable, the threat didn't disappear just because he turned his back if anything it would have given him more time to draw said weapon (if he had turned out to have one) had they not responded immediately.

Had he not pulled out the knives he likely would be alive right now. He is not at all a purely innocent victim.

In any other situation if someone at close range to an officer threatened said officer and proceeded to pull out knives the officer would be fully justified in using deadly force.


----------



## loqtrall (Apr 3, 2014)

Necris said:


> You seem not to understand that the knives alone in that situation are extremely dangerous, easily as dangerous as a firearm. It takes only a couple of seconds to close a 30 foot gap between 2 people and there is no real _reliable_ defense against a knife attack that doesn't involve killing the attacker. If a taser or beanbag failed to take the man down he likely could have easily closed the gap and severely injured or killed the nearest officer before being killed himself.



See, in this situation, had they NOT thrown a fvcking flashbang at him in broad daylight(?), if he lunged at one of the officers, thus making him an attacker, not just a passive man standing there with knives, they would have had every right to shoot him, and would have probably succeeded, seeing as they had their weapons drawn on him. But that's not how it went down. They shot a man, dead, who had his back turned, and who was only armed with knives. They shot a man in the back, who had his back turned to them, and his only weapons were KNIVES. He was of NO threat after he turned around, and the "assumption" that he had a firearm, which he didn't, shouldn't have been enough reason to take his life.



Necris said:


> Had he not pulled out the knives he likely would be alive right now. He is not at all a purely innocent victim.
> 
> In any other situation if someone at close range to an officer threatened said officer and proceeded to pull out knives the officer would be fully justified in using deadly force.



Had officers not shot him dead, he'd still be alive right now, as well. He wasn't a purely innocent victim? For what reason? Because he was a homeless man with a knife, camping where he wasn't supposed to? And that warranted a police officer to shoot and kill him while he wasn't even facing them? Or is it because he "threatened" the officers? Well, if you pull a weapon out on an officer, they command you to put the weapon down, or they'll shoot you. Is that not a threat also? Is them killing you not a crime also? Why? Because they have a tiny metal badge? Or is murder a routine thing when it comes to normal human beings who are legally allowed to give the general populace orders and carry around a loaded firearm that they can use when THEY (the law) see fit? What *you're* forgetting is that police officers are normal people. Most of them just go power-hungry because their childhood sucked, their wife divorced them, they're just having a bad day, whatever the reason. And that's not a good thing. Whoever thought it was smart to put a bunch of high-school graduates (GED graduates, even) through a short amount of "schooling" so that they can legally carry a loaded firearm (or multiple), and give people orders on what they believe is the law, is a complete dumbass. Just because they wear a uniform and have a shiny shield or star on their chest shouldn't give them the right to be above the law, which is: If you kill a human being for no reason, you should go to prison for it. Because you know damned well if a cop came at the homeless man shooting, and the homeless man felt his life was in danger and defended himself and stabbed the officer to death, he'd be in prison RIGHT NOW.

This was in NO way a "self-defense" killing, nor was it a "routine shooting". Whichever police officer had live rounds in his gun MURDERED a man who had his back turned to him, and who ultimately showed no threat to him, nor his fellow officers. They shot and killed him LITERALLY when he turned his back. While he was turning around, he made no sudden movements with his arms, the only sudden movement he made was turning around, and they gunned him down as soon as he turned on them. The simple fact is, there was absolutely no reason to. They had no idea what the man was going to do when he turned around, one reason is because they didn't give him a fvcking chance, and another reason is because they're damned idiots who "suspected" him of having a firearm.

Man, that's how I'd want to go, shot by an idiot who thinks I'm pulling a gun out of my pocket because I turned away from him while he was talking to me.


----------



## Necris (Apr 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> He was of NO threat after he turned around, *and the "assumption" that he had a firearm*, which he didn't,* shouldn't have been enough reason to take his life*.


Legally it is in the context of the events that transpired. He didn't have to "lunge" at the officers for them to claim self defense. He posed an imminent threat the moment he brandished his knives; if not before that point (when he made his threat). As much as you may not like having to consider context, it does have an effect no the legality of the officers actions.



> *They had no idea what the man was going to do when he turned around*, one reason is because they didn't give him a fvcking chance, and another reason is because they're damned idiots who "suspected" him of having a firearm.


And he posed a threat _before_ he turned around; I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the threat disappears once a man who is clearly armed with at least two visible weapons, and is potentially carrying more on his person, turns his back. Were the knives not still in his hands? Had he not threatened the officers verbally? And yes, what he said is absolutely a threat.



> Had officers not shot him dead, he'd still be alive right now, as well. He wasn't a purely innocent victim? For what reason? Because he was a homeless man with a knife, camping where he wasn't supposed to?


That you want to completely strip down what happens to "homeless camper gets shot in the back by cops for having a knife" is laughable. He wasn't shot for merely possessing knives no matter how much you may want to believe that to be the case. 




> What *you're* forgetting is that police officers are normal people. Most of them just go power-hungry because their childhood sucked, their wife divorced them, they're just having a bad day, whatever the reason.


Actually it appears that *you* are the one who is unaware that cops are normal people. 

You clearly expect nothing short of a supernatural level of perception on the part of the officers given that you are absolutely outraged that they had to make an assumption about the possibility of a man who had already drawn two weapons having another.

It's as though you have decided that it is the cops duty to know all details of an event and exactly how said event will transpire_ *before*_ the event actually happens and then proceed to act according to that knowledge.




> Because you know damned well if a cop came at the homeless man shooting, and the homeless man felt his life was in danger and defended himself and stabbed the officer to death, he'd be in prison RIGHT NOW.


They had helmet mounted cameras recording their actions, if that were to happened there would be multiple sources video evidence of the event. 
That action would fall under the banner of excessive force the part of the officer the nature of which would potentially cause death. In that case the homeless man would have the legal right to use deadly force to protect himself against the officer. 
There is a case which set a precedent for this (which has unfortunately been turned into a meme on the internet that is decidedly misleading): 
Plummer v. State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## loqtrall (Apr 3, 2014)

I literally can't find the stomach to continue this debate with you. You're obviously blind to the fact that these police officers just killed a man who had caused them absolutely no physical harm whatsoever. All the man did was turn his back to the officers, and they gunned him down for what reason? Give me ONE good reason why they should have shot and killed that man, who ended up NOT POSSESSING ANY OTHER WEAPONS. Killing a human being because you "suspect" they have a weapon and are going to draw it on you and kill you with it is absolute fvcking horseshit, and if you believe this is a legitimate tactic for police officers to use, you're just as idiotic.

The point of this whole argument is: That man should be alive. He caused no harm to the officers, and like it or not, you're wrong about him being a threat to those officers. He had two medium sized knives and, unless he was trained to lethally throw knives, which is highly unlikely, he was in no position to harm ANY police officers in that video until the idiots threw a flashbang at him and charged him. The police were the only aggressors in this video, the man just wanted to be left alone, and for that fact: he's dead. DEAD, NO LIFE, CEASED LIVING, STOPPED ALL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND HAS LOST CONSCIOUSNESS FOREVER. It's pathetic how most police officers take a blind eye to how important life is, and are ready to end someone's life at a moment's notice. And, seeing your argument, I assume you feel the same way about it.

This isn't a joke. A man died, shot in the back by police officers, for NO GOOD REASON. There is NO reason why he should have died, and there were several different ways these officers could have approached this situation, and when the moment presented itself to take the guy down, the officers immediately took the lethal option. It's bullshit, I know it's bullshit, most everyone else who has watched the video, read the article, or read this thread knows it's bullshit. So I don't find the need to defend my stance on this any further.


----------



## loqtrall (Apr 3, 2014)

Now please respond with some sort of "But he had knives, he was a threat, they had to defend themselves" that continues to make no sense. I'll just concrete the fact here that a man who has knives that is standing 30-40 feet away from you while you and 4-5 other officers have weapons drawn on him is of no immediate threat to you or anybody. Unless he's a ....ing navy seal, commando, circus performer, or usain bolt's personal trainer, those knives posed as much of a threat as the rocks laying on the fvcking ground.


----------



## DanakinSkywalker (Apr 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Now please respond with some sort of "But he had knives, he was a threat, they had to defend themselves" that continues to make no sense. I'll just concrete the fact here that a man who has knives that is standing 30-40 feet away from you while you and 4-5 other officers have weapons drawn on him is of no immediate threat to you or anybody. Unless he's a ....ing navy seal, commando, circus performer, or *usain bolt's personal trainer*, those knives posed as much of a threat as the rocks laying on the fvcking ground.



Hahahaha.


----------



## Necris (Apr 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Now please respond with some sort of "But he had knives, he was a threat, they had to defend themselves" that continues to make no sense. I'll just concrete the fact here that a man who has knives that is standing 30-40 feet away from you while you and 4-5 other officers have weapons drawn on him is of no immediate threat to you or anybody. Unless he's a ....ing navy seal, commando, circus performer, or usain bolt's personal trainer, those knives posed as much of a threat as the rocks laying on the fvcking ground.


And I guess I'll have to repeat the fact that when he was shot he was within 5-10 feet of one of the officers, you don't need to be Usain Bolts personal trainer to close that gap quickly.

You have yet to make any reasonable argument that would change the fact that if he had never taken the knives out to begin with he likely would have walked away from this situation. Not uninjured, but certainly alive.

You seem to think I'm overjoyed with the fact this guy died, that is not at all the case. You also seem to believe that I am siding with the cops on this solely because they're cops; that is also untrue. I do _not_ trust the average cop walking down the street any more than you. I believe I have stated in past threads my disdain for the fact that police often appear to take little to no consideration of (or worse, have little to no knowledge of) a citizens rights or their well being when performing arrests and that they show a disturbing propensity to close ranks to protect those who are operating well outside the law. My position on that has not changed and will not change.

I even stated back a page ago that given the history of this particular police department that it was hard to give them the benefit of the doubt; that was before I watched the video multiple times, at that point I had watched it exactly once. 

The fact of the matter is in this case there is a video that contains the moments leading up to the shooting. I can watch it again and again and again if need be; I don't need make my judgement based solely on what the police said about the events that occurred in this case. Neither I nor yourself know what happened before the events of said video that made the cops feel it was necessary to draw their weapons; it is entirely possible they had no need to, I don't have any access to information where I can make that judgement from and neither do you. We only have a short sparsely detailed summary of what happened before the events in this video occurred, and then the video itself to judge by.

Frankly, if there were no video and all I had to go on was the statement of the police there would be far more doubt in my mind and it would most certainly be against the officers.

I have made my own judgement based on the evidence I have, you've made it clear you don't like it, and don't like me because of it. So yes, lets drop it.


----------

