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

[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] you are a fucking psycho [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - OvB))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132360]How do you know the chance is slim or the injury would be minor? Are you a fairy?[/QUOTE] dude you can "theoretically" get killed by tripping over or breathing wrong. if none of those multiple police officers were willing to take the chance of a fist-sized rock possibly hitting them and possibly killing them instantly through a freak series of random events, and would instead much rather kill a fleeing, otherwise unarmed guy with his back to them, maybe they shouldn't be cops. i mean you're talking about something that's ambiguously dangerous versus multiple people unloading their guns on one man's spinal column dude, how do you think that scales up

[QUOTE=Marzipas;47132409]you are a fucking psycho[/QUOTE] Because I think you can cause serious head injury to someone with a rock? Or because I think that people should be able to defend themselves from people who attack them and can cause them serious injury or death? [QUOTE=Cone;47132411]dude you can "theoretically" get killed by tripping over or breathing wrong. if none of those multiple police officers were willing to take the chance of a fist-sized rock possibly hitting them and possibly killing them instantly through a freak series of random events, and [B]would instead much rather kill a fleeing, otherwise unarmed guy with his back to them[/B], maybe they shouldn't be cops. i mean you're talking about something that's ambiguously dangerous versus multiple people unloading their guns on one man's spinal column dude, how do you think that scales up[/QUOTE] Good thing that never happened then.

[QUOTE=Cone;47132411]and would instead much rather kill a fleeing, otherwise unarmed guy with his back to them[/QUOTE] To be fair that never happened. Watch the video, they shoot when he suddenly turns towards them while raising his hands. Police officers have died when suspects retrieved a gun from their clothing while fleeing, then suddenly turned and shot the officer. The bigger question here is why the police started shooting in the first place, prompting him to flee.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47132081]I can see rocks being deadly, but in this instance I'm going to say the use of guns was total bullshit. All it would have taken was one guy to tackle him. I'm really looking at this as power-tripping laziness.[/QUOTE] Police protocol is not to get within a certain distance of an armed suspect, technically they broke that already when they tried to use a taser, and since that failed they definitely weren't going to get any closer.

It's okay, you won't die in America unless you... • [B][I]Are holding a weapon[/I][/B] • [I]'Weapon' also includes rocks, sticks and things that appear to be weapons from a distance as far as twenty meters[/I] • [B][I]Don't have your hands up[/I][/B] • [I]But don't raise them too fast, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [B][I]Don't procure your identification[/I][/B] • [I]But don't procure it too quickly, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [I]In fact, it's best to just ask permission so they don't shoot you for making a sudden movement[/I] • [B][I]Withdraw from an officer[/I][/B] • [B][I]Approach an officer[/I][/B] It's okay, as soon as next week we will expand this list as more things are justified as reasonable standards and expectations of interaction with police, so don't you get impatient, you hear?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132423]Because I think you can cause serious head injury to someone with a rock? Or because I think that people should be able to defend themselves from people who attack them and can cause them serious injury or death? Good thing that never happened then.[/QUOTE] just because it potentially could have hurt them doesn't give them a justification to fucking gun them down. you can get hit by a car when crossing the street, you dont see the police fucking providing covering fire for each other when they go to cross the road so they dont get run over do you

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132466]It's okay, you won't die in America unless you... • [B][I]Are holding a weapon[/I][/B] • [I]'Weapon' also includes rocks, sticks and things that appear to be weapons from a distance as far as twenty meters[/I] • [B][I]Don't have your hands up[/I][/B] • [I]But don't raise them too fast, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [B][I]Don't procure your identification[/I][/B] • [I]But don't procure it too quickly, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [I]In fact, it's best to just ask permission so they don't shoot you for making a sudden movement[/I] • [B][I]Don't withdraw from an officer[/I][/B] • [B][I]Don't approach an officer[/I][/B] It's okay, as soon as next week we will expand this list as more things are justified as reasonable standards and expectations of interaction with police, so don't you get impatient, you hear?[/QUOTE] [B]• Don't attempt suicide or you'll get shot[/B] • It's against the law to kill yourself [B]• Don't be confused or scared if 20 policemen are yelling and insulting you like crazy[/B] [B]• Don't have a broken arm when the police tries to handcuff you[/B] • By that, the police officers are forced to slam your face into the pavement or get tazed [B]• Don't get out of your bed when a SWAT team breaks down door in the middle of the night[/B] [B]• Don't raise both of your hands[/B] • They might think you make yourself look bigger to be more threatening

[QUOTE=catbarf;47132432]To be fair that never happened. Watch the video, they shoot when he suddenly turns towards them while raising his hands. Police officers have died when suspects retrieved a gun from their clothing while fleeing, then suddenly turned and shot the officer. The bigger question here is why the police started shooting in the first place, prompting him to flee.[/QUOTE] it looked to me like he span around but i had the sound off so maybe that was just the first gunshot

[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] The guy has had a conviction for police assault before, the guy was either totally gonezo or he knew exactly what he was doing. You don't go attacking the police because you had a bad day brother. Now not trying to say their force was justified. Firing on a fleeing suspect in any situation is a very risky play, and they definitely took far too many shots at the dude, but the concept of a firearm being a factor here isn't surprising, nor is it disproportionate by any means. This is not a gun control topic, this is absolutely an issue in regards to the mentality and behaviors of the officers.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132466]It's okay, you won't die in America unless you... • [B][I]Are holding a weapon[/I][/B] • [I]'Weapon' also includes rocks, sticks and things that appear to be weapons from a distance as far as twenty meters[/I] • [B][I]Don't have your hands up[/I][/B] • [I]But don't raise them too fast, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [B][I]Don't procure your identification[/I][/B] • [I]But don't procure it too quickly, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [I]In fact, it's best to just ask permission so they don't shoot you for making a sudden movement[/I] • [B][I]Withdraw from an officer[/I][/B] • [B][I]Approach an officer[/I][/B] It's okay, as soon as next week we will expand this list as more things are justified as reasonable standards and expectations of interaction with police, so don't you get impatient, you hear?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DMGaina;47132516][B]• Don't attempt suicide or you'll get shot[/B] • It's against the law to kill yourself [B]• Don't be confused or scared if 20 policemen are yelling and insulting you like crazy[/B] [B]• Don't have a broken arm when the police tries to handcuff you[/B] • By that, the police officers are forced to slam your face into the pavement or get tazed [B]• Don't get out of your bed when a SWAT team breaks down door in the middle of the night[/B] [B]• Don't raise both of your hands[/B] • They might think you make yourself look bigger to be more threatening[/QUOTE] don't cut yourselves on that edge

The police must be fucking laughing that they don't even have to really justify or provide explanation to their actions anymore; they've got their own PR squad writing entire essays on why rocks are actually extremely efficient tools of death. I've heard that, following the impassioned cries to restrict peoples' access to Open-Carry Boulders, the U.S. military has begun refitting their infantrymen with slingshots and giving them excerpts from the biblical story of Goliath to raise morale.

US is fucked.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132466]It's okay, you won't die in America unless you... • [B][I]Are holding a weapon[/I][/B] • [I]'Weapon' also includes rocks, sticks and things that appear to be weapons from a distance as far as twenty meters[/I] • [B][I]Don't have your hands up[/I][/B] • [I]But don't raise them too fast, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [B][I]Don't procure your identification[/I][/B] • [I]But don't procure it too quickly, you might be drawing a weapon[/I] • [I]In fact, it's best to just ask permission so they don't shoot you for making a sudden movement[/I] • [B][I]Withdraw from an officer[/I][/B] • [B][I]Approach an officer[/I][/B] It's okay, as soon as next week we will expand this list as more things are justified as reasonable standards and expectations of interaction with police, so don't you get impatient, you hear?[/QUOTE] Have you ever been to America?

[QUOTE=Marzipas;47132490]just because it potentially could have hurt them doesn't give them a justification to fucking gun them down. you can get hit by a car when crossing the street, you dont see the police fucking providing covering fire for each other when they go to cross the road so they dont get run over do you[/QUOTE] It wasn't potential it was his intention. For the billionth time, he wasn't shot for having a rock in his hand, he was shot for trying to throw it at the cops. Try to intentionally run over cops and see if they won't shoot you.

[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;47132560]Have you ever been to America?[/QUOTE] I'm not really made of money and there are lots of places I'd rather go, so no. I lived in South Africa for a month, though; despite everything horribly wrong with it, thanks to the litanies of emphatic defenses of every freakin' transgression the police make in your country, I'd rather spend a decade there. At least the police didn't pretend to not be totally out of whack over there. This thread has exhibited well-received arguments that four armed and armored men were posed a significant threat to their lives by a man they were chasing and continually closing distance with. How is this logical?

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132545]The police must be fucking laughing that they don't even have to really justify or provide explanation to their actions anymore; they've got their own PR squad writing entire essays on why rocks are actually extremely efficient tools of death. I've heard that, following the impassioned cries to restrict peoples' access to Open-Carry Boulders, the U.S. military has begun refitting their infantrymen with slingshots and giving them excerpts from the biblical story of Goliath to raise morale.[/QUOTE] You people can't make an argument without talking about shit that never happened or no one said, can you? What is your point anyway, that getting struck with a fist-sized rock in the head is not a serious threat? How about you record a vid where you throw a fist-sized rock 5 meters high and walk under it so it hits you in the head. Then I'll admit I was wrong.

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47132532]don't cut yourselves on that edge[/QUOTE] • Studies have shown that officers tend to even more aggressive and irrational behaiviour if you are covered in blood

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132598]You people can't make an argument without talking about shit that never happened or no one said, can you? What is your point anyway, that getting struck with a fist-sized rock in the head is not a serious threat? How about you record a vid where you throw a fist-sized rock 5 meters high and walk under it so it hits you in the head. Then I'll admit I was wrong.[/QUOTE] Even if you're right, you've wasted kilojoules of energy typing this because they were chasing the man and entering a heinously inappropriate distance, [I]consistently.[/I] They put themselves in a situation where a man could apparently brain them with a rock. They were either poorly trained or they were intending to kill someone that day. How else can you possibly justify chasing him across an intersection and into a range where he easily could have knifed them?

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132590]I'm not really made of money and there are lots of places I'd rather go, so no. I lived in South Africa for a month, though; despite everything horribly wrong with it, thanks to the litanies of emphatic defenses of every freakin' transgression the police make in your country, I'd rather spend a decade there. At least the police didn't pretend to not be totally out of whack over there. This thread has exhibited well-received arguments that four armed and armored men were posed a significant threat to their lives by a man they were chasing and continually closing distance with. How is this logical?[/QUOTE] Why does it matter there was 4 of them? What would change if there was 1 cop or if there was 50? The amount of cops is not going to change that you can kill someone with a rock nor that police will shoot you if you attempt to cause serious injury to them or to other people.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132608]Why does it matter there was 4 of them? What would change if there was 1 cop or if there was 50? The amount of cops is not going to change that you can kill someone with a rock nor that police will shoot you if you attempt to cause serious injury to them or to other people.[/QUOTE] [I]Actually, it seems he was attempting to run away.[/I]

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132607]Even if you're right, you've wasted kilojoules of energy typing this because they were chasing the man and entering a heinously inappropriate distance, [I]consistently.[/I] They put themselves in a situation where a man could apparently brain them with a rock. They were either poorly trained or they were intending to kill someone that day. How else can you possibly justify chasing him across an intersection and into a range where he easily could have knifed them?[/QUOTE] How the fuck were they supposed to apprehend him according to you? [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132611][I]Actually, it seems he was attempting to run away.[/I][/QUOTE] By turning around and getting ready to throw the rock?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132620]How the fuck were they supposed to apprehend him according to you?[/QUOTE] Got a nice case of doublethink here. You rabidly argue that they were in such a fear for their lives that they had to essentially instantaneously kill the guy, and yet you also argue that they had to run within 'rocking' range to apprehend him. If he was so dangerous, shouldn't they have called for backup? Maybe hung back within a range that they could easily dodge a rock and try to calm him down? Do you honestly believe, as a human being with faculties for reason, that those two circumstances [I]- a threat so dire it was reasonable to kill him and a need so pressing to arrest him that they must immediately ignore that threat and run directly at him -[/I] line up?

Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg then?

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;47132635]Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg then?[/QUOTE] This argument keeps coming up in every cop-gun related thread. It is not to easy to hit small moving target like your legs and it can be as lethal as any other place on your body. The best solution here would to plain and simple just overman him.

i don't know about you guys but i didn't realise that everyone has pinpoint accuracy when throwing rocks i somehow manage to throw balls behind me, so to think that this guy is a fucking ninja assasin who can kill someone with a very well aimed hit to the head with a rock is fucking ridiculous. Lethal force was completely unnecessary.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;47132635]Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg then?[/QUOTE] cause he could've just thrown more rocks and knocked the bullets away

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47132620]By turning around and getting ready to throw the rock?[/QUOTE] After running approximately 100 meters in a direction away from the group of men chasing him with about four meters' distance (which is universally known as being fucking stupid and utterly indefensible for police officers and essentially caused this entire incident to happen)? Yeah, I'd call that 'running away'. Do you want to devolve this discussion to the point where I have to start writing paragraphs to define the act of fleeing? You're not really handling the whole Rock of Doom angle well, so I think we can manage this, at least.

To be honest I think they could have handled that guy if they just tackled him. I don't see how killing him was necessary. But I know, police discretion, yadda yadda.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;47132634]Got a nice case of doublethink here. You rabidly argue that they were in such a fear for their lives that they had to essentially instantaneously kill the guy, and yet you also argue that they had to run within 'rocking' range to apprehend him. If he was so dangerous, shouldn't they have called for backup? Maybe hung back within a range that they could easily dodge a rock and try to calm him down? Do you honestly believe, as a human being with faculties for reason, that those two circumstances [I]- a threat so dire it was reasonable to kill him and a need so pressing to arrest him that they must immediately ignore that threat and run directly at him -[/I] line up?[/QUOTE] He's only dangerous if he's facing them and he can throw the rock. They don't know how many he has or if he has other weapons, so it would be never "safe" in to get closer to him by your logic. This guy already threw one rock at the cops and ignores the fact they have guns, you don't know what he's gonna do. They won't risk that he's going to hurt more people, take a hostage, whatever. They would be responsible for it if it happened. They want to stop him asap. They wanted to throw him to the ground, that's why they were chasing him. That way he would not be able to throw it and because there was 3 of them they would be able to restrain him. They did what they could that didn't involve putting themselves in a situation where one of their skulls might be cracked open. [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Instant Mix;47132642]i don't know about you guys but i didn't realise that everyone has pinpoint accuracy when throwing rocks i somehow manage to throw balls behind me, so to think that this guy is a fucking ninja assasin who can kill someone with a very well aimed hit to the head with a rock is fucking ridiculous. Lethal force was completely unnecessary.[/QUOTE] You have to be a fucking ninja assassin to hit a watermelon with a rock from 3 meters?