from dt My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!
Just curious, do you think it was justified for him to be held at gun point from a cop on the balcony, when he was already in the process of being detained/detained. https://nesn.com/2017/09/watch-michael-bennett-get-arrested-held-at-gunpoint-by-las-vegas-cops/
But...but...but...the cops version skipped that part of the incident editing it out so clearly nothing bad happened.
it was an active shooter situation, cops had guns drawn and he watched from over the balcony. what happened to make him think he should holster his weapon? there was no all clear call. they still didn't know if they had the shooter.
He was detained, with knees on his back, lying face forward, his arms not under under his control. Why should a gun be drawn when the target has already been caught, detained, and is not resisting arrest?
Absolutely. He was backing up the officers who were engaged with Bennett. At that point he was still potentially a suspect and thus his potential to be a threat was still active. There is no rational dispute of his actions other than from having after the fact knowledge that the officers did not yet gave in the moment.
that moment was not the end of the active shooter situation. nothing about bennett being on the ground and still being cuffed warranted the officer holstering his weapon. they still didn't know if he was or was not the shooter at that point.
What exactly are you opposed to in this situation? Why is it an issue for you that police kept their guns out while apprehending a potential shooting suspect?
Do you think he was still an active threat, as he had knees on his back lying face forward? I don't, which is why I don't think there was any need for him to be held at gun point.
The one officer held his firearm on him while the other officer restrained the person they thought may have had a firearm. You don't put the firearm away while the other officer is in the process of detaining.
Do you know where the back is on a human? It's not below the waist. The video you posted clearly shows where Bennett's hands are at his waist and the officer clearly has his knee/shin below that. Of course if you went off Bennett's description of the event and wanted to continue that was what really happened you would continue saying he had his knee in the back. Detained would mean the cuffs were on and you don't take the firearm off the suspect until that time. And Bennett tried to make it about race, take a look at this video and watch around 2:14 in as the officers run past other black males to get to Bennett. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/video-released-showing-encounter-police-nfl-star-michael-50197359 I'm sure Bennett felt it was about race but I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion after all these videos. The 3 officers I believe they said were Hispanic and black.
It's a huge exaggeration to argue the cop on an overpass above him was "holding" him at gunpoint as opposed to the clearly more obvious and honest description that he was simply being thorough in his cautiousness to ensure to protection of his fellow officers and civilians. It's just nonsense to argue the gun should instantly go back in the holster just because you know for a fact with the safety of hindsight that did not exist in the moment that Michael Bennett was not the shooter or a threat.
I'm not really addressing race here and I can see why they assumed he was a suspect, considering where he was running from and he was the first person in their vision. I was specifically addressing the second officer's behavior. I'd also mention that both of these videos did not show the encounter in fulls entirely / that a large portion of the video was cut between Bennent's s being placed in the car and arresting earlier.
I watched about a 15 minute compilation yesterday and saw nothing wrong. The crux of Bennett's complaint was this was done to him because he was black, the officers pushed through a few other black males to get to Bennett so right there I thought his claim was not valid. There was also his claim about the knee in the back which you can also see was false. I didn't even think about the one officer having the gun on him or if there was a second officer doing the same I would not have given it a second thought, that is what you do as your partner puts cuffs on a suspect you thought may have been armed.
Why the left hates the right: hypocrites all: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ught_telling_his_extramarital_boo_to_get.html “Pro-Life” Congressman Caught Telling His Extramarital Boo to Get an Abortion "Rep. Tim Murphy, a vocally anti-abortion congressman from Pennsylvania, asked his own girlfriend to terminate a pregnancy this year. According to documents obtained by the Post-Gazette, Shannon Edwards—a Pittsburgh woman exactly half Murphy’s age with whom he recently admitted to having an extramarital affair—texted Murphy in January about a possible pregnancy that turned out to be just a scare. “You have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options,” she said, referring to a post from Murphy’s professional Facebook account that accused America of “discarding and disregarding the most vulnerable” for allowing abortions past 20 weeks’ gestation. “I get what you say about my March for life messages,” Murphy responded. “I’ve never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don't write any more. I will.” Wow! That right there is a Family Research Council–approved “pro-life” congressman implying that he doesn’t truly believe in the anti-abortion schlock his office disseminates. This is a guy who has advocated for the U.S. government to define life as beginning at conception, which would outlaw some forms of birth control and force every woman to birth any conceived fetus against her will. The guy who suggested that his girlfriend abort a fetus he (hypothetically) helped conceive is trying like hell to keep every other woman from accessing that same right. In fact, Murphy is a current sponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill that would ban abortion care provided after 20 weeks’ gestation, defying the protections enshrined by Roe v. Wade. The House is set to vote on the bill on Tuesday. Murphy is far from the first moralizing anti-abortion legislator to apply a different set of ethics to his own life than to the lives of the millions of U.S. women his votes affect. It’s both satisfying and demoralizing to look back on Murphy’s predecessors, such as anti-abortion Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. DesJarlais, who’s still in office, supported his wife’s two abortions and was recorded telling a 24-year-old woman with whom he was having an affair that she had to have an abortion “to get this solved and get it over with so we can get on with our lives.” Wouldn’t you know, he’s sponsoring the 20-week abortion ban, too." Have some paper towels. Ron
