• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police in Washington state fatally shoot man who threw rocks at them

Jack Fabulous said:
This is exactly what I have been thinking for a long time now. It seems like it's getting to the point where if there is a chance the officer might suffer a slight contusion to his pinkie toe then it's a-okay to whip out the Glock and start emptying clips.
Click to expand...

Yes, when a cop is chasing a fleeing suspect.. Who may/may not have a gun.. The suspect then turns in a threatening manner, the cops can react as they did. They do not have to wait to actually get shot. Blame the dummy for turning around and trying to engage with armed police in such a manner.
 
americanwoman said:
I just noticed in slow motion when they shot him, the shots went in time with a saying in Spanish, that I probably can't post here but is really offensive. It's the same melody as "shave and a haircut".
Click to expand...

I don't know the offensive version you are speaking of, but you're right. You can make out the shave and a hair cut two bits in time with the shots.
 
brothern said:
Murder. Homicide. Whatever. Hand movement is now justifiable reason to kill.

What a wonderful world this could be. So glad we can value human life and justice.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind we've heard nothing of the cop side and this video only shows the end of the exchange. There's a lot of context to this that we don't know yet. But I will tell you one thing, had the man not been throwing rocks at police in the first place, he wouldn't be dead. Dare I say, in most situations, cops tell you to get on the ground, so had he of just done that, he'd not been dead.

Again though, there's more that will come out.
 
VanceMack said:
Zoomed in shows it even more clearly. Stop at 17. Then frame it at 18 and 19.
Click to expand...

Looks more to me like he was pleading for mercy by putting his hands together in a faux prayer fashion and it was also clear even at this distance that he had no gun. These officers should be tried for murder
 
flogger said:
Looks more to me like he was pleading for mercy by putting his hands together in a faux prayer fashion. These officers should be tried for murder
Click to expand...
Come now...be honest. What you just stated is a completely ridiculous reading of the events.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Did they know this prior? Still not an excuse for how this went down, but I wonder what thier mindset was to think this was ok.
Click to expand...
He was just released from their jail a day before.

Keep in mind...to day we have no idea what they were called to respond to and that the video does not show them using the taser on the man to attempt to subdue him.
 
VanceMack said:
Come now...be honest. What you just stated is a completely ridiculous reading of the events.
Click to expand...

I hardly think so given these officers were far closer than the camera was and what was happening was pretty obvious to me. The guy clearly had no gun in his hand and the force used here was criminally excessive as ex police officers posting here have already stated
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is a debate forum, people have opinions thats kinda how this **** works. *shrug*
Click to expand...
I'm promoting debate, I'm objecting to witch-hunts. As you can see in this very thread, discussions linked to specific, unresolved incidents tend to lead to the latter. I'm suggesting that if you really want a rational discussion about the actual issues and policies involved, it would be much more constructive to have them independently of individual incidents. If you really want a rational discussion about a specific incident, it would be much more constrictive to have it after as much of the relevant evidence as possible is publically available.

This isn't personal by the way. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. :)
 
Fearandloathing said:
10 seconds?

Let us not prejudge the evidence please by exaggerating. We do not see what led up to the what I presume to be the first volley of fire. But that's meaningless as is what they said. Nor does the suspected crime.

They were shooting at him when he had his back turned. There was no "object" at all in evidence in his hand and only a pro-cop would even think to say the man turning to face his attackers with his hands out in defense was an "aggressive gesture". You break this down frame by frame and view with an eye experienced in video and you get a story not consistent with the cops' version.

My first question if on a jury would be about 'use of force' guidelines and whether they were followed and why the heavy artillery came out in the first place with a platoon of cops around. Lethal force seems to have been the first line of response instead of the last
Click to expand...

Had you of read just a couple of more posts you'd of seen this:

Hamster Buddha said:
The video only shows 10 seconds of the exchange. At this moment, we have no context of the situation, how long it lasted, or even if the cops told him to halt when bolted. In other words, let's not jump to conclusions like we did with Ferguson...
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
did you watch at around the 20 second mark?
Click to expand...

Hamster Buddha said:
Ah no I didn't, heard the gun shots in at that mark and just thought that was it. Well my bad.
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
I did that too at first.
Click to expand...

Hellhound corrected me.
 
HonestJoe said:
I'm promoting debate, I'm objecting to witch-hunts. As you can see in this very thread, discussions linked to specific, unresolved incidents tend to lead to the latter. I'm suggesting that if you really want a rational discussion about the actual issues and policies involved, it would be much more constructive to have them independently of individual incidents. If you really want a rational discussion about a specific incident, it would be much more constrictive to have it after as much of the relevant evidence as possible is publically available.
Click to expand...


No one is witch hunting, this is an incident one in many in recent years of police doing violence when other options would have been safer, less violent, and less deadly.

In a time when crime is at an all time low, swat raids are up 1400%, police recruitment videos are indistinguishable from SOCOM recruitment video. police today are taught an "us vs them" mentality and this "warrior cop" mentality is reaching maturity and this is what we get.

Reform needs to happen.


This isn't personal by the way. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. :)
Click to expand...



It wouldn't matter either way, I'm not affected. ;_)
 
flogger said:
I hardly think so given these officers were far closer than the camera was and what was happening was pretty obvious to me. The guy clearly had no gun in his hand and the force used here was criminally excessive as ex police officers posting here have already stated
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say...right up until the 17 second point of the video. I agree the police shouldnt have shot the first time (even though I havent seen what transpired prior). But at the 17 second mark, EVERYTHING changes.At the 17 second mark he stops fleeing, he turns towards the pursuing officers, he reaches into his waistband, and then extends both arms in a classic isosceles shooting stance.
 
flogger said:
I hardly think so given these officers were far closer than the camera was and what was happening was pretty obvious to me. The guy clearly had no gun in his hand and the force used here was criminally excessive as ex police officers posting here have already stated
Click to expand...

coincidentally came across this relevant article:

Shoot or don't shoot: Police scenarios prove eye-opening for civil rights leaders | Fox News

It turned out the man was armed with a knife, but the "officer," who was actually the firebrand African-American activist known as Quanell X, acknowledged he would have fired whether the assailant had a knife, a spoon or an empty hand.

“I didn’t even see it,” said the leader of the Houston area Black Panther Party, who was taking part in a training scenario in an attempt to understand what police officers go through during high-pressure situations. “It could have been anything in his hand, and I still would have used force to stop him.

It all happened so fast," he added. "You don’t know what they could have in their hand.”
Click to expand...
 
Weird that they waited until after he threw the big rock, in the beginning.
Why shoot after he runs away ? :thinking

 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Pasco, Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Mid sized metropolitan area? I doubt these particular officers had any idea about him.
Click to expand...

Doubt is speculation. You are doing the same thing you did the last time...assigned your belief system to the case. The fact is, the police were called to respond to an incident in progress and there had been a substantial amount of time prior to the shooting. We have no way of knowing what all was relayed to the officers or if they knew him directly.

Pasco itself has 70,000 residents. Its police departments are divided into 4 ministations. Its not at all unreasonable to 'assume' those responding officers not only knew him but were involved in his most recent arrest.
Mini-Stations | Pasco, WA - Official Website
https://www.google.com/#q=PAsco+population
 
VanceMack said:
I agree with everything you say...right up until the 17 second point of the video. I agree the police shouldnt have shot the first time (even though I havent seen what transpired prior). But at the 17 second mark, EVERYTHING changes.At the 17 second mark he stops fleeing, he turns towards the pursuing officers, he reaches into his waistband, and then extends both arms in a classic isosceles shooting stance.
Click to expand...

Nonsense thats certainly not what I see. I see a guy in the process of pleading with the officers not to shoot and then being shot anyway. If I could see that he had no gun from the distance the camera was at then I'm certain the officers who were far closer could have ascertained that too before firing. They should all be up on a murder charge
 
buck said:
Yes, when a cop is chasing a fleeing suspect.. Who may/may not have a gun.. The suspect then turns in a threatening manner, the cops can react as they did. They do not have to wait to actually get shot. Blame the dummy for turning around and trying to engage with armed police in such a manner.
Click to expand...
Ummm... did you even watch the video?

You can see in the video, and the police chasing him can see even better, that he had no gun in either hand when they opened fire. My point is not that they did not follow "the rules of engagement" when they opened fire. My point is that "the rules of engagement" need to be reevaluated.
 
flogger said:
Nonsense thats certainly not what I see. I see a guy in the process of pleading with the officers not to shoot and then being shot anyway. If I could see that he had no gun from the distance the camera was at then I'm certain the officers who were far closer could have ascertained that too before firing. They should all be up on a murder charge
Click to expand...
Why does he go to his waistband prior to raising both arms towards the cops? What...you think thats where he keeps his rosary?
 
VanceMack said:
Doubt is speculation. You are doing the same thing you did the last time...assigned your belief system to the case. The fact is, the police were called to respond to an incident in progress and there had been a substantial amount of time prior to the shooting. We have no way of knowing what all was relayed to the officers or if they knew him directly.

Pasco itself has 70,000 residents. Its police departments are divided into 4 ministations. Its not at all unreasonable to 'assume' those responding officers not only knew him but were involved in his most recent arrest.
Mini-Stations | Pasco, WA - Official Website
https://www.google.com/#q=PAsco+population
Click to expand...




I am only assigning my experiences and my observation here.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Ummm... did you even watch the video?

You can see in the video, and the police chasing him can see even better, that he had no gun in either hand when they opened fire. My point is not that they did not follow "the rules of engagement" when they opened fire. My point is that "the rules of engagement" need to be reevaluated.
Click to expand...

Not quite how that works. Officers have to make a split second decision based on what is occuring. They do not have the ability to watch, as you did, a video a bunch of times to determine what decision to make. The guy's a ****ing dummy for, first throwing rocks at the cops.. Then running.. and for finally turning around and, probably based on what I see, getting ready to pouind them with another rock. Again, though, the cops just see a guy turning around in a aggressive manner with no idea what his intentions are in real time with adrenalin running. Some in the community will whine.. but the cops will not face chages and will be back at their jobs.
 
VanceMack said:
Why does he go to his waistband prior to raising both arms towards the cops? What...you think thats where he keeps his rosary?
Click to expand...

He doesn't.


That's natural reflexes and motor system body response to the threat. hands come up in a defensive way and the vitals recoil away from the threat.
 
buck said:
Not quite how that works. Officers have to make a split second decision based on what is occuring. They do not have the ability to watch, as you did, a video a bunch of times to determine what decision to make. The guy's a ****ing dummy for, first throwing rocks at the cops.. Then running.. and for finally turning around and, probably based on what I see, getting ready to pouind them with another rock. Again, though, the cops just see a guy turning around in a aggressive manner with no idea what his intentions are in real time with adrenalin running. Some in the community will whine.. but the cops will not face chages and will be back at their jobs.
Click to expand...


Really? so shooting at the dood running away in a crowded intersection is a "split second decision"?
 
VanceMack said:
Why does he go to his waistband prior to raising both arms towards the cops? What...you think thats where he keeps his rosary?
Click to expand...

I think you are subjectively interpreting this motion from the angle viewed. Why would he do this in order to provoke a lethal response if he actually had no weapon ? Why did the police then shoot him multiple times when it must have been obvious he had no weapon in his hand from their far closer vantage ?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
He doesn't.


That's natural reflexes and motor system body response to the threat. hands come up in a defensive way and the vitals recoil away from the threat.
Click to expand...
No it is not. You have to be HONEST and report what actually happened. He turns. His hands are already out front. He reaches with both hands into his waistband. He pulls both hands together and towards the cops. He presents as a threat. He is shot.

I completely agree they shouldnt have shot the FIRST time. The second time was absolutely justified based solely on his actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom