• 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 shot at a man 20 times in his own yard, thinking he had a gun. It was an iPhone.

Renae said:
I'm sure you do. Your final sentence shows a profound ignorance of the job police do, the risks they take or the fact that when it's a split second decision of "I might die here" you're thinking hindsight is wisdom.

The person to blame for the man's death.. is him, he set that situation up through his actions. Not the Police.
Click to expand...

And you know the job police do? How many years and with what agency?

Sorry too many unarmed people get killed. There is something profoundly wrong with that.
 
Gaius46 said:
And you know the job police do? How many years and with what agency?

Sorry too many unarmed people get killed. There is something profoundly wrong with that.
Click to expand...

I have worked for the UTSAHSC PD. I know it's a different breed of cat, but the Navy also puts you through training, and we worked with the MA's and SP's on what to do if scenarios, while armed and in port.

Yes it is not a good thing when an unarmed person dies, but we have to look at the whole picture not just "UNARMED!!! POLICE BAD!!!"

Do yourself a favor, don't talk on this subject in the future, your shortsighted and after the fact criticism is painfully bad to read.
 
Gaius46 said:
And you know the job police do? How many years and with what agency?

Sorry too many unarmed people get killed. There is something profoundly wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Good friends of mine are cops.
Unarmed people get killed because they do stupid stuff that gets them shot for no reason.

1. Obey commands of the cops or better yet don't do something to get the called in the first place.
2. If you have a weapon let the cop know and then do not reach for it.
3. Don't run from the friggen cops. If you do decide to be an idiot and run and finally get caught lay on the ground with your hands out.

Simple rules to stay alive.
 
Renae said:
I have worked for the UTSAHSC PD. I know it's a different breed of cat, but the Navy also puts you through training, and we worked with the MA's and SP's on what to do if scenarios, while armed and in port.

Yes it is not a good thing when an unarmed person dies, but we have to look at the whole picture not just "UNARMED!!! POLICE BAD!!!"

Do yourself a favor, don't talk on this subject in the future, your shortsighted and after the fact criticism is painfully bad to read.
Click to expand...

I don't knee jerk blame the cops - and if you go back and read through my posts on this topic you will see that. And no I won't be quiet on the topic.
 
Renae said:
Sad how people like you think your logic makes sense and that you have a point.

Yes, we do not want a police state, that doesn't mean we don't understand how dangerous their jobs can be, and yes we take a little critical thought and both sides into account approach to situations like these.

Reality check is, the guy created the situation that lead to his death, not the police.
Click to expand...

He had a PHONE in his hand and was shot at TWENTY TIMES... Reminds me of the case in PA. where a cop pumped 8 shots into unarmed man's BACK The guy was 25 feet from the cop and running AWAY.

Whatever happened to 1 or 2 shots, in the arm? In the leg, to disable the person?

I guess nowadays, 20 shots at an Iphone carrying man makes sense....Yes, it is sad how some in our society always seems like it has to blame the victims.
 
ludin said:
Yes I do. Good friends of mine are cops.
Unarmed people get killed because they do stupid stuff that gets them shot for no reason.

1. Obey commands of the cops or better yet don't do something to get the called in the first place.
2. If you have a weapon let the cop know and then do not reach for it.
3. Don't run from the friggen cops. If you do decide to be an idiot and run and finally get caught lay on the ground with your hands out.

Simple rules to stay alive.
Click to expand...

Family members here.

Not every encounter is brought on by the person doing something wrong - I believe it's still unclear in this case whether this kid was actually the guy they were looking for - he was afterall in his own backyard.

The kid didn't have a weapon he had a cell phone.

You really think it's reasonable to expect someone to act with complete clarity while they have a gun pointed at them and are likely scared ****less? I'd also point out in this specific case the kid did what he was told - the order was to "show me your hands" not "drop whatever you're holding."
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
He had a PHONE in his hand and was shot at TWENTY TIMES... Reminds me of the case in PA. where a cop pumped 8 shots into unarmed man's BACK The guy was 25 feet from the cop and running AWAY.

Whatever happened to 1 or 2 shots, in the arm? In the leg, to disable the person?

I guess nowadays, 20 shots at an Iphone carrying man makes sense....Yes, it is sad how some in our society always seems like it has to blame the victims.
Click to expand...

If you're going to shoot you shoot center mass (chest). Shooting to "wound" is TV fantasy.
 
Nilly said:
Everyone in the country has the right to defend themselves when feel threatened. The police are not special in this respect. However you do not have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself from unarmed men and women in the street and if you cannot justify your actions then you will go to jail for it. Thinking someone has a gun when they have a phone is just **** judgment and not a justifiable reason to have shot someone. Chasing someone down is also not a justifiable reason to kill them. Someone who is running away from you is generally not a big threat to you.
Click to expand...

While I may not agree with the verdict, a man did in fact get acquitted in the last couple of years of shooting an unarmed teenager in broad daylight through his door (even admitting that he did not see a gun) because he felt justified to do so (he even said he didn't think the window was broken in an effort to get inside the house). So I'd say that our justice system gives most people the benefit of the doubt.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
He had a PHONE in his hand and was shot at TWENTY TIMES... Reminds me of the case in PA. where a cop pumped 8 shots into unarmed man's BACK The guy was 25 feet from the cop and running AWAY.

Whatever happened to 1 or 2 shots, in the arm? In the leg, to disable the person?

I guess nowadays, 20 shots at an Iphone carrying man makes sense....Yes, it is sad how some in our society always seems like it has to blame the victims.
Click to expand...

Disable the leg? It has never ever been a thing, not in any reality setting. Fantasy maybe.
 
Gaius46 said:
Not every encounter is brought on by the person doing something wrong
Click to expand...

He was observed breaking a sliding glass door on a house, and had allegedly been breaking into cars in the neighborhood....

I believe it's still unclear in this case whether this kid was actually the guy they were looking for
Click to expand...

Again, he was observed committing a crime.

he was afterall in his own backyard.
Click to expand...

After fleeing police commands to stop.

The kid didn't have a weapon he had a cell phone.
Click to expand...

No way the police could have known that at the moment of the shooting.

You really think it's reasonable to expect someone to act with complete clarity while they have a gun pointed at them and are likely scared ****less?
Click to expand...

Had he obeyed police commands when first encountered, he would likely be alive.

I'd also point out in this specific case the kid did what he was told
Click to expand...

No, he didn't.

the order was to "show me your hands" not "drop whatever you're holding."
Click to expand...

Does it make sense to you that when first encountered, the police tell you to stop, you flee, then when cornered in your back yard, after leading police on a chase, that you extend your hands with something in them, in the dark? I'd have shot too.
 
Gaius46 said:
If you're going to shoot you shoot center mass (chest). Shooting to "wound" is TV fantasy.
Click to expand...

Shoot at him 20 times? Shoot an UNARMED man in the back 8 times, as he's RUNNING away.

My point is it's excessive force.

Scary thing is all the cops now HAVE to know they are on camera, they are being filmed, but they don't seem to care. Imagine what went on before bodycams and when everyone had a camera at hand?
 
I'm not sure why so many are saying that they weren't sure this guy was their suspect. It appears that they had a pretty good handle on trailing the suspect from the chopper. It looks like they had the right person (at least who the police suspected), if you only pay attention to the chopper video. They have heat cameras on him and the picture doesn't change between who they were following, and said they observed from the chopper breaking windows, and the person who was shot.



I'm not saying they were justified in shooting him. But a) I do understand that they could have mistaken a cell phone for a weapon in the dark and b) there is no evidence that this was racially motivated. Just because the person shot is black or not white, doesn't mean that there is racial motivation. Could there have been? Yes. But like most things, you would need to show evidence for that. Actual evidence.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm not sure why so many are saying that they weren't sure this guy was their suspect. It appears that they had a pretty good handle on trailing the suspect from the chopper. It looks like they had the right person (at least who the police suspected), if you only pay attention to the chopper video. They have heat cameras on him and the picture doesn't change between who they were following, and said they observed from the chopper breaking windows, and the person who was shot.



I'm not saying they were justified in shooting him. But a) I do understand that they could have mistaken a cell phone for a weapon in the dark and b) there is no evidence that this was racially motivated. Just because the person shot is black or not white, doesn't mean that there is racial motivation. Could there have been? Yes. But like most things, you would need to show evidence for that. Actual evidence.
Click to expand...


This.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Shoot at him 20 times? Shoot an UNARMED man in the back 8 times, as he's RUNNING away.

My point is it's excessive force.

Scary thing is all the cops now HAVE to know they are on camera, they are being filmed, but they don't seem to care. Imagine what went on before bodycams and when everyone had a camera at hand?
Click to expand...

I only said that shooting to wound isn't something that anyone with any firearms training is ever taught to do - and with good reason. Also it's normal to teach someone to continue firing until the threat is no longer a threat because one-shot instant disablement is also TV fantasy.

Does that make 20 rounds excessive? On the face of it - yes. Same with shooting someone in the back. fwiw - I advocate that cops be held to the same standard as everyone else when it comes to firearms use. If I shoot someone in the back no one is going to by that I was defending myself and I'm going to jail. Same should hold for the police.
 
americanwoman said:
Wow, with that kind of thinking it would be a breeze for the government to seize your guns.

After all if the anit-gun people get in power, they just have to have police officers go to a person's house and order them to give up their guns or shoot them in the head if they don't comply. Since conservatives are not violent in nature like liberals and follow every single police order, it will be easy peasy. :2razz:

Unless there is something you would resist a cop over?
Click to expand...

Not going to get any of my guns because I don't have any and don't want any. I hate guns. But, what I hate worse is people being constantly victimized by people who shouldn't be running around loose in the first place. And, I don't have one ounce of sympathy for people who resists police or give the police ****. No matter how wrong the police are, it is pretty stupid to think that fighting with them will wind up in a good outcome.
 
j-mac said:
He was observed breaking a sliding glass door on a house, and had allegedly been breaking into cars in the neighborhood....



Again, he was observed committing a crime.



After fleeing police commands to stop.



No way the police could have known that at the moment of the shooting.



Had he obeyed police commands when first encountered, he would likely be alive.



No, he didn't.



Does it make sense to you that when first encountered, the police tell you to stop, you flee, then when cornered in your back yard, after leading police on a chase, that you extend your hands with something in them, in the dark? I'd have shot too.
Click to expand...

Was he observed or was a "tall black teen with a hoodie" observed? That description probably fits dozens - hundreds - of people in that general vicinity. And as I understand it the call was for a 6 foot tall black teen - the kid's grandmother says he was not anywhere near 6 foot tall.

It's further unclear whether the cops identified themselves as such, the WaPO article says they never identified themselves on the audio recording (I haven't heard it so I don't know).

Finally - as I've said before expecting a kid who's probably ****ting his pants and to expect him to act rationally is foolhardy.

Side note - someone else noted that the cops were behind cover. Again I don't know because I didn't see the video but if that's the case do you still shoot at that point?
 
Gaius46 said:
Was he observed or was a "tall black teen with a hoodie" observed? That description probably fits dozens - hundreds - of people in that general vicinity. And as I understand it the call was for a 6 foot tall black teen - the kid's grandmother says he was not anywhere near 6 foot tall.
Click to expand...

:doh Read the stories that Agent J was so kind as to provide in the OP please...That would be nice before commenting....

It's further unclear whether the cops identified themselves as such, the WaPO article says they never identified themselves on the audio recording (I haven't heard it so I don't know).
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Police cars pull up, and they get out and command you to stop, and you don't know who they are? Are you for real?

Finally - as I've said before expecting a kid who's probably ****ting his pants and to expect him to act rationally is foolhardy.
Click to expand...

He'd be alive had he obeyed police commands from the start - Fact!

Side note - someone else noted that the cops were behind cover. Again I don't know because I didn't see the video but if that's the case do you still shoot at that point?
Click to expand...

You didn't read the OP articles, you didn't watch the video, then why should anyone respond to anything you have to say on this matter?
 
j-mac said:
:doh Read the stories that Agent J was so kind as to provide in the OP please...That would be nice before commenting....



You're kidding right? Police cars pull up, and they get out and command you to stop, and you don't know who they are? Are you for real?



He'd be alive had he obeyed police commands from the start - Fact!



You didn't read the OP articles, you didn't watch the video, then why should anyone respond to anything you have to say on this matter?
Click to expand...


Everything I've written is consistent with the WaPO which I did read.
 
Gaius46 said:
Everything I've written is consistent with the WaPO which I did read.
Click to expand...

No way I can confirm that, the WaPo article is behind a pay wall so I am not giving them any of my money. But I did read the other articles, and view the video....Something you have admitted you did not....So, is it possible that the WaPo article has injected a bit of opinion into their reporting? If indeed, as you say you read that article, then I can only assume so, since you are getting so many facts wrong in this debate.
 
Moderate Right said:
Not going to get any of my guns because I don't have any and don't want any. I hate guns. But, what I hate worse is people being constantly victimized by people who shouldn't be running around loose in the first place. And, I don't have one ounce of sympathy for people who resists police or give the police ****. No matter how wrong the police are, it is pretty stupid to think that fighting with them will wind up in a good outcome.
Click to expand...

that is a part of the problem right there; Americans support bad cops ............
 
Regulating well, the "trouble making punk" age range of the militia when being their, "trouble making selves", is what should happen, rather than clog the justice system.

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!

I believe we simply need to give our juniors, a mission to go by, when they are not pursuing happiness in a more market friendly manner.

In California, that should mean, fire support for fire crews, this fire season.
 
Last edited:
SenorXm/Sirius said:
He had a PHONE in his hand and was shot at TWENTY TIMES...
Click to expand...

Indeed! Incredibly poor marksmanship.

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Whatever happened to 1 or 2 shots, in the arm? In the leg, to disable the person?
Click to expand...

The technical term for a shot that hits an arm or a leg is "Almost a MISS". People who are being trained to shoot at other people are NOT trained to shoot at arms or legs they are trained to shoot at "center of mass". The old "shoot to disable" is a myth - but it isn't as hilarious a myth as "shoot the gun out of his hand" (especially when you see the fellow who has had the gun "shot out of their hand" shaking their gun hand afterwards [if you don't believe me ask anyone who either shoots or treats trauma what will happen to a person's "gun hand" if someone shoots at them and hits the gun that they are holding in their "gun hand"] and the fellow who shot the gun out of their hand picking up an intact gun from the ground).

I guess nowadays, 20 shots at an Iphone carrying man makes sense....Yes, it is sad how some in our society always seems like it has to blame the victims.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom