Police Shoot and Kill Fleeing Man Armed with Rocks - Caught on Video - Polidicks

sure the lethal force was unnecessary but jesus christ why would you keep running after a (warning) shot. Everyone knows that that's stupid to do..

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47132100]Hey, great job explaining the what, now explain the why. Why do they go straight to shooting? Is this acceptable behavior? These are the important questions, and we don't need you just restating the obvious. And, no, rocks =/= guns.[/QUOTE] I did say why though. [quote]There is no fucking way they can switch to tazers before you can throw it, and they didn't chose to draw the tazers in the first place because they don't have enough range.[/quote] What should the cops do according to you people? Run at the guy to tackle him risking getting a fist-sized rock in the head?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132092]Sorry but all your posts are stupid. If you are in a position to kill or seriously injure a cop, they will fucking shoot you. That's why if you attempt to throw fist-sized rocks at cops, they will probably shoot you if they have their weapons already drawn. There is no fucking way they can switch to tazers before you can throw it, and they didn't chose to draw the tazers in the first place because they don't have enough range. That's why your post about riot police is stupid. There's no chance you will cause serious injury or death to riot police with your fucking fists... And the riot police does not patrol the fucking streets, what the hell? They got the call, and the officers closest to the place came to stop the guy. What they were supposed to do? Wait for someone to get into the riot gear and drive to the place from the police station? If you fucking chose to fight cops armed with GUNS by throwing ROCKS at them, you are the only one to blame for getting shot in the face. That's like jumping in front of a train and blaming the driver.[/QUOTE] The article states they tried tazing him without success. I find it kind of silly of you to state that a man "armed" with rocks should be shot down buy 2+ armed and trained policemen and then say it his own fault for getting shot??? The man clearly wasn't thinking straight or just having a bad day maybe even high on drugs. Therefor making a scene and throwing stuff. This does not justify shooting him. They should have overmanned him gottem him to the police station and question him out. Maybe figure out what the cause of his outburst was. Instead they shot a man and put innocent bystanders at risk.

[QUOTE=Zero!;47132128]The article states they tried tazing him without success. I find it kind of silly of you to state that a man "armed" with rocks should be shot down buy 2+ armed and trained policemen and then say it his own fault for getting shot??? The man clearly wasn't thinking straight or just having a bad day maybe even high on drugs. Therefor making a scene and throwing stuff. This does not justify shooting him. They should have overmanned him gottem him to the police station and question him out. Maybe figure out what the cause of his outburst was. Instead they shot a man and put innocent bystanders at risk.[/QUOTE] Can you people stop repeating the same strawman over and over? He wasn't shot for throwing rocks. He wasn't shot for having rocks in his hand. Shooting him was not what should have happened either. He was shot because he was about to throw the rock at the cops which could cause serious injury. Nothing more, nothing less. And he should have fucking surrendered when they drawn guns. Attacking cops gets you killed if you can cause serious injury. Being too stupid/high to understand that doesn't change it.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132032]And if you launch yourself with your fists at cops who have their guns drawn guess what's gonna happen...[/QUOTE] yeh in the uk they'd just floor you and arrest you and at most the policeman might have a bruise or two and no one would be dead INCREDIBLE I KNOW

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132147]yeh in the uk they'd just floor you and arrest you and at most the policeman might have a bruise or two and no one would be dead INCREDIBLE I KNOW[/QUOTE] Well maybe because they don't carry firearms there? So they can't "have their guns drawn"?

A police officer should only use lethal force if he feels that his or anyone bystanders life are at risk. They where standing at a decent distance (from what i can see from the video) from the suspects which should give them a good overview of the situation and out of "lethal" rock throwing distance. A person who is throwing fistsize rocks has to be extremely good or lucky to be able to get a good enough throw to kill them. These are after all trained people who should be able to handle this kind of situation without having to shot and kill. And how fast and many bloody rocks can a person throw to actually be a decent lifethreat?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132164]Well maybe because they don't carry firearms there? So they can't "have their guns drawn"?[/QUOTE] my point is multiple american policemen have their guns drawn to stop one dude who might be carrying a rock... and that's a ridiculous culture issue in america. it's pathetic. there's no attempt being made here to arrest someone, bring them to justice, and eventually help them. they executed the fucker. maybe in the horrible written law of the united states of america it doesn't count as an execution because apparently shooting an unarmed person when there's more of you than there is of him still counts as "necessary force" it's disgusting in the uk the lives of citizens are held higher than anything else and the responsibility of police is to respect that and attempt to preserve it by any means necessary. if that means it takes 30 policemen to take down one dude with a machete, then so be it. but at least that man isn't dead

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132182]my point is the fact multiple american policemen have their guns drawn to stop one dude on his own who might be carrying a rock and that's a ridiculous culture issue in america. it's pathetic. there's no attempt being made here to arrest someone, bring them to justice, and eventually help them. they executed the fucker. maybe in the horrible written law of the united states of america it doesn't count as an execution because apparently shooting an unarmed person when there's more of you than there is of him still counts as "necessary force" it's disgusting[/QUOTE] I don't agree on shooting this guy in this situation but you have to think about how the culture difference between the UK and US towards gun culture. In the UK it is not common place to be carrying or even owning a gun compare to how it is in the US. It is totally justifiable for a police officer in the US to be prepared that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Therefor he will enter the situation prepared with his gun drawn. Of course it is all ways based on the situation. With that said, they did not have their guns drawn once they came to the scene. They first tried to talk to the suspect and even tried tazing him without success.

[QUOTE=Zero!;47132174]A police officer should only use lethal force if he feels that his or anyone bystanders life are at risk. [/QUOTE] And that's exactly what happened. [QUOTE=Zero!;47132174]They where standing at a decent distance (from what i can see from the video) [/QUOTE] It was like 3 meters when he tried to throw the rock at the end. [QUOTE=Zero!;47132174]from the suspects which should give them a good overview of the situation and out of "lethal" rock throwing distance. A person who is throwing fistsize rocks has to be extremely good or lucky to be able to get a good enough throw to kill them. [/QUOTE] How hard is it to hit a watermelon with a fist-sized rock from 3 meters? Come on, it's not that hard. [QUOTE=Zero!;47132174]These are after all trained people who should be able to handle this kind of situation without having to shot and kill. [/QUOTE] No amount of training is going to make your skull so thick that a thrown fist-sized rock can't penetrate it. [QUOTE=Zero!;47132174]And how fast and many bloody rocks can a person throw to actually be a decent lifethreat?[/QUOTE] One is enough. You don't need to throw them fast or have many of them to kill someone.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132146]Can you people stop repeating the same strawman over and over? He wasn't shot for throwing rocks. He wasn't shot for having rocks in his hand. Shooting him was not what should have happened either. He was shot because he was about to throw the rock at the cops which could cause serious injury. Nothing more, nothing less. And he should have fucking surrendered when they drawn guns. Attacking cops gets you killed if you can cause serious injury. Being too stupid/high to understand that doesn't change it.[/QUOTE] You are advocating a dude with rocks being shot the way we saw it in the video. I really would like you to rethink this. A guy who supposedly had a rock against 3 or four poilce officers in a heavily crowded area.

[QUOTE=Zero!;47132192]I don't agree on shooting this guy in this situation but you have to think about how the culture difference between the UK and US towards gun culture[/QUOTE] i totally understand that and it isn't what i was commenting on really. yeh guns are common in america, which means police have to be armed and be more careful, but sadly that precedence creates the kind of situation as shown in this thread where an unarmed man who is outnumbered gets executed by police despite there being no risk or evidence or suspicion of a firearm (other than the very sad intrinsic suspicion that [I]anyone[/I] in america is likely to be armed because the country is that fucked) and then this culture spawns the kind of attitudes where freaks try to defend this blatant use of excessive force to effectively murder a man. "well if u punch a policeman u should expect to get shot - thems the rules man!". it's fucking frightening [QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132197]One is enough. You don't need to throw them fast or have many of them to kill someone.[/QUOTE] the chance that someone would be killed by a fist-sized rock thrown by a panicking, fleeing person, is minuscule the chance that four police officers could overpower a single, unarmed individual, is huge. they were literally feet away from him, all of them, and they executed him. inexcusable

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132197]And that's exactly what happened. It was like 3 meters when he tried to throw the rock at the end. How hard is it to hit a watermelon with a fist-sized rock from 3 meters? Come on, it's not that hard. No amount of training is going to make your skull so thick that a thrown fist-sized rock can't penetrate it. One is enough. You don't need to throw them fast or have many of them to kill someone.[/QUOTE] We seem to be falling in an endless loop here. I personally don't think the person was a big enough threat that they had to use lethal force to resolve the situation. Where you on the other hand think the person was a big enough threat that lethal force was need to solve the situation. As overused as it may be, i think we to just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132182]my point is multiple american policemen have their guns drawn to stop one dude who might be carrying a rock... [/QUOTE] Stop with these fucking strawmen please. First it was "for carrying a rock" now for "suspicion of carrying a rock". He was shot for attempting to throw the rock at the cops. Nothing more nothing less. Stop twisting it. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132182]and that's a ridiculous culture issue in america. it's pathetic. there's no attempt being made here to arrest someone, bring them to justice, and eventually help them. [/QUOTE] They did chase him when he wasn't posing threat to them. They did try to apprehend him, they shot him only when he was about to be a threat to their lives. Stop fucking acting like they got out of their car and shot the first guy with something throwable in his hand. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132182]they executed the fucker. maybe in the horrible written law of the united states of america it doesn't count as an execution because apparently shooting an unarmed person when there's more of you than there is of him still counts as "necessary force" it's disgusting[/QUOTE] They didn't execute him. Again stop acting like they got out of their car and shot the first guy with something throwable in his hand. They shot him only when he was about to throw it. It's called self defense. And what does it matter how many of them are there? That they can still catch him after one of them got a rock in his head? What? [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132182] in the uk the lives of citizens are held higher than anything else and the responsibility of police is to respect that and attempt to preserve it by any means necessary. if that means it takes 30 policemen to take down one dude with a machete, then so be it. but at least that man isn't dead[/QUOTE] So it's better when cops get seriously injured or even killed but the criminal is not dead than if none of the cops would risk their lives but the criminal was seriously injured or killed?

All these people defending the police are unbelievable. We have issues like this in the UK, do you know what we do? Don't shoot them. I have no idea how people can defend such actions as the "only solution". Absolutely disgraceful.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132245]He was shot for attempting to throw the rock at the cops. Nothing more nothing less. Stop twisting it.[/quote] yeh you're right i dont need to twist it. four police officers shot a man for attempting to throw a rock at them. lmao i don't need to misconstrue it. it's fucking pathetic and the fact you think it's okay is disgusting

[QUOTE=Killuah;47132198]You are advocating a dude with rocks being shot the way we saw it in the video. I really would like you to rethink this. A guy who supposedly had a rock against 3 or four poilce officers in a heavily crowded area.[/QUOTE] I am advocating shooting a man who was about to attack cops and could have caused serious injury or death. That's exactly what happened and it doesn't matter how many times you people are going to try to twist it that he was shot for "supposedly" having a rock in his hand.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132266]I am advocating shooting a man who was about to attack cops and could have caused serious injury or death[/QUOTE] come on man it was a rock being thrown from like 3ft away. the dude doesn't even have his body in a position enough to throw a rock with any force you might as well just flat out say it now that you value the life of a police officer above someone else's life, because that's what you're saying the small chance of injury (probably quite minor) to a police officer is more worrying to you than an unarmed person being shot by four officers multiple times (certain death) a person was killed over the slim chance that someone else might be injured [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] in any of these situations just imagine it: what would have happened if the police were unarmed? what would have happened if this was the uk there's a chance one of the policemen might have a nasty cut on his head. but there'd be one less dead person with 20 bulletholes in him

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132266]I am advocating shooting a man who was about to attack cops and could have caused serious injury or death. That's exactly what happened and it doesn't matter how many times you people are going to try to twist it that he was shot for "supposedly" having a rock in his hand.[/QUOTE] The fact that you are trying to argue a thrown rock as "serious threat to the officers" is just so ridiculous I think anyone here is just giving up on arguing with you. For all that matters they could've walked away a few meters so he can't throw the rock(that I don't see in the video but ok) and let him trash a few cars or windows or whatever. That would still be better than shooting him.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132211]i totally understand that and it isn't what i was commenting on really. yeh guns are common in america, which means police have to be armed and be more careful, but sadly that precedence creates the kind of situation as shown in this thread where an unarmed man who is outnumbered gets executed by police despite there being no risk or evidence or suspicion of a firearm (other than the very sad intrinsic suspicion that anyone in america is likely to be armed because the country is that fucked) and then this culture spawns the kind of attitudes where freaks try to defend this blatant use of excessive force to effectively murder a man. "well if u punch a policeman u should expect to get shot - thems the rules man!". it's fucking frightening[/QUOTE] Great strawman but that rule is "if you attempt to cause serious injury or possibly death of a policeman u should expect them to use deadly force". Also nice of you for calling me a freak. Can I call you names now? [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132211]the chance that someone would be killed by a fist-sized rock thrown by a panicking, fleeing person, is minuscule the chance that four police officers could overpower a single, unarmed individual, is huge. they were literally feet away from him, all of them, and they executed him. inexcusable[/QUOTE] You want them to tackle him and you say that the chance of him throwing the rock at one of their heads is minuscule. And you're saying that defending yourself from someone who can break your skull open is execution. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132256]yeh you're right i dont need to twist it. four police officers shot a man for attempting to throw a rock at them. lmao i don't need to misconstrue it. it's fucking pathetic and the fact you think it's okay is disgusting[/QUOTE] A rock that you can kill with. It doesn't matter if it's a rock or a knive or a gun.

[QUOTE=Killuah;47132294]For all that matters they could've walked away a few metres so he can't throw the rock(that I don't see in the video but ok) and let him trash a few cars or windows or whatever. That would still be better than shooting him.[/QUOTE] not even necessary though is it they were like 3ft away from the fucker and there were four of them, why they didn't just rugby tackle him is baffling to me well it's not baffling at all because it's america but you get what i mean

[QUOTE=Monkey san;47132038]Fuck me you Americans are getting worse by the day.[/QUOTE] oh boy here we go I don't believe that shooting the guy was justified but it isn't fair either to think a group of cops represents around 320 million people.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132304]Great strawman[/quote] epic logical fallacy shit bro but you still think shooting a dude who might be able to throw a rock is okay [quote]A rock that you can kill with. It doesn't matter if it's a rock or a knive or a gun.[/QUOTE] so we should shoot someone holding anything over a weight of around 1kg then? you're fucking nuts man imagine if we could semi-accurately portray the chances of killing someone with a certain object you'd get this: rock being thrown from 3ft away: 5% knife: 50% gun: 90% by your logic, anything that even remotely grades on the scale of "might hurt you" deserves death by firing squad [quote]Also nice of you for calling me a freak. Can I call you names now?[/quote] fuck off loser [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - OvB))[/highlight]

This is why you don't run from the police, then turn and look like you're raising a weapon. If they were going to shoot him because he was throwing rocks they would have done it 20 seconds earlier

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132280]come on man it was a rock being thrown from like 3ft away. the dude doesn't even have his body in a position enough to throw a rock with any force[/QUOTE] What? He turned around and took a good position, he never made the swing tho.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132280]you might as well just flat out say it now that you value the life of a police officer above someone else's life, because that's what you're saying[/QUOTE] And you said you'd rather risk lives or serious injury of 30 policemen over risking killing a criminal. I think when a person is attacked and can be seriously injured or killed he can defend himself. Even if that means seriously injuring or killing the attacker. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132280]the small chance of injury (probably quite minor) to a police officer is more worrying to you than an unarmed person being shot by four officers multiple times (certain death) a person was killed over the slim chance that someone else might be injured[/QUOTE] How do you know the chance is slim or the injury would be minor? Are you a fairy? [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132280]in any of these situations just imagine it: what would have happened if the police were unarmed? what would have happened if this was the uk there's a chance one of the policemen might have a nasty cut on his head. but there'd be one less dead person with 20 bulletholes in him[/QUOTE] There's a chance that one of the officers would die from blunt trauma but the criminal would be apprehended so it would be all good according to you. [QUOTE=Killuah;47132294]The fact that you are trying to argue a thrown rock as "serious threat to the officers" is just so ridiculous I think anyone here is just giving up on arguing with you.[/QUOTE] Getting truck with a fist-sized rock in the head is not a serious threat? How's that anything but ridiculous. How about you record a vid where you throw a fist-sized rock 5 meters high and walk under it. Then I'll admit I was wrong. [QUOTE=Killuah;47132294]For all that matters they could've walked away a few meters so he can't throw the rock(that I don't see in the video but ok) and let him trash a few cars or windows or whatever. That would still be better than shooting him.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that when he started running away they should have kept their distance and wait till he's "out of ammo"? How would they know when it's safe to come closer? Or how do you apprehend someone without getting close?

I am starting to feel that American police are very unprofessional.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;47132337]This is why you don't run from the police, then turn and look like you're raising a weapon. If they were going to shoot him because he was throwing rocks they would have done it 20 seconds earlier[/QUOTE] I'm normally the one defending the police but this was excessive force. They tried tasing him first and it had no effect, which may have put them on edge, but shooting in a crowded intersection full of bystanders at a man who posed no visible threat is not justified. If all we saw was them chasing him and then shooting when he turned around and raised his hands, then yeah, I might agree with you, but they opened fire in the first place with very little provocation. [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Itsjustguy;47132371]I am starting to feel that American police are very unprofessional.[/QUOTE] I've said this time and time again but you do not see the police that do their jobs, nor the ones who shoot and kill a criminal who pulls a gun on them. You will only see the controversial cases.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;47132371]I am starting to feel that American police are very unprofessional.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Michael haxz;47132371]I don't believe that shooting the guy was justified but it isn't fair either to think a group of cops represents around 320 million people.[/QUOTE] You can smell the anti cop in this thread for miles, yawman would be proud.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132306]not even necessary though is it they were like 3ft away from the fucker and there were four of them, why they didn't just rugby tackle him is baffling to me well it's not baffling at all because it's america but you get what i mean[/QUOTE] Because you can get struck in the head with the rock in the process. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132328]epic logical fallacy shit bro but you still think shooting a dude who might be able to throw a rock is okay[/QUOTE] How is that my wrongdoing that you're talking about things that never happened? [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132328]so we should shoot someone holding anything over a weight of around 1kg then? you're fucking nuts man[/QUOTE] Nobody got shot because someone was holding something. Nobody argues that. Stop fucking talking about things that never happened and nobody mentioned. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132328]imagine if we could semi-accurately portray the chances of killing someone with a certain object you'd get this: rock being thrown from 3ft away: 5% knife: 50% gun: 90%[/QUOTE] But you said they should tackle him, wouldn't that mean they would get closer than 3ft? When is it acceptable to use lethal force to defend yourself? What %? Who calculates this and when? When someone pulls some kind of a weapon the cops should call you and ask for the percentage? These decisions are made on the spot, every individual cop (not all of them summed) felt like his life or health might be in danger if the guy would be allowed to throw the rock. And so they shot him. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132328]by your logic, anything that even remotely grades on the scale of "might hurt you" deserves death by firing squad[/QUOTE] By my logic if someone is attacking you with something that could cause serious head injury and you don't have the time to switch to non lethal means while you already have the gun pointed at him you can defend yourself. Where did the "firing squad" come from? Nobody said that. Stop talking about things that never happened and nobody mentioned. [QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;47132328]fuck off loser[/QUOTE] How old are you?

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;47132371]I am starting to feel that American police are very unprofessional.[/QUOTE]Latvian police isn't professional either. You can get away with mostly anything as long as you got enough dosh on hand.