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

[QUOTE=RichyZ;47135401]but he was throwing rocks rocks maybe if it was a dude running around with a knife or a gun sure ok shoot him i guess maybe depending on the situation but the dude was just throwing rocks, theres not much of a risk if everyone dogpiles on him[/QUOTE] You do realise people have died from thrown rocks? It isn't absurd And really, read what other people have already posted - he was known as a meth user who had previously tried to take a police officer's weapon and a taser had proven ineffective against him. It isn't just "guy holding rock gets executed"

[QUOTE=Megadave;47135275]How "in the wrong" do cops have to be before the victim blaming stops?[/QUOTE] It isn't "victim blaming" to say "if you don't want to get shot by the police it might be a good idea not to assault the police even after they've already shot at you", it's a statement of common sense because, regardless of if you think the police were in the right in this situation, I think everyone can agree attacking anyone is an action which puts your life in danger, especially when those people happen to have firearms. I mean this wasn't some guy who was shot by a jumpy cop for reaching into their vehicle for their drivers license after being instructed to do so, this was someone who was actively acting in a threatening manner (and, apparently, had a history of doing so); you can't say that their actions didn't play some part in the end result.

Holy shit that video, they just fucking executed a fleeing man who had his arms raised in the air, what kind of a country is the US where the police think that execution is justifiable for someone throwing some fucking rocks! I also find it ironic that FP will defend police execution of a man who threw some rocks but in the same breath in the thread relating to the woman who burned her children to death they will vehemently object to the death penalty in her situation. Boggles the mind.

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;47135828]Holy shit that video, they just fucking executed [B]a fleeing man who had his arms raised in the air[/B], what kind of a country is the US where the police think that execution is justifiable for someone throwing some fucking rocks! I also find it ironic that FP will defend police execution of a man who threw some rocks but in the same breath in the thread relating to the woman who burned her children to death they will vehemently object to the death penalty in her situation. Boggles the mind.[/QUOTE] Are we watching the same video, because I see a guy running away while still holding something (presumably a rock) in a pose like they are trying to throw it, then spinning around and making a motion to throw it before being shot a number of times. And there's a massive difference between someone who is an active threat (the rock thrower) and someone who is detained (the woman who burned her children).

Haha anyone who says cops are fucked up or bad; the media and cherry picked scenarios have played you so hard. Millions of cops doing great things every day, and every couple of months some shit happens that the media spins to get your little hate wagons going. When you're in a bad situation and need to call them, hopefully you just hang up to honor all the shit you talked. "but we see this time and time again" you say. Well how many times do you hear the good time and time again? Never? I wonder why. And this isn't really a response to this particular situation, mainly this whole anti-cop movement as a whole

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;47135828]Holy shit that video, they just fucking executed a fleeing man who had his arms raised in the air, what kind of a country is the US where the police think that execution is justifiable for someone throwing some fucking rocks! [/QUOTE] I thought your post was a sarcastic parody up to this point. And then I realized you are serious.

The fact of the matter is this SHOULD NOT of happened doesnt matter if its rare, in no rational mans mind is it ok to shoot someone to death for throwing some rocks.

[QUOTE=Fort83;47135871]Lets say someone attacks an officer or a civilian with a gun, injuries them and shortly after is gunned down by police officers during a firefight. Is the gunman a victim in your eyes too? By your logic they would be. This guy isn't a victim, he's a perpetrator.[/QUOTE] but it DOES matter what the crime was, there was no gun, it was a ROCK

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47136057]but it DOES matter what the crime was, there was no gun, it was a ROCK[/QUOTE] yeah but rock beats scissors which can be pretty lethal

true [editline]14th February 2015[/editline] they should've used paper!

You guys realize that it wasn't just a matter of throwing rocks right? The guy has a known record for violence and substance abuse, he's throwing rocks at people/cars, possibly endangering lives by causing an accident or causing a violent confrontation[oh looky], and when officers initially tried to apprehend him, he committed a felony(assault on a LEO), and refused to surrender while firearms were drawn on him and after he was tazed. Could of it been resolved in some other way? Possibly. In the officer's shoes though, they were dealing with a man who was not only violent and endangering lives, but the potential unknown was something that was stacking against them. They did not know if he had a weapon, they did not know if he would lunge forward rock in hand and try to attack officers again, and they had no way of knowing if he was going to surrender or not. One thing I can absolutely tell you though, without a shadow of doubt in my mind is this: He should of surrendered after the first shots. The fact he did not shows that he was not going to do so, no matter what the officers did. In the end, his death was caused by his provocative actions against the populace of the town which called the police department, and by his reaction directly to the police. Had he just said, "alright, I'm done" and put his hands up and surrendered, this wouldn't of happened. In some respects, I feel that he was doing this as a means of suicide by police. This could of been prevented simply by putting one's hands into the air, and listening to the officers. The true victims in this case, are going to be the officers that are now going to be put through hell because the media is spinning this as a case of police brutality, and it's utter bullshit that this is happening. [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;47136042]The fact of the matter is this SHOULD NOT of happened doesnt matter if its rare, in no rational mans mind is it ok to shoot someone to death for throwing some rocks.[/QUOTE] It's not rational to throw rocks at oncoming vehicles, attack police officers, and refuse to surrender after several attempts to resolve the situation.

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;47136042]The fact of the matter is this SHOULD NOT of happened doesnt matter if its rare, in no rational mans mind is it ok to shoot someone to death for throwing some rocks.[/QUOTE] It's not like the cops saw him throw rocks and then shot him down. He was about to throw the rock at them from like 3 meters which could cause serious head injury. That's why he was shot. [QUOTE=SIRIUS;47136057]but it DOES matter what the crime was, there was no gun, it was a ROCK[/QUOTE] He wasn't shot for a crime he committed. He was shot because he was about to throw the rock at them from like 3 meters which could cause serious head injury. That's why he was shot. Why is it so complicated to understand? The only reason he was shot is because he attempted something that could have caused serious head injury to one of the cops.

[QUOTE=Killuah;47132088]are you really advocating the cops killing a guy who has something throwable in his hands? how far out from reality are you? EDIT: By this logic criminals holding mobiles should also be shot[/QUOTE] If I saw a criminal armed with a Nokia, I'd drop him immediately

Came to this thread expecting a bunch of apologists quick to explain away the ever-more-questionable circumstances in which police kill people. Was not disappointed. There is literally no limits to the extreme police conduct people here will try to justify. Throwing rocks or holding rocks or resisting arrest via use of a rock does not carry the death penalty. Their guns should have never left the holster, and if you can't handle a guy throwing rocks at you without spraying bullets all over a crowded street, you shouldn't be on the force in the first place.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47134342]some people say there are just a few bad apples, and while I agree, this is a job where a few bad apples just isn't acceptable[/QUOTE] this just in, cops are now replaced with robocops only. No more bad apples or people panicking. Seriously the guy has a history of almost killing another officer in a tackle by taking their gun, and has a history and showing signs of meth abuse. Meth heads that go crazy are fucking horrifying and it takes more than two men most of the time to control them. not to mention the fact that he was asked multiple times to surrender and decided to suddenly turn around and face them which can be a gun he pulled out believe it or not. It only takes a second for him to pull out a gun and another to shoot. There's a reason they want to see your hands at all times believe it or not. If they REALLY wanted him dead, he would have been dead as soon as they got a clear shot, but they waited and then he turned around quickly instead of surrendering. [editline]13th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47136217]Came to this thread expecting a bunch of apologists quick to explain away the ever-more-questionable circumstances in which police kill people. Was not disappointed. There is literally no limits to the extreme police conduct people here will try to justify. Throwing rocks or holding rocks or resisting arrest via use of a rock does not carry the death penalty. Their guns should have never left the holster, and if you can't handle a guy throwing rocks at you without spraying bullets all over a crowded street, you shouldn't be on the force in the first place.[/QUOTE] Yep, just today I was shot 20 times for a broken tail light and shot another 40 for going through a red light. Every single cop in the force is just powerhungry demon pigs that need to be put down, fuck them for upholding the law for about 99% of their career.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47136217]Came to this thread expecting a bunch of apologists quick to explain away the ever-more-questionable circumstances in which police kill people. Was not disappointed. There is literally no limits to the extreme police conduct people here will try to justify. Throwing rocks or holding rocks or resisting arrest via use of a rock does not carry the death penalty. Their guns should have never left the holster, and if you can't handle a guy throwing rocks at you without spraying bullets all over a crowded street, you shouldn't be on the force in the first place.[/QUOTE] They tried talking to him, tazing him, and he still resisted. I don't blame the cops one bit for jumping up to the next step. The reality is that if you fail to comply, you create the situation. Let me share a slice of reality. There was a cop who was loved by everyone. He didn't hassle anyone, he was always friendly, and was more interested in connecting with people rather than filling a "ticket quota". He approached a vehicle stopped in the road to question the driver when the driver took off and crashed into a ditch. When he tried to arrest the guy, a struggle broke out and the guy ended up with another officer's gun. He put a bullet in the officer's chest ABOVE his vest which killed him. This was all from an unarmed man who didn't want to face charges for the dime bag he had in his car that he thought the officer saw. They ended up having to put the guy in a different jail until his trial because the inmates at the parish jail were going to kill him for killing that officer. I knew this officer. My sister went to school with him. Everybody knew and loved him. He was killed trying to arrest an unarmed man who was resisting arrest. [url]http://www.odmp.org/officer/18225-sergeant-jeremy-paul-newchurch[/url] People need to understand that just because a suspect doesn't have a firearm on him, that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;47136167]It's not like the cops saw him throw rocks and then shot him down. He was about to throw the rock at them from like 3 meters which could cause serious head injury. That's why he was shot. He wasn't shot for a crime he committed. He was shot because he was about to throw the rock at them from like 3 meters which could cause serious head injury. That's why he was shot. Why is it so complicated to understand? The only reason he was shot is because he attempted something that could have caused serious head injury to one of the cops.[/QUOTE] Which isn't a good enough reason

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47136724]Which isn't a good enough reason[/QUOTE] Why? They couldn't tackle him because that would greatly increase the chance he could do harm to them, and they can't [i]not[/i] do anything because he's a danger to everyone else. He was not listening to them, tazering him didn't work. What else could they have done?

[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;47136943]Why? They couldn't tackle him because that would greatly increase the chance he could do harm to them, and they can't [i]not[/i] do anything because he's a danger to everyone else. He was not listening to them, tazering him didn't work. What else could they have done?[/QUOTE] in the UK this man would have been decked by about seven officers at once before he even started running. we do not have better cops, but the mentality is that the sooner the guy is on the ground in handcuffs and, this is the crucial part, still alive, the better. US cops almost don't seem to care whether or not they are dead or alive, so long as they are "incapacitated". This will invariably lead to scenarios such as this, where lethal force could, yes, be justifiable, but the public is endangered and basically exposed to the shooting of a man armed with rocks by 3 or 4 professionally trained men with firearms. How the hell do you expect them to react? One of the witnesses just said "he's dead" after they shot another couple of rounds into him when he was there on the ground. Was it justifiable? Yeah, he could have been armed with something other than rocks. Was it neccessary? Yes! He could have gotten real lucky, frantically throwing rocks at a group of officers and given one of them a subdural hematoma or something. Should it have been done? There were multiple officers and a lot of people were watching, so... no. If they are armed with a firearm, or are lunging with a knife, you need to stop them as quickly as possible before they injure anyone else, and a firearm is great for that. If they are throwing rocks? Floor the bastard.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;47136290]Yep, just today I was shot 20 times for a broken tail light and shot another 40 for going through a red light. Every single cop in the force is just powerhungry demon pigs that need to be put down, fuck them for upholding the law for about 99% of their career.[/QUOTE] Except there was a thread last year in which this series of events occurred. 1. A man was stopped by an officer at a petrol station. 2. The police officer approached and asked him to provide his ID. 3. The man complied and reached into his glove box to procure it. 4. He was shot for making a sudden movement and appearing like he was 'reaching for a weapon'. And you know what Facepunchers in that thread said? He should have asked permission. The policeman already asked him to do it, so they were essentially saying that if you don't ask permission to perform an action that they'd already asked you to do, they were completely in the right to shoot you. That is why I hate this bullshit. The police in your country are beginning to lose all accountability. I'm not even talking about the stuff that's caused riots - what about that homeless guy who was executed (and this is without passionate language)? [url=http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3573906.shtml#.VN6_Ovk99fZ]One policeman admitted he intended to kill him before even arriving to the scene,[/url] and then [url=http://youtu.be/iWQ5lu8jSMc?t=53s]they killed him when they were at a safe distance,[/url] armed with automatic weaponry and a shotgun, and shot him as he was raising his hands and turned around (backwards, away from the officers). But you know what even began to cause this situation in the first place? [quote]Albuquerque Police Department brass took a chance in 2007, when they hired four ex-State Police officers who had freshly been relieved of duty from that agency because of a double-dipping scandal. One officer had resigned from State Police. The other three had been fired. All four faced criminal charges at one point for receiving payments from a private security contractor while on the clock for State Police, although those never materialized.[/quote] There is a corruption problem in your country. These guys, who were essentially the essence of corrupt, were hired and - despite this quote --- [quote]“They do not carry guns, they are not going to be badged,” Castro said in July 2007 . “They’re civilian employees. They’ll be collecting evidence.”[/quote] They were in fact given guns and badges, and are now facing murder charges, so it's not a contentious issue. In the grounds of this, one of dozens of incidents within the past year alone, I find it absolutely impossible to imagine why you are defending things like this. That's why it's pertinent, because there's a real current of corruption and a real big set of problems stewing in your country's police force. I'm not some kind of fucking anarchist here, and I think a lot of you people spouting memes like 'edgy' think I want to go out and start harassing some local cop who legitimately wants to do good. Instead, I have a massive respect for Victoria's police force for the exact reasons I have little for the U.S. one as a whole - they have actual corruption indictments and don't just shuffle legitimately criminal personnel into new departments (or even continue the corrupt behavior behind a wall of secrecy as U.S. police stations have quickly become enclaves from the press and the greater population), have restraint when attempting to apprehend suspects and generally assume that their job is a responsibility and that a minor threat to themselves is not a mortal threat; one worthy of lethal force. This is one case of many, and the fact that it's being defended - and so passionately, to boot - makes me worried that any change can ever occur in the U.S. police force when it comes to these isolated, poisonous (but expanding) parts of it, when some FPers were even dragging their feet in acknowledging the two incidents I've cited above as being either mistakes or misconduct. Utterly ridiculous to me.

I love how everyone magically becomes a Law Enforcement Professional whenever something like this comes up.

I'm tired of people being called anti-cop or anti-authority just because we're tired of people getting shot.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47137718]I'm tired of people being called anti-cop or anti-authority just because we're tired of people getting shot.[/QUOTE] I'm tired of being called pro-cop or pro-authority just because we're tired of people trying to kill us or others. Actually, I'm really just mad that people ignore the mental health crisis we have in this country and continue to blame cops for shooting (and killing some unfortunately) people who try to attack them who have a mental illness. Its like society doesnt want to deal with the issue so they ignore it and the cops dont have enough funding to try and cope with the issue. /rant.

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47137718]I'm tired of people being called anti-cop or anti-authority just because we're tired of people getting shot.[/QUOTE] It doesn't take a genius to figure out that shooting a guy 12 times who was only armed with rocks is excessive use of force.

I will say one thing, In Australia a situation in which cops would shoot you dead if you were in America you only end up getting the shit beat out of you, now that's still bad but at least you have your life.

I would be fine with moderate punishment, but this situation hit the extreme pretty fast. I wouldn't be so opposed to what went down if it were even a few shots. But it turned into a one-sided gunwar.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;47138160]It doesn't take a genius to figure out that shooting a guy 12 times who was only armed with rocks is excessive use of force.[/QUOTE] Doesn't say how many times they hit him, but does four shots per officer count as excessive? Also [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/rock-throwing-man-killed-police-pasco-had-no-other-weapons-n306181]allegedly[/url] he had already hit two of the officers with rocks, they're investigating whether he was holding a rock when he was shot, and his family are suing the city for $25 million

Jesus christ this thread is a fucking shitstorm.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;47138160]It doesn't take a genius to figure out that shooting a guy 12 times who was only armed with rocks is excessive use of force.[/QUOTE] The number of bullets doesn't matter*; either yes, the police were acceptable in applying lethal force, or no, the police were not acceptable in applying lethal force. *Unless they are clearly just pelting a dead body with more bullets or what not for no reason.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47138457]I would be fine with moderate punishment, but this situation hit the extreme pretty fast. I wouldn't be so opposed to what went down if it were even a few shots. But it turned into a one-sided gunwar.[/QUOTE] For like billionth time. He wasn't shot for "supposedly" holding a rock. He wasn't shot for throwing the rock earlier. He wasn't shot for any crime he has committed earlier. He was shot for attempting to use it against the cops. Please stop twisting this. Just because you say that he was shot in the back while running away is not going to change anything. You can argue this wasn't a justification to use lethal force because the chance of getting serious head injuries was too small in your opinion but please stop twisting why he was shot. Holy shit.