• 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!

Amother police killing

Rico Suave

Rico Suave

Banned
Joined
Aug 13, 2016
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
337
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Rico Suave said:
Granted he had a knife but the dude is homeless and mentally ill. That shouldn't be a death penalty offense. Also the cops shot 18 times hitting him 14 times that reckless behavior endangered nearby civilians.

The police officers in question don't have the temperament for police work and should be fired.

Sacramento police release dash-cam video of homeless man's fatal shooting as it's revealed that cops fired 18 times on meth-addled former corrections officer | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

He just wanted to make sure that the knifeman would not sue him for damages. That is one of the first things: Dead men don't sue.
 
Rico Suave said:
Granted he had a knife but the dude is homeless and mentally ill. That shouldn't be a death penalty offense. Also the cops shot 18 times hitting him 14 times that reckless behavior endangered nearby civilians.

The police officers in question don't have the temperament for police work and should be fired.

Sacramento police release dash-cam video of homeless man's fatal shooting as it's revealed that cops fired 18 times on meth-addled former corrections officer | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

I suppose you have the temperament for getting stabbed in the face?
 
Rico Suave said:
Granted he had a knife but the dude is homeless and mentally ill. That shouldn't be a death penalty offense. Also the cops shot 18 times hitting him 14 times that reckless behavior endangered nearby civilians.

The police officers in question don't have the temperament for police work and should be fired.
Click to expand...

Two officers and 18 bullets fired total at that range seems excessive to me.
 
Crovax said:
I suppose you have the temperament for getting stabbed in the face?
Click to expand...

18 bullets needed to take down a suspect with a knife?
 
Crovax said:
I suppose you have the temperament for getting stabbed in the face?
Click to expand...

When I was young I worked security at a large mall. We had to take down a guy with a knife and we had no guns or tasers, just batons. It took but a few seconds for the officer to quickly rap him with the baton and he dropped the knife (he hit him in the knife hand.) We then cuffed him and haled him away. We were just unarmed security officers.

The police are supposed to be better trained than this. You don't just execute people. When I was an LEO, we feared for our lives at times... in two years I had to pull my weapon twice. Never shot anyone. Now that is not the same experience for every officer, but this shooting first and asking questions later is getting out of hand.
 
Praxas said:
Two officers and 18 bullets fired total at that range seems excessive to me.
Click to expand...

It is. It all boils down to the lack of training standards now days.
 
Black Dog said:
It is. It all boils down to the lack of training standards now days.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think there was any malicious intent on the part of the officers, but quite excessive.
 
Crovax said:
Maybe, better too many than too few
Click to expand...

With that logic maybe next time they pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should just empty the magazine into the care as a warning. :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
8-18...was the shooting justified?
Click to expand...

The video seems blurry to me and I haven't seen all the angles. If the suspect charged them that would be one thing, but I don't think there is a situation where 18 bullets fired and 14 striking the suspect was justified.
 
They can't afford a new camera? My son's fake toy cellphone has a better camera than whatever produced that video.
 
roughdraft274 said:
They can't afford a new camera? My son's fake toy cellphone has a better camera than whatever produced that video.
Click to expand...

The best city government can buy.
 
Black Dog said:
With that logic maybe next time they pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should just empty the magazine into the care as a warning. :roll:
Click to expand...

Clearly you dont understand logic, once you make the decision to shoot it has to be to kill and you dont stop until you know the job is done. You can question the decision to shoot or not but once that decision is made talking about the number of bullets fired is silly.
 
Crovax said:
Clearly you dont understand logic, once you make the decision to shoot it has to be to kill and you dont stop until you know the job is done. You can question the decision to shoot or not but once that decision is made talking about the number of bullets fired is silly.
Click to expand...

Tell that to an innocent civilian killed in a spray of bullets.
 
Black Dog said:
With that logic maybe next time they pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should just empty the magazine into the care as a warning. :roll:
Click to expand...

If the person being stopped has a deadly weapon and refuses to comply then yes, the Police have every right to defend themselves
 
Rico Suave said:
Granted he had a knife but the dude is homeless and mentally ill. That shouldn't be a death penalty offense.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the specifics of this case (which I’m not getting in to), this kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, even dangerous.

Obviously he wasn’t shot because he was homeless or mentally ill and it wasn’t a “death penalty”. Police legitimately shoot suspects if they reasonably believe they pose a significant threat to them or other people. Your statement suggests that had this man been a home-owner and mentally healthy, his shooting wouldn’t have been as bad (or wrong at all!). That’s no better than differentiating between suspects on the basis of their skin colour.
 
HonestJoe said:
Regardless of the specifics of this case (which I’m not getting in to), this kind of rhetoric is unhelpful, even dangerous.

Obviously he wasn’t shot because he was homeless or mentally ill and it wasn’t a “death penalty”. Police legitimately shoot suspects if they reasonably believe they pose a significant threat to them or other people. Your statement suggests that had this man been a home-owner and mentally healthy, his shooting wouldn’t have been as bad (or wrong at all!). That’s no better than differentiating between suspects on the basis of their skin colour.
Click to expand...

That's some convoluted logic
 
Crovax said:
Clearly you dont understand logic, once you make the decision to shoot it has to be to kill and you dont stop until you know the job is done. You can question the decision to shoot or not but once that decision is made talking about the number of bullets fired is silly.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. You shoot to stop, not to execute. Police are not trained to be judge jury and executioner. Your premise is flawed and it leads you to an over the top hollywood nonsense conclusions.

When I was an LEO way back in the stone age. We were taught to fire two rounds, and asses the situation. If the person was still a threat fire two more, etc. You don't empty a damn magazine into someone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom