you guys are not allowed to ask these questions as our forum's high & mighty ignoramus will suggest you are jumping to conclusions
the only thing we should actually consider is the fact that the man did owe Child Support. He was however, pulled over for a broken headlight. I guess that justifies shooting a man several times in the back. I am never getting married and having kids.
It says something that the police department has already fired this individual. I also think, even if the situation warranted the use of the officers firearm, are 5+ shots really necessary..?
In some jurisdictions, police are trying to make it illegal to video tape them. I wonder why? http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police Thankfully, judges are starting to rule in favor of individuals who film police and protecting them under the first amendment. But, know your rights, and be careful.
I question that but again I don't know procedure so I will wait to find out why. It does not look good.
I don't know, it looks BAD. I am in no way supporting what the officer did, I just want as much info as possible.
Procedure? WTF dude ... that is some sketchy ass shit going on ... procedure ... yeah let me just lay this here taser gun next to the victim I shot in the back 8 times. I get your point about knowing everything - but still something is not right. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here ... this stuff is scary, it can happen to anymore.
http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...ed-him-over-because-of-brake-light&source=RSS sounds like this wasn't his first run in w/ the law. I am not making any judgments one way or the other but it is important to reserve judgment until the facts begin to come out.
Doesn't matter if he was Charles Manson. The situation did not call for the use of deadly force. First degree murder. Fry the cop.
again, I am not making a judgment either way, waiting for the facts to come out BUT if he wasn't committing crimes chances are he doesn't run form the cops. this doesn't absolve the officer if he was wrong but it's a lesson for people- stop committing crimes and being involved w/ police in a negative way.
Doesn't matter if he was committing a crime or not. He was not threatening the officer with deadly force. He was no threat to anyone in the immediate vicinity. He was running away. It's not the police officer's job to be judge, jury and executioner. Arrest this cop. Give him a fair trial. And then fry his ass in the electric chair on live TV. First degree murder. And, let that be a lesson to all douchebag cops.
the officer says he grabbed for his taser, if that turns out to be the case then he has a chance. this shooting took place supposedly after the guy fled from police. arrest him, give him a fair trial then fry him? how is that a fair trial if you are going in saying fry him w/o all the evidence? what about the douchebag criminals who are al being turned into heroes for doing the wrong things?(again that may not be the case here, don't know yet but we know w/ the other ones)
Doesn't matter if he grabbed the cop's taser. Doesn't matter is he is suspected of killing ten people this morning. Doesn't matter if he fled. Still does not give the cop permission to use deadly force. The cop was not acting in self defense. There was no immediate threat. This is first degree, premeditated murder on the part of the police officer. Doesn't matter if the victim was Hitler. Arrest the cop. Give him a fair trial. And, if found guilty, execute him.
Exactly. But the victim here was given the death sentence and he wasn't found guilty of anything. Cops are in no position to impose the death penalty on anyone. Unless they are in direct danger of being killed, there is no need for deadly force. This cop was in no danger. Jail him. Try him. Kill him.
