• Police Brutality: Deaf Woodcarver Murdered By Cop In 5 seconds
    296 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;26921384]Knives were orgionally created as tools. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to carry a knife around in the open, it's a tool like any other. You could take a reciporcating saw, a device which is easily far more dangerous than a knife, yet nobody would give you second glance were you to carry one of those.[/QUOTE] I think you would get a few glances, but you'd certainly not get shot 5 times for it.
that officer is one smug little fuck 'yeaauh, he had a knife and i told him to put it down multiple times, but he just [I]wouldn't[/I] put it down!' congratulations fucker you just murdered someone for holding a knife
I've carried numerous dangerous-looking tools out in public before when working/going to work. I guess I do get some second glances, but I honestly cant imagine a cop actually stopping me with any legit reason, had I been in a similar situation (not knowing he was going to gun me down, of course) I probably would have initially refused to put it down, under the circumstances of "uh, [I]why[/I]?", or at least put it down and given him hell for it for wasting my time and abusing his privileges. The sad thing is, this cop is probably not even going to spend even a significant amount of time in jail, because people write it off as justifiable or understandable. He clearly overstepped his real duties and jurisdiction, and then proceeded to shoot the guy for really no reason at all. Im amazed that the cop even got out of the car to confront the man, gotta wonder if he was looking to cause trouble.
The problem here isn't guns, it is the people that are employed as law enforcement. If this officer hadn't had a gun, he probably would have just beaten the man senseless with a baton, or another one of his tools in excess. Even still, this was not a situation where the firearm should have been used, but rather a nonlethal, after a more detailed observation of what the suspect was doing. Personally, I don't know what the employment process is for law enforcement, but as so many of these cases are appearing, it might be a good idea for it to be reviewed. Aggressive people, or those with slight mental conditions shouldn't be able to be employed as patrol officers, for exactly this reason. No amount of training can fix their way of thinking, or their impulses, so there is really no other choice.
[quote=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013175206_williams16m.html] The police officer's bullets tore into his body, taking the last thing John T. Williams had left to lose: his life. Nothing, in the end, saved him. Not the drugs prescribed for seizures and mental illness. Not the stint at Western State Hospital. Not the skilled staff at the home for chronic inebriates, where he lived. Not the people who fed and befriended him at the Chief Seattle Club. Not the apartment he received in an out-of-court settlement after a driver plowed into him — one of two times Williams was hit by a car while walking, leaving him limping for life.] [/quote] Poor bastard
Guy has shit luck Officer is just a prick
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26916975][img_thumb]http://www.thrombosisadviser.co.uk/html/images/library/haemostasis/thrombus-pulmonary-embolism-PU.jpg[/img_thumb] Try not to hit the red while you're shooting, and take down the suspect while not killing him at the same time.[/QUOTE] i'm not agreeing with aydin but that's incorrect, a healthy individual would clot very quickly if the primary artery or veins were hit they would have to be rushed to the hospital very quickly to prevent death from blood loss but the torso contains the largest surface area and hydrostatic shock becomes extremely likely when hit in the chest compared to the rest of the body anything from the lower stomach to the head will be extremely lethal if using the right ammunition
If I was this guy, I'd rather tase people first rather than shooting them unless they are going to approach me and I feel threatened. There is no reason to take your gun out and just unload FOUR shots, FOUR!
[QUOTE=Grasp;26922591]The problem here isn't guns, it is the people that are employed as law enforcement. If this officer hadn't had a gun, he probably would have just beaten the man senseless with a baton, or another one of his tools in excess. Even still, this was not a situation where the firearm should have been used, but rather a nonlethal, after a more detailed observation of what the suspect was doing. Personally, I don't know what the employment process is for law enforcement, but as so many of these cases are appearing, it might be a good idea for it to be reviewed. Aggressive people, or those with slight mental conditions shouldn't be able to be employed as patrol officers, for exactly this reason. No amount of training can fix their way of thinking, or their impulses, so there is really no other choice.[/QUOTE] Law enforcement hiring process in the United States (order may vary) Step 1: -Standardized written assessment test -Physical test Physical test is usually pass or fail while all applicants above a certain percentage level of the written portion are considered to have passed. Passing both moves you onto step two. Step 2: -Verbal interview You interview with a room of ranking police officials (generally lieutenants and captains) as well as possibly a few civilian consultants (Often from places like the NAACP) who oversee the hiring process to ensure fairness. Step 3: -Lie detector Armed occupations and government jobs are among the only positions in the United States where applicants can be subjected to a lie detector test. Step 4: -Physical -Mental health review A doctor checks your body while a psychiatrist ensures you are mentally stable and fit for duty. Step 5: Police academy. Anywhere from a few weeks to a few months of training and testing depending on previous experience and the particular training program. I'm...not seeing how this could be any more comprehensive. EDIT: Oh I forgot the step between 3 and 4 where they tear apart every shred of information they can dredge up on you. Your credit score, any social networking pages you have (They can, and will, access friends only pages), and EVERY reference and job you have on your application. They will also unseal and view your sealed juvenile police records as well as view any expunged offenses. Government jobs are the only jobs which require you to admit to expunged offenses every other occupation allows you to legally claim that you have never committed an offense if you have had it expunged.
[QUOTE=Agent Cobra;26901624]I don't see how eggs has anything to do with someone getting murdered by police brutality[/QUOTE] That's the size of the blade you dolt. 7cm, it was no bigger than one of those eggs.
[QUOTE=aydin690;26918198]Do you what's the main problem here? Guns. Gee, think of how safe we'd be if everyone had a gun! Comes down to this: for some reason, Americans (and almost no one else on the planet earth) think guns "protect" people. No...guns (I'm talking handguns here) have only one purpose. To kill or severely injure people. End of story. If guns protected people, the US would be the safest place known to man. But for some reason, very few people in that country can understand that adding guns to a situation makes it more dangerous and not less. The problem isn't that there aren't enough guns. The problem is that the US continues to produce guns in record numbers. The only solution is to make significantly less of them, and make them extremely hard to get. Pro-gun people argue all the time that law-abiding people "need" guns to protect them from the criminals that have them. Well, what's the solution? Make it harder for criminals to get them. Now of course criminals are going to go to whatever means they need to obtain them. Therefore the only solution is to physically produce less guns. Only by limiting supply (and yes, this will take a long time, given the number of guns already out there) can you get them out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. But adding guns to a situation never made it any safer, and only increases the chance of someone getting shot. [editline]23rd December 2010[/editline] Not all cops need guns either; Just look at british cops.[/QUOTE] late as hell, but can I just point out that I'm british, the rozzers around here don't get pieces, but about 45% of the gang members have a handgun of some sorts. None of them actually shoot them ever, but I think the popo would feel safer if the tables were evened out
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;26927300]late as hell, but can I just point out that I'm british, the rozzers around here don't get pieces, but about 45% of the gang members have a handgun of some sorts. None of them actually shoot them ever, but I think the popo would feel safer if the tables were evened out[/QUOTE] Aydin there is a bonefide dumbass to be honest [editline]24th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=aydin690;26918198]Do you what's the main problem here? Guns. Gee, think of how safe we'd be if everyone had a gun! Comes down to this: for some reason, Americans (and almost no one else on the planet earth) think guns "protect" people. No...guns (I'm talking handguns here) have only one purpose. To kill or severely injure people. End of story. If guns protected people, the US would be the safest place known to man. But for some reason, very few people in that country can understand that adding guns to a situation makes it more dangerous and not less. The problem isn't that there aren't enough guns. The problem is that the US continues to produce guns in record numbers. The only solution is to make significantly less of them, and make them extremely hard to get. Pro-gun people argue all the time that law-abiding people "need" guns to protect them from the criminals that have them. Well, what's the solution? Make it harder for criminals to get them. Now of course criminals are going to go to whatever means they need to obtain them. Therefore the only solution is to physically produce less guns. Only by limiting supply (and yes, this will take a long time, given the number of guns already out there) can you get them out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. But adding guns to a situation never made it any safer, and only increases the chance of someone getting shot. [editline]23rd December 2010[/editline] Not all cops need guns either; Just look at british cops.[/QUOTE] I know this is late, but I felt this needed a better reply. Now, I don't know about you, but lets just say that the government did make guns almost impossible to get, almost imposing a ban on them. Now, who does this keep guns away from? Well, law abiding citizens that aren't eligible for guns. Who gets the guns? The criminals. Now, you say "simply produce less" and while I do actually agree with you on that, that isn't a fix, and never will be, not in a country with 250 million plus guns already. And with that many guns already rolling around a country, well, I guarantee a lot of them are already in criminal hands, and aren't likely to leave their hands unless their arrested/seized by police officers(Which is incredibly unlikely knowing the gang situations down there) so just speaking from a practicality stand point, taking away gun "rights" in the US will only cause a more powerful criminal underworld than already exists. And I can name quite a number of stories where guns helped defuse or improve a situation, quite a number posted right here on Facepunch, I can also name a lot of situations where they made things worse. There's always two sides to an argument, don't forget that when you're acting pompous.
this is pretty disgusting
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;26899220]As I said, spur of the moment and adrenaline.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=eatdembeanz;26899364]Do you remember those days when you were just having a shitty time, and someone or something did something completely innocuous, and you just flipped a shit? Now, imagine you had a gun. Imagine that someone had a knife. Would the situation be any different if you were that cop (and those former two sentences' conditions had been fulfilled)?[/QUOTE] He was an old guy limping down the road carving wood. If I had to interfere with him at all (perhaps blades in public are not cool in seattle) then I would have kept my distance and calmly talked to him. I wouldn't go apeshit "PUT THE KNIFE DOWN". I would have simply explained that you can't walk around with a knife out, had him put it away, and carry on. Not everyone who breaks the law is a fucking nutter. But let's go with your thing. You're having a bad day. You see a guy with a knife out, carving wood and not really posing a threat to anyone. You ask him to put the knife down. He turns to face you (as anyone who is yelled at would do) and YOU SHOOT AT HIM FIVE FUCKING TIMES. Yeah, because that's a reasonable response. I don't give a fuck what kind of a day you're having, you don't shoot an old guy with a wicked limp 5 times.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;26909094]Total bullshit. Everyone around Seattle knew that guy. He use to carve down by the waterfront for years. Cop was a stupid rookie or out for revenge.[/QUOTE] yeah revenge against the evil woodcutter
Aren't the given pepper spray and tazers for shit like that? I doubt the poor sod was lunging at him or anything.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;26929712]Aren't the given pepper spray and tazers for shit like that? I doubt the poor sod was lunging at him or anything.[/QUOTE] even if he was, which i really doubt, there is no need to shoot him 4 times
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;26899048]I don't think this justifies it. I'm simply trying to make the cop's motives seem slightly more reasonable. Put yourself in his shoes for once. Maybe he was just strung out. Maybe he was playing Amnesia. Maybe he just went through some really tough part of his life and is not ready to deal with anyone's shit?[/QUOTE] I had a bad sleep and stubbed my toe, I'm allowed to shoot people now. EDIT: But on a serious note, if call of duty has taught me anything, its that a knife is about 10 times deadlier than any gun so this cop should consider himself lucky to be alive
[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;26936933]EDIT: But on a serious note, if call of duty has taught me anything, its that a knife is about 10 times deadlier than any gun so this cop should consider himself lucky to be alive[/QUOTE] Just be glad it wasn't a Kenyan Mangrove Crab. CRAB BATTLE!!!!
Dude deserves life. The cop had many other means to subdue a man who clearly was not aggressive. These things really piss me off and make me feel very depressed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;26923706]Law enforcement hiring process in the United States (order may vary) Step 1: -Standardized written assessment test -Physical test Physical test is usually pass or fail while all applicants above a certain percentage level of the written portion are considered to have passed. Passing both moves you onto step two. Step 2: -Verbal interview You interview with a room of ranking police officials (generally lieutenants and captains) as well as possibly a few civilian consultants (Often from places like the NAACP) who oversee the hiring process to ensure fairness. Step 3: -Lie detector Armed occupations and government jobs are among the only positions in the United States where applicants can be subjected to a lie detector test. Step 4: -Physical -Mental health review A doctor checks your body while a psychiatrist ensures you are mentally stable and fit for duty. Step 5: Police academy. Anywhere from a few weeks to a few months of training and testing depending on previous experience and the particular training program. I'm...not seeing how this could be any more comprehensive. EDIT: Oh I forgot the step between 3 and 4 where they tear apart every shred of information they can dredge up on you. Your credit score, any social networking pages you have (They can, and will, access friends only pages), and EVERY reference and job you have on your application. They will also unseal and view your sealed juvenile police records as well as view any expunged offenses. Government jobs are the only jobs which require you to admit to expunged offenses every other occupation allows you to legally claim that you have never committed an offense if you have had it expunged.[/QUOTE] I see, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.