Racist Crowd boos L.A. police chief

[1069]

Ummm...that "little thug" was in his 40's and had never had any kind of record. So funny how you guys keep fleshing this story out with a bunch of colorful embellishments but very little in the way of facts and substance.

Seems almost.... racist.

 

[Grizzlierbear]

Why was he in the country illegally?.

If you ever been to Guatemala you might have an inkling!

Why is Los Angeles being allowed to flagrantly violate federal law and welcome illegal invaders into it's bossom.

Los Angles is responsible? Hmmm! Bad city planning?

Why did he get drunk?.

Drunks ask that themselves yet bad habits are so hard to break

Why did he decide to use that knife to attack men with guns?.

Not exactly the act of a rational man!

Why would anyone care about him?.

Is not that what Hitler thought?
Do you care what others think of you?

Lots of questions to ask.

True but then we can't ask him can we? The point is not really if this guy was a good man bad man but why those who choose to protest think it important enough to make other choices. People will paint a picture based on their own life perspective some of which is utter fantasy, laced with blame and fault and why poor me syndrome as much as factual relevant social commentary and real time personal observations

No, he made his choice. The price for stupidity is often death..

The fact is death is a result we can all look forward too! Stupidity is not reserved for death! Lots of really smart people wind up dead!

The word is "alluded"..

Grammar point, well done and yes you are correct!

And there's no reason to presume the cops are lying. They usually don't..

Conspirers rarely require reason to find a dark thought but I agree most cops like most people are not out to do deliberate damage!

Both ridiculous and quite irrelevant..

Indulge in fantasy for TV sake but agreed fodder for the tabloid is more suitable

Too bad. I guess in certain circumstance the second chance never gets rolling..

Choice made is the fate played. The results can be completely unexpected or followed to logical conclusions

Looks like the officers followed procedure. Given that he was being attacked with a knife, he didn't have much time to do anything else but shoot..

Not he , they (officers) followed procedure! Time indeed does limit options!

Enough of that crap..

Bathroom break?

Quit making excuses for the criminal. If the guy was white, you'd be dead silent on the matter.

Not making excuses. Never knew the man, never will! Sometimes things are indeed just what they are! I was only postulating, what ifs, nothing more! There will be those who refuse to see truth in certain ways be it through bias, faulty logic, selfishness or a desire to be contrary.

In that matter of skin colour you are dead wrong. I hold a life as a gift and to see it squandered uselessly is not something that I choose to remain silent on!

People protest all the time for various reasons. The polarization of the two party system in the USA was dreaded by one of the USA original founding fathers JQA. I belive the USA is stymied in its tracks as two opposing forces try to out last the other rather deal with the people issues at hand!

Cultural and ethnicity aside most people are drawn to go somewhere better. Whether they choose to do better is another matter! Ask a native American about illegal immigration?

Nice chatting with you!

 

[mertex]

Yes.
Only conservatives are guilty of stereotyping.

It appears the conservatives on this thread are.

Everyone else automatically assumes the cops are trigger happy bastards willing to risk destroying their lives and their careers for the chance of playing Tackleberry for real.

That's a bunch of BS. I happen to have cops in my family and I don't claim that cops are trigger happy bastards......I guess you are not understanding what is being implied here. The OP has posted a flame-baiting thread, accusing a bunch of people protesting the killing of one man by police, as "racists". Nowhere did the OP provide proof that all those people are racist. Would you agree then that the people protesting against the building of the Mosque in NYC are racist?

The scenario was pretty clear. Drunken invader brings a knife to what became a gun fight.

That was the story provided by the police. They had one witness. There is another witness claiming the man was unarmed (that wasn't mentioned in the OP's thread), so, I guess we don't really know what the truth is. Police have been found to lie. I can give you plenty of links to support that. So, until an investigation is done, you cannot say it is pretty clear.

Ana, who said she was interviewed by police on the day of the shooting, gave her account Thursday morning in front of a phalanx of television cameras and reporters at a news conference called by community activists, who said she contacted them after seeing a flier they passed out.

Ana said she was walking down the street when she heard the officers yell "drop the weapon" in Spanish. She said the man appeared drunk and was having trouble keeping his balance. He stepped toward the officers, but it appeared to be an attempt to keep from falling forward, she said. Ana said she gestured to the man from across the street, trying to get him to turn around and let police arrest him.

But less than a minute after she first heard the officers' warning, an officer fired two shots into the man's head, Ana said. She said the impact from the shots, which she said were fired from about five to six feet away from Jamines, was such that blood splattered to the other side of the street where she stood.

Ana, who works in a school cafeteria, said she has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and believes that police have been overly aggressive in cracking down on street vendors and seizing their products. Other residents have said the anger over Jamines' death was fueled, in part, by that alleged aggression.

Witness says man killed by LAPD in Westlake was unarmed - Los Angeles Times

I haven't acted.

Your statement says you have.

The scenario was pretty clear. Drunken invader brings a knife to what became a gun fight.

I'm waiting for the evidence to proves the cops are guilty before automatically assuming the criminal in the matter was innocent.

You're calling the man a criminal without knowing if he had a criminal record. That says a lot. Like you are not biased? The trouble with most cons here is not so much about defending the cops before knowing the full story, as it is about spewing hatred toward Hispanics. And you have not shown any different.

Is there some reason besides inherent racism you're siding with a proven criminal who then assualted the police?

Don't be inane. I'm not siding with anyone. I'm waiting till I know the full story before forming an opinion. You have already taken sides, without knowing the full story. Was it because the man was Hispanic? I bet your comments would have been different if the man had been white. And, you claim there is no racism exhibited here?

 

[Caine]

Good ****ing lord...why cant we all just get along?

Why does there have to be this kneejerk defense of an OBVIOUS racially motivated response to a criminal act stopped by police?

I mean...seriously...all you kneejerk liberals...do YOU have something that indicates the police did NOT act repsonsibly? That the little thug did NOT threaten the witnesses? that the police did NOT order him to put down the weapon? If so>..PLEASE enlighten us. Otherwise...

Un ****ing believable.

You sir, are in violation of the usage of liberal "political correctness".

Such a scenario you describe is ONLY allowed to be used in the case where the individual or group being called racist is WHITE. It is not allowed to be used in any other way without specific signed sworn statements by those being accused of racism, stating directly, "I am a racist.".

Only whites can be accused of racism without admission of guilt.

 

[Caine]

Hang on, are you seriously claiming that blaming a cop, and defending a criminal = racist in of itself?

Are you perverting the definition of racist like I think you are?

Yes he is perverting the definition of racist!
You are supposed to blame the cop and defend the criminal.
Blaming the criminal and defending the cop is, in and of itself, racist!

EVIL!

 

[Caine]

Viva La Razaaaaaaaaaa! Reconquista Californiaaaaaaaaaaaa!

el gringo policia es muy racist

did someone talk about pinot gringo?

Im not a fan of white wine myself....

 

[Caine]

OK first of all, the guy was not a violent criminal or suspect. He was walking along the street on Sunday morning, a worker on his way to his job. The "knife" was a tool he used in his job (think putty knife) and he didn't understand the police officers who were looking for an actual violent suspect. Several witnesses said the man raised his hands over his head in surrender, but he didn't drop the "knife". At that point, the officers fired two shots, killing him.

By the way, he was legal. Also, the pregnant lady and the other lady...no one seems to be able to find either. KTLA has been following the story very closely and reporting on it every night.

Also, between the time it happened and Tuesday...suddenly this knife appeared (which is not a switchblade, by the way) as evidence while several witnesses state emphatically that there was no switchblade/weapon. Only a laborer's tools.

The police in LA have a proven record of shooting first and asking questions later. They also have a proven record of planting evidence, using unnecessary force, and all manner of corruption.

Now you can mouthfoam about "scumbag sympathizers" as if that kind of rhetoric is going to lend substance to your uninformed ranting, but the fact is, there's a lot of pissed off people in LA right now and they kinda have every right to be until some very serious questions are answered.

Not surprising coming from you.
But I'll take your word for it, for now, since you actually live in that hell hole.

Why a North Carolina boy (no, I don't mean it in the derogatory to blacks way either) would want to live in such a **** hole is beyond me.

 

[Caine]

Well that is the basis of our legal system; all burden of proof falls upon the State.

The second you try to criminally charge, or sue the cop, then they get the benefit of the doubt!

WOOOOOO

 

[Caine]

I wasn't there, so I don't know... but if a cop shoots someone to death, they better have a damn good reason.

Don't police have clubs and tasers? A knife is dangerous but it's not that high risk, especially if you have a police team present.

A knife can kill someone, and/or seriously injure them.
Tazers don't always work.

Even through a vest.....

 

[mertex]

I guess maybe when a crazed mob assaults the police over a guatemalan illegal doing day-labor from Home Depot that they're illegal invader alien criminls, yes.

Where does it say a crazed mob assaulted the police? They were merely protesting the killing of a man they consider was done without cause. This is America and that is one of every American's right, to protest.

Also, can you post a link to prove that the protestors were illegals? You can't. In fact, one story claims he was an "immigrant". That does not imply "illegal".

Jamines, a Guatemalan immigrant,
Man L.A. Cops Shot in Head Was Unarmed, Witness Says - COLORLINES

The best way to answer that question is to arrest those involved in the riot and proving it.

One story claims they arrested 4 people, but it doesn't say they were illegals, making your claims false.

Given that the area in question is an infested area of a moronic and illegal "sanctuary city", and that I happen to live in Los Angeles, I might have a better idea of what those criminals were guilty of than you do.

You keep calling them criminals, which implies a lot of hatred. That you live in LA doesn't mean you are gifted with all the knowledge about everything and everyone in LA. What it does imply is a lot of racist hatred and a right-leaning attitude, so unique to Reps/cons.

I am non-discriminatory.

You, are in denial. And that isn't a river in Egypt.

The facts available are that an criminal illegal alien invader broke additional laws against public intoxication and then broke more laws about assaulting the police with a deadly weapon and furthermore broke laws by failing to comply with a lawful order to desist, and thereby got himself lawfully shot dead.

Again, you are reiterating the story given by the police. That is yet to be proven.
The schmuck was drunk. Really, that many cops couldn't have shot him in the leg or the arm and taken him down? Shooting in the head does not seem like the thing you do to someone that is drunk and can't even walk straight.

The other facts are that only a fool is going to claim that there weren't criminal illegal aliens in the mobs that have been wasting hard earned taxpayer funded food stamps by throwing eggs at the cops.

They were angry. You would be angry too if the government killed one of your friends or family members and you thought there was not justifiable cause. We will find out later whether it was or not, but you don't know that those protesting were illegals. If they were, why doesn't someone at Home Depot get arrested. Why are they hiring illegals? I think your position is quite clear - that of the hate-filled right.

Those are the facts.

You're not jumping to conclusions, now are ya? No, of course not.

Since I"m pretty certain the cops have the assailant's knife in evidence, the testimony of a puta to the contrary doesn't mean much. After all, she couldn't possibly have an agenda, could she?

How do you know the witness was a "puta"? You have personal experience with her?
Your comments are so racist, and yet you have the audacity to call all those protestors racist. They had reason to protest, you just have hate.

 

[Caine]

37, 40...either way, you get the point...he wasn't a "little thug".

No one has reported that he was illegal. In fact, it was reported that he was a legal and had been here for 7 years.

Also, he was no vagrant. He was a member of the community and a laborer. Vagrants typically don't get memorials set up for them. Also, family members have been speaking out.

I'm not denying he might have been drinking. In fact, he probably was with it being a holiday weekend. That still does not preclude him going to work.

Get your facts straight before you come at me with this attitude again, commando.

News Media reports obtained from the angry citizens of the community who have a purpose to paint the police in a bad light....... are not considered 'facts' in my opinion.

 

[mertex]

A knife can kill someone, and/or seriously injure them.
Tazers don't always work.

Even through a vest.....

Police are trained in the art of taking someone down. In this case, there were more than one policeman at the scene. Also, the schmuck was drunk and they knew that, it shouldn't have been too hard to take him down. Shooting him in the head seems a little like "overkill"!

 

[Caine]

We don't care that you are amused. That is why we have investigations, and cops are not judge and jury.

Cops have been known to abuse their power. It's not that they should not use lethal force to stop violent criminals, but sometimes they go beyond the call of duty. And suspects? You don't shoot at a "suspect" - it may turn out the person is totally innocent.

Only people that are hate-filled settle everything with violence and don't care if innocents are taken down.

The moment a 'suspect' wields a weapon and refuses to drop it upon the command of an officer he is no longer a 'suspect', at least in the manner YOU are using it.

But yes, suspects do get shot when they don't comply with lawful commands to drop a deadly weapon when police have made contact with them.

 

[Caine]

Police are trained in the art of taking someone down. In this case, there were more than one policeman at the scene. Also, the schmuck was drunk and they knew that, it shouldn't have been too hard to take him down. Shooting him in the head seems a little like "overkill"!

Really? What type of police training have you received?
I'd like to know what type of training police have recieved in taking down suspects armed with deadly weapons that I have failed to recieve.
I'd also like to see a department that has a policy requiring them to do that.

Police don't join up to be placed in a lottery number death pool for the 'touchy feely' members of society who can't stand to think they would meet deadly force with deadly force because some uneducated member of society thinks that we are ****ing Jean Claude-Van-****ing-Dam.

That photograph I posted, thats an ACTUAL photograph of a police officer's injuries when he attempted to act out his Hollywood Fantasy of disarming a blade wielding subject using fancy hand to hand techniques.

How do you think that worked out for him?

There is a reason why its not a part of police policy to do what you claim we are "trained in the art" to do.

More than one policeman you say? Thats just more than one officer to get injured in the process, all to save the life of a ****bag who can't be a civil and productive member of society. No thanks.

 

[mertex]

I'm sorry, that's the dumbest rationalization I have ever heard.

It's his fault if the cops got trigger happy? This is the same logic as saying rape is entirely the victim's fault because they were at the location of the crime when they were.

Dumb, really dumb.

I agree with you 100%. That type of comment makes no sense. If every American's ancestor had stayed in their country of origin there would be no crime in America?

 

[mertex]

Really? What type of police training have you received?

I'm not a policeman. I have family members that are, that is how I know.

I'd like to know what type of training police have recieved in taking down suspects armed with deadly weapons that I have failed to recieve.

FYI, there have been many cases where police have been able to arrest "armed" suspects without killing them. As many policemen as showed up in this case, you would think that they could have taken the "drunk" down without having to shoot him in the head.

I'd also like to see a department that has a policy requiring them to do that.

There have been many cases where an armed suspect has been talked to and worn down without having to kill them. If all the cops were "trigger happy" we would have worthless police departments.

Police don't join up to be placed in a lottery number death pool for the 'touchy feely' members of society who can't stand to think they would meet deadly force with deadly force because some uneducated member of society thinks that we are ****ing Jean Claude-Van-****ing-Dam.

Police aren't hired to be judge and jury either. Of course if your life is threatened you should shoot to kill, but it doesn't appear to be the case here. If the guy was drunk, the officer could have easily shot him in the leg or arm. I will hold my comments until the case is fully investigated. There have been other cases where the cops in LA have used excessive force.

That photograph I posted, thats an ACTUAL photograph of a police officer's injuries when he attempted to act out his Hollywood Fantasy of disarming a blade wielding subject using fancy hand to hand techniques.

Yeah, and I can post You-tube videos of police exercising excessive force and brutality. Until we know the full story, we cannot say whether the police were right or wrong. Those that have sided with the police, that weren't there to witness what went down are just as wrong as anyone that would side with the dead man. There are two sides to the story, and they are not the same story.

How do you think that worked out for him?

It didn't, that doesn't mean the cops were right. We have stories regularly where cops try to be macho man and get over impressed with their power.

There is a reason why its not a part of police policy to do what you claim we are "trained in the art" to do.

If the drunk was not armed, as some have said, are you still claiming the cops were right to shoot him?

More than one policeman you say? Thats just more than one officer to get injured in the process, all to save the life of a ****bag who can't be a civil and productive member of society. No thanks.

I hope if you are a cop that you are not a cop in my town. You sound like someone that thinks he is always right and we certainly do not need that type of mentality for someone that is authorized to carry a gun.

 

[mertex]

The moment a 'suspect' wields a weapon and refuses to drop it upon the command of an officer he is no longer a 'suspect', at least in the manner YOU are using it.

I can readily agree with you if the "weapon" happens to be a gun, or a bomb, or something along those lines. Since it "supposedly" was a knife, I don't believe it posed the same type of danger as a gun would have. But, the facts in this case are that there are different versions of what happened. Until we get the results of the investigation, assuming that the cops did the right thing is not right.

But yes, suspects do get shot when they don't comply with lawful commands to drop a deadly weapon when police have made contact with them.

That is true, and in many cases, they had every right to do so. However, there have also been many cases where cops over-reacted. They think the person is reaching for a weapon only to find out after they kill him, that he was unarmed.

If the knife turns out to be a plant, in this case, it will only hurt the credibility of the LA police even more.

 

[Caine]

I'm not a policeman. I have family members that are, that is how I know.

FYI, there have been many cases where police have been able to arrest "armed" suspects without killing them. As many policemen as showed up in this case, you would think that they could have taken the "drunk" down without having to shoot him in the head.

And that works great when the individual isn't lunging for you. Which is part of the facts in analyzing this incident.

There have been many cases where an armed suspect has been talked to and worn down without having to kill them. If all the cops were "trigger happy" we would have worthless police departments.

Again, read above.

Police aren't hired to be judge and jury either. Of course if your life is threatened you should shoot to kill, but it doesn't appear to be the case here.

I consider a knife wielding individual lunging at me to be a threat to my life. Its people with your attitude that puts more officers at risk because they have to take unnecessary risks to avoid uneducated public scrutiny.

If the guy was drunk, the officer could have easily shot him in the leg or arm.

Yes, because police go against their firearms training and take the extra time to aim for small targets like arms and legs in order to prevent their death. :roll:

There have been other cases where the cops in LA have used excessive force.

Glad to see you are using those to pre-judge the officers involved in this separate and individual scenario.

Those that have sided with the police, that weren't there to witness what went down are just as wrong as anyone that would side with the dead man. There are two sides to the story, and they are not the same story.

Of course they aren't. Its the LAPD, due to their history its easy to make people skeptical. Add in a few angry local people who will say whatever to get attention, and a local media outlet who apparently realizes that this story ups their viewership, and you'll get alot of stories. I've seen what the media does to the facts in a police involved situation. Of course, folks like yourself and jallman will call this 'anecdotal', but I don't care. Its my factual opinion about local media that I will stick to from personal experience.

If the drunk was not armed, as some have said, are you still claiming the cops were right to shoot him?

If that were the truth, then no. However, I place little weight to sponsor and viewer driven media outlets soliciting information from people about the incident in a neighborhood that are already on the verge of rioting, as some have posted here.

I hope if you are a cop that you are not a cop in my town. You sound like someone that thinks he is always right and we certainly do not need that type of mentality for someone that is authorized to carry a gun.

Im going off of the facts provided by the Captain assigned to investigate the use of force, not sponsorship driven media outlets trying to increase viewership and generate revenue.
Knife + Lunging motion at officers = Justified use of deadly force against an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm.

Textbook justified shooting. As long as the facts provided by the internal investigation do not change. As they stand now however, it is what it is.

 

[mertex]

There's no other reason the maggot was shot.

No person is a "maggot".
Your hate-filled rhetoric screams racism.
I would rather have illegals in our country than people with your hate-filled attitude.

No, that's saying if the dumb **** criminal had obeyed the laws against invading the United States, he wouldn't have been in front of the cop's bullet.

You have no proof that he invaded the United States. People are allowed to become citizens of this country, that is how your ancestors became Americans. Ignorant statements such as yours do not deserve a response.

That is warped-ass logic and there is NO getting around that.

You have a long way to go. Hope you get there, someday.

 

[mertex]

And that works great when the individual isn't lunging for you. Which is part of the facts in analyzing this incident.

If it is true what the police are saying, then I believe they will be exonerated.

Again, read above.

Again, read above.

I consider a knife wielding individual lunging at me to be a threat to my life.

Only if the knife was hidden and then brought out while you were at close range.
If the drunk was wielding the knife to begin with, why in the world would the cop come close enough to him where he would put himself in danger? I would think that yelling at him from a distance would be more prudent, and, if he didn't drop it, taser him. A shot in the head should be the last resort.

Its people with your attitude that puts more officers at risk because they have to take unnecessary risks to avoid uneducated public scrutiny.

Officers shouldn't have to take unecessary risks, but there have been so many cases where officers have acted irrationally that the public instead of looking to them as our protectors now wonder if they are going to abuse us. That is why I don't immediately believe what they say, unless, of course, it is plain to see.



Mr. Grant was among a group of men who were detained after a fight on a BART train. Fellow passengers recorded the shooting and its aftermath on cellphones, and the video was viewed widely on TV and the Internet.

The video shows Grant lying face down, being restrained by officers, when Mr. Mehserle shoots him once in the back. Mehserle's defense attorney has said that the officer meant to shoot Grant with an electronic stun gun, but mistakenly grabbed his pistol.
In BART murder case, police brutality, video evidence on trial - CSMonitor.com

Yes, because police go against their firearms training and take the extra time to aim for small targets like arms and legs in order to prevent their death.

If they are going against a gun-wielding person, no, they have to shoot to kill. In this case, if the drunk was actually wielding a knife, a shot in the head seems like overkill.

Glad to see you are using those to pre-judge the officers involved in this separate and individual scenario.

My experience with so many police brutality cases renders me a little cautious to throw blame and accusations without having the facts.

Of course they aren't. Its the LAPD, due to their history its easy to make people skeptical. Add in a few angry local people who will say whatever to get attention, and a local media outlet who apparently realizes that this story ups their viewership, and you'll get alot of stories. I've seen what the media does to the facts in a police involved situation. Of course, folks like yourself and jallman will call this 'anecdotal', but I don't care. Its my factual opinion about local media that I will stick to from personal experience.

If you are a policeman, of course you are going to close ranks with your own, but neither you nor I have the final version on this case. Furthermore, the hate-filled rhetoric that has been spewed toward Hispanics is uncalled for. Clearly shows racism on the side of these posters.

If that were the truth, then no. However, I place little weight to sponsor and viewer driven media outlets soliciting information from people about the incident in a neighborhood that are already on the verge of rioting, as some have posted here.

I have seen posts that indicate that the police in this area are suspect, also. To take sides without having all the facts is foolish.

Im going off of the facts provided by the Captain assigned to investigate the use of force, not sponsorship driven media outlets trying to increase viewership and generate revenue.
Knife + Lunging motion at officers = Justified use of deadly force against an imminent threat to life or serious bodily harm.

Well of course the Captain is going to believe what his cops say. It will be a reflection on him and his precinct if these cops acted unjustly. An unbiased investigation will yield more credible information.

Textbook justified shooting. As long as the facts provided by the internal investigation do not change. As they stand now however, it is what it is.

That's right. And, just like the video I provided, people are going to protest when they think the police have acted unjustly. It is an American right and for posters on this thread to accuse them of being "illegals" and "criminals" is utterly disgusting.
One poster called the dead man a maggot. I would think that a person saying something like that represents more of a maggot than a dead man who cannot speak for himself.

 

[Cochise]

"Racist" against what? Those people are mixed-blooded mestizos; are they "racist" against their own white admixture, even though it looks like their indio admixture dominates? Also, you people who called the Guatemalan man "Mexican" are the reason why I'm unwilling to go south of Flagstaff at the moment. "They're all the same" is the attitude.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Police are trained in the art of taking someone down. In this case, there were more than one policeman at the scene. Also, the schmuck was drunk and they knew that, it shouldn't have been too hard to take him down. Shooting him in the head seems a little like "overkill"!

One of the things they're trained to do to "take someone down" when they're attacked with a weapon is to shoot their attacker.

Drunk invaders (schmuck is yiddish for "invader", right?) feel less pain and thus are less amenable to more reasonable forms of persuasion.

BTW, since the media blew Rodney King into a folk hero, since the media goes on a feeding frenzy every time a cop is caught on video using his baton as described by the department, the cops don't see much use in the things. Shooting the guy is still appoved, though.

Here's a link to a LA Times photo collection. #23 shows what I believe Jallman was calling a "tool".

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Jaminez was a criminal. According to the Washington Post in an article written nearly a week after the shooting:

washingtonpost.com
This week, the bustling community turned into a hotbed of unrest after a police officer shot and killed a Guatemalan day laborer who allegedly lunged at him with a knife. The incident Sunday sparked three days of protests by people who felt that killing Manuel Jaminez, a 37-year-old illegal immigrant, was an unfair and unnecessary use of police force.

The demonstrations surprised officials, who blamed the blowback on outsiders who had come to the area to stir up trouble. A visit to the neighborhood of grimy tenements with curlicued cornices and portals that belie a more elegant past reveals a social tapestry fraying from increasingly hardscrabble living and widespread frustration.

"Life is very hard here," said Ricardo Fernandez, a retired Nicaraguan truck driver. "I tell people not to come, it's not as good as before. But people still come."

Hmmm....so, everyone who was pretending a hispanic day laborer earning a living hanging out at Home Depot wasn't an Invader owes us Americans an apology. You can drop it off on your way out of the country.

Clearly the situation was, according to established facts, the police were responding to a call about a drunken invader with a knife, who, when approached by officers, attacked them with a knife.

That there are outside agitators stirring up trouble over this incident isn't surprising. That's what history tells us to expect to happen. Horst Wessel wasn't much of a man, but there's a song for him, anyway. And the reasons will be the same, if you have the honesty to view the situation objectively.

 

[Caine]

Only if the knife was hidden and then brought out while you were at close range.
If the drunk was wielding the knife to begin with, why in the world would the cop come close enough to him where he would put himself in danger? I would think that yelling at him from a distance would be more prudent, and, if he didn't drop it, taser him. A shot in the head should be the last resort.

At a distance, sure.
If your going to lunge at me from 100+ feet away, im probably going to laugh at you.

If they are going against a gun-wielding person, no, they have to shoot to kill. In this case, if the drunk was actually wielding a knife, a shot in the head seems like overkill.

You fail to understand the nature of police shootings. The vast majority of police shootings happen at a range of 7 or less yards. It takes seconds for someone to get to you from 7 yards away. During this time, most officer involved shootings are the result of officers responding to an imminent threat that was not previously obvious. The result is called "point shooting" where the gun is drawn and we point it in the direction of our target, which is near, and shoot it... there is no time to close an eye, line up sights, and all that rangehouse bull****. So where the bullet struck the individual was irrelevant.

Also, if they were very close, less than 3 yards, that could be a better reason for why it was a head shot... a contact shot is usually a good idea at those distances, I could see that happening.

 

[mertex]

One of the things they're trained to do to "take someone down" when they're attacked with a weapon is to shoot their attacker.

The "weapon" is being questioned. Like, we don't really know that there was a weapon. Just the cop's word, whom, as of late, have been found to lie.

Drunk invaders (schmuck is yiddish for "invader", right?) feel less pain and thus are less amenable to more reasonable forms of persuasion.

Easier to apprehend. Unless, you are trigger happy.

BTW, since the media blew Rodney King into a folk hero, since the media goes on a feeding frenzy every time a cop is caught on video using his baton as described by the department, the cops don't see much use in the things. Shooting the guy is still appoved, though.

Shooting an unarmed man is not.

Here's a link to a LA Times photo collection. #23 shows what I believe Jallman was calling a "tool".

We don't know if the knife is a plant. According to the OP and most of the right-wing posting here, the case has already been settled. All the protestors were illegals and should be sent back to Mexico, even though the dead man was from Guatemala!
Brilliant observations.