Man standing in his own back yard shot 20 times by police. He was armed with a cell phone.

[IM2]

Many conservative radicals have armed themselves to not only fight with cops if necessary they are prepared to fight federal troops too. Does your advice extend to fellow exremists?

On a more personal note,there are some cops who are so obssessed with their power they can and do provoke people into confrontations. Usually the cop has the advantage and comes out on top, but , sometimes that kind of cop doesn't survive.
Some people are just not going to be harrassed and fucked with for no damn good reason whether armed or not.
But it is quite telling that a common theme among you well armed conservative is the notion that an unarmed person who fights with an overbearing asshole hiding behind a badge, or a person who runs from cops deserves to be shot. If you believe that you're a fucking NAZI. Thousands of people have fought with cops, run away and even exchanged gunfire with cops yet were arrested without being murdered. Most cops are not shooting unarmed people with such disdain and impunity as those who shot Stephon Clark, even under similar circumstances.
Lastly, I gave you a link to review pertaining to .a pedestrian being shot after being targeted by an asshole in blue and falsely charged for jaywalking . The pedestrian, knowing he had done nothing amiss, simply asked the officer why he stopped him. Having no viable explanation, the cop escalated the confrontation : that being his intent from the onset for reasons known only to himself. This time the weapon of choice was a taser. But tasers can be deadly too. Scores of people are killed by tasers each year.

There is no such thing as an "unarmed man"

ANYONE with an adversarial tone, who is moving toward you, and is already within the standard 21 foot danger zone, is a lethal threat to you. If they continue coming at you after being warned to stay back, they should be self-defense shot.

No Such Thing As An “UNARMED MAN”

Anyone who would call this being a "NAZI", is an obvious casualty of the liberal mind-propaganda, that stems from the typical ignorance of cops and guns.

As for felons who are running away, they can be shot (in the back of course), and police actually violate their protocol, if they don't shoot (and allow suspect to escape)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Actually the fleeing felon rule does not apply in his case.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

No such threat existed in his case.

Your OP does not set any legal precedent for what an unarmed man is either. If a cop is scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away that officer needs to find another job.

You guys need to teach your children to obey the goddamn law if they don't wanna get shot.

No, that's not the problem. Believe it or not we do have rights and the police do violate our rights on damn near every stop.

 

[Yarddog]

If you watched the infrared footage you had to have seen that the heat signature of the actor disappears many times, obscured because the chopper isn’t hovering but circling the scene, allowing numerous obstacles to block the view. There’s no way, once a continuous view is interrupted, to guarantee that the next sighting is the same man. Beside that, as I can clearly see, or more accurately not see, images vanish on the film vanish as if being obscured by some obstruction, and when I focused on exactly what was happening, I then saw that what was being obscured was in the shape of a rectangle and moved even when the image was static, to that area between the houses. And only then stopped moving and shielded something from being seen. Until someone explains what the phantom opaque screen was and why it suddenly appears at this point on the film, I cannot believe anything that they offer as evidence. As for your supposed explanations, he runs right past both houses, no hesitation, directly to the street, mounted the obstacle and would have continued through the block if not for the presence of the posse coming up the street. Only then did he turn around. He didn’t stop beforehand because it’s not his house. They say that the victim wasn’t wearing a hoodie, no hammer or pipe to break windows, no window glass on his clothing, and no contraband from this smash and grab rampage. Sounds like they executed the wrong guy. It also sounds like these overweight donut wranglers, winded and pissed off, formed a pistol waving posse and proceeded to lynch the first black suspect they encountered. What you had here was justice by police mob.

Anything else you want to exaggerate straight into your perspective ? Old Indian saying >> "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his mocassins."

Let's see you get out there in the dark, night after night, month after month, and confront bad guys. Come back and let us know how you made out (if you're still alive)

I'll agree with this, that there is an accumulative effect of being in that same situation over and over again no matter how professional someone is supposed to be. It's not a complete excuse but many of the detractors of the police probably don't take that into account. I'm sure even the most well intentioned recruit could one day find himself becoming burned out at some point and maybe reacting in ways and developing thought patterns that may be otherwise out of character. maybe we need some more X cops posting here about what they experience on a daily basis.

On the other hand, considering the fact that there was a time when hundreds of people would basically throw parties over lynchings of black people, its not too far fetched to believe there may be many hold outs to that
way of thinking who might find it appealing to find their way onto a police force. I guess the extent of that is where the debate is

 

[protectionist]

“We catch them when we can, which means when we notice someone and check in the database,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group is responsible for exposing an Alabama officer as a member of a white nationalist hate group, League of the South, after he spoke at their national conference in 2013. The officer was later fired.

Southern Poverty LAUGHINGSTOCK Center (which has no relation to either poverty or law),is noting but a pocket-stuffing scam operation.

The Nation’s (left-wing magazine) opinion of the SPLC > Alexander Cockburn wrote a scathing article entitled “King of the Hate Business"
Cockburn, like just about every one else who has examined the SPLC’s record, noted the organization’s shameful record of hyping hate for profit. What is the archsalesman of hatemongering, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center,going to do now?Ever since1971, U.S.Postal Service mailbags have bulged with his fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of a hate-sodden America in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC.

Harper’s >> Washington editor Ken Silverstein published an exposé of the SPLC and its tactics and operational activities. >>

"Back in 2000, I wrote a story in Harper’s about the Southern Poverty LawCenter of Montgomery, Alabama, whose stated mission is to combat disgusting yet mostly impotent groups like the Nazis and the KKK. What it does best, though, is to raise obscene amounts of money b yhyping fears about the powe rof those groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation’s richest “civil rights”organization.

Note that Silverstein's use of the the term “civil rights”organization, for the SPLC, is sarcasm.

The MontgomeryAdvertiser >> Like Harper’s and The Nation, the Advertiser’s investigation concluded that the SPLC was little more than a hugely successful fundraising operation that delivered little of what it promised to its donors.

 

[protectionist]

Actually the fleeing felon rule does not apply in his case.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

No such threat existed in his case.

Your OP does not set any legal precedent for what an unarmed man is either. If a cop is scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away that officer needs to find another job.

I was merely replying to your words >> "or a person who runs from cops", not addressing any particular "case". The fleeing felon rule DOES apply to people (felons) who run from cops.

Also I said nothing about a cop being scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away.

 

[protectionist]

Your handle shouldn’t be protectionist , but rabidracist. I’m sure you already know you’re a racist, expressing openly in this forum standard klan and alt right propaganda. I’ll wager that you don’t air these views in venues where your identity is known. Trump has emboldened you closet racists to step out of the shadows and from under the rocks.

Doesn't take long for lost-for-words liberals to start reaching for the race card. But when I challenge them to show even one shred of evidence of me being racist, they change the subject.
Your move, Mr Race Card. You got an example ? Let's hear it. Otherwise >>

By the way, how is your racism status ? You support affirmative action discrimination against whites ?

 

[protectionist]

I'll agree with this, that there is an accumulative effect of being in that same situation over and over again no matter how professional someone is supposed to be. It's not a complete excuse but many of the detractors of the police probably don't take that into account. I'm sure even the most well intentioned recruit could one day find himself becoming burned out at some point and maybe reacting in ways and developing thought patterns that may be otherwise out of character. maybe we need some more X cops posting here about what they experience on a daily basis.

On the other hand, considering the fact that there was a time when hundreds of people would basically throw parties over lynchings of black people, its not too far fetched to believe there may be many hold outs to that
way of thinking who might find it appealing to find their way onto a police force. I guess the extent of that is where the debate is

I wasn't saying that police were acting out of character. They are perfectly well in good character, to defend themselves, by shooting suspects who fail to keep their hands visible, and with nothing in them.

 

[toobfreak]

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

You start the thread with a lie. The man was not shot 20 times. The police fired 20 rounds. An unknown number hit the suspect. He failed to follow police orders. He made threatening moves. White people generally obey authority.

 

[Dale Smith]

But leftards say to give up any means of protecting yourself and turn in your weapons. Trump is Hitler re-incarnated, they say....but give up your guns......stupid fucks that they are.

 

[Picaro]

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

Come on, you knew he was black. Whites can riot, carry semi automatics and the police will do nothing. But arm a young black with a cell phone or Skittles and Republicans will send tens of thousands to the killer's defense fund. Oh, look, his shirt has a hood. How many USMB Republicans will now say he was a thug who deserved what he got?

Stunning victory for Bundy family as all charges dismissed in 2014 standoff case

Remember Bundy? Threatening US Marshals? Armed with rifles?

Then let go.

Imagine if they had been black. It would have been a bloodbath.

You mean yet another dumbass criminal runs from cops, wins Darwin Award.

You're welcome in advance for the correction. Any time.

Anybody who has seen the camera movies is just fine with this idiot getting shot. Like most black people, the Left wing juries have been making a lot of stupid criminals and their families rich, so cop baiting is all the rage in hood rat land now. If anybody has a complaint about dumbasses getting shot, take it up with the ambulance chasing lawyers and faux 'activists' who are encouraging you stupid morons to bait cops.

 

[IM2]

Actually the fleeing felon rule does not apply in his case.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

No such threat existed in his case.

Your OP does not set any legal precedent for what an unarmed man is either. If a cop is scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away that officer needs to find another job.

I was merely replying to your words >> "or a person who runs from cops", not addressing any particular "case". The fleeing felon rule DOES apply to people (felons) who run from cops.

Also I said nothing about a cop being scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away.

There is no such thing as an "unarmed man"

ANYONE with an adversarial tone, who is moving toward you, and is already within the standard 21 foot danger zone, is a lethal threat to you. If they continue coming at you after being warned to stay back, they should be self-defense shot.

21 feet is 7 yards.

The fleeing felon rule only applies to people who pose a threat to the cops life. If someone commits a mass shooting or have already killed people and then runs, then you can reasonably argue for the fleeing felon rule. .That was not the case here, so the rule did not apply.

 

[IM2]

Police shot and killed an unarmed black man in his own backyard. All he was holding was a cellphone.

Come on, you knew he was black. Whites can riot, carry semi automatics and the police will do nothing. But arm a young black with a cell phone or Skittles and Republicans will send tens of thousands to the killer's defense fund. Oh, look, his shirt has a hood. How many USMB Republicans will now say he was a thug who deserved what he got?

Stunning victory for Bundy family as all charges dismissed in 2014 standoff case

Remember Bundy? Threatening US Marshals? Armed with rifles?

Then let go.

Imagine if they had been black. It would have been a bloodbath.

You mean yet another dumbass criminal runs from cops, wins Darwin Award.

You're welcome in advance for the correction. Any time.

It's not illegal to run from cops.

 

[JQPublic1]

Yeah ...keep your black hands visible even in the dark of night.

That's right. Cops were able to see something in his hand, about the size of a gun. It was light enough for that.

So what's YOUR solution ? For cops to let the ones who HAVE a gun to shoot them ? Cops who have hesitated have been shot and killed.

The cops were observing the suspect from behind the corner of a building. Further, shouting "Let me see your hands" was just pre orchestrated ear candy for the body cams. And cell phones look nothing like guns.

 

[JQPublic1]

Many conservative radicals have armed themselves to not only fight with cops if necessary they are prepared to fight federal troops too. Does your advice extend to fellow exremists?

On a more personal note,there are some cops who are so obssessed with their power they can and do provoke people into confrontations. Usually the cop has the advantage and comes out on top, but , sometimes that kind of cop doesn't survive.
Some people are just not going to be harrassed and fucked with for no damn good reason whether armed or not.
But it is quite telling that a common theme among you well armed conservative is the notion that an unarmed person who fights with an overbearing asshole hiding behind a badge, or a person who runs from cops deserves to be shot. If you believe that you're a fucking NAZI. Thousands of people have fought with cops, run away and even exchanged gunfire with cops yet were arrested without being murdered. Most cops are not shooting unarmed people with such disdain and impunity as those who shot Stephon Clark, even under similar circumstances.
Lastly, I gave you a link to review pertaining to .a pedestrian being shot after being targeted by an asshole in blue and falsely charged for jaywalking . The pedestrian, knowing he had done nothing amiss, simply asked the officer why he stopped him. Having no viable explanation, the cop escalated the confrontation : that being his intent from the onset for reasons known only to himself. This time the weapon of choice was a taser. But tasers can be deadly too. Scores of people are killed by tasers each year.

There is no such thing as an "unarmed man"

ANYONE with an adversarial tone, who is moving toward you, and is already within the standard 21 foot danger zone, is a lethal threat to you. If they continue coming at you after being warned to stay back, they should be self-defense shot.

No Such Thing As An “UNARMED MAN”

Anyone who would call this being a "NAZI", is an obvious casualty of the liberal mind-propaganda, that stems from the typical ignorance of cops and guns.

As for felons who are running away, they can be shot (in the back of course), and police actually violate their protocol, if they don't shoot (and allow suspect to escape)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Actually the fleeing felon rule does not apply in his case.

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

No such threat existed in his case.

Your OP does not set any legal precedent for what an unarmed man is either. If a cop is scared of an unarmed man talking in an angry tone from 7 yards away that officer needs to find another job.

You guys need to teach your children to obey the goddamn law if they don't wanna get shot.

Davids Shavers and Philandro Castile obeyed the goddamn law law and still were murdered by cops. One was White and one was Black...

 

[JQPublic1]

A person running away from a traffic stop is no known threat to the public. And you must be familiar with the David Shavers murder by cop when he was crawling on the floor crying for his life while trying to keep his pants up and obey conflicting orders at the same time.. And false or even valid accusations of jaywalking against a suspect shouldn't end with him being SHOT with a taser and assaulted.

David Shavers shooting was not murder. It was justifiable. Shavers reached behind him. Hand disappeared from cop's view. BANG!

American MISeducation system failed Shavers. Should have taught him how to handle cop confrontation. Never let your hands disappear from view. Not even for a second.

If conservatives were running the schools, instead of gun/cop ignorant liberals, Shavers would be alive today.

The American MISeducation system failed the officer who shot Shavers. Hundreds, if not thousands of incidents similar to this one occur each day and most don't end in death. The cop, Phillip Brailsford, was a psychopath who seemed to enjoy torturing his victim. He could have had the subject get on his knees with his back to the officer and with his hands placed on top of his had. Instead Brailsford acted like a bully and took a father and husband from his family forever.

 

[OldLady]

Another Black man killed by the biggest gang in the US. It was either due to fear or the pigs were out hunting.

WHY did he turn to face them holding ANYTHING? It's a goddamned shame but in the dark when cops think someone is aiming a gun at them, they're going to fire. Unless, like you said, it's the Bundys.

 

[JQPublic1]

Many conservative radicals have armed themselves to not only fight with cops if necessary they are prepared to fight federal troops too. Does your advice extend to fellow exremists?

On a more personal note,there are some cops who are so obssessed with their power they can and do provoke people into confrontations. Usually the cop has the advantage and comes out on top, but , sometimes that kind of cop doesn't survive.
Some people are just not going to be harrassed and fucked with for no damn good reason whether armed or not.
But it is quite telling that a common theme among you well armed conservative is the notion that an unarmed person who fights with an overbearing asshole hiding behind a badge, or a person who runs from cops deserves to be shot. If you believe that you're a fucking NAZI. Thousands of people have fought with cops, run away and even exchanged gunfire with cops yet were arrested without being murdered. Most cops are not shooting unarmed people with such disdain and impunity as those who shot Stephon Clark, even under similar circumstances.
Lastly, I gave you a link to review pertaining to .a pedestrian being shot after being targeted by an asshole in blue and falsely charged for jaywalking . The pedestrian, knowing he had done nothing amiss, simply asked the officer why he stopped him. Having no viable explanation, the cop escalated the confrontation : that being his intent from the onset for reasons known only to himself. This time the weapon of choice was a taser. But tasers can be deadly too. Scores of people are killed by tasers each year.

There is no such thing as an "unarmed man"

ANYONE with an adversarial tone, who is moving toward you, and is already within the standard 21 foot danger zone, is a lethal threat to you. If they continue coming at you after being warned to stay back, they should be self-defense shot.

No Such Thing As An “UNARMED MAN”

Anyone who would call this being a "NAZI", is an obvious casualty of the liberal mind-propaganda, that stems from the typical ignorance of cops and guns.

As for felons who are running away, they can be shot (in the back of course), and police actually violate their protocol, if they don't shoot (and allow suspect to escape)

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Philando Castile was stopped hundreds of times for driving while black. He was actually being harassed. Finally, one asshole killed him BTW The officer has to get up to the widow of the car to check your paperwork and issue a warning or citation. So that 21 foot crap doesn't work in traffic stops. And most of the cop shootings we witnessed in 2017 did not show the suspect approaching cops..

You are a damn fool if you believe there is no such thing as an unarmed man. Only a deranged psychopath would think like that. If a cop goes to work with that attitude, anyone he comes across is subject to being shot for no reason other than the cop thought he or she was armed because someone told him there is no such thing as an unarmed man.

Use of force against a fleeing felon depends on what the felony is and how much of a danger the felon poses to the public at large. Did you miss this part of your link:

"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]
Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit[4]." Deadly force that is executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule."

 

[Mickiel]

I am glad they did not hit the Grandmother with stray bullets going through her back screen door. Or any possible children. Look at this;

Nationwide, police shot and killed nearly 1,000 people in 2017


Three years in a row police killed about 1,000 people, only 17 of those Black last year. ( Only those precints that submitted data.) Interesting, if this is the case, then they are shooting plenty of more Whites. White men would then have far, far more rights about this, and I wonder why we cannot hear their voice?

 

[protectionist]

The fleeing felon rule only applies to people who pose a threat to the cops life. If someone commits a mass shooting or have already killed people and then runs, then you can reasonably argue for the fleeing felon rule. .That was not the case here, so the rule did not apply.

FALSE! Can you read ? As I said before >>> I was only addressing your statement >"or a person who runs from cops", not addressing any particular "case". So why do you keep talking to me about "the case here" ?....as you just said.

As for the fleeing felon rule, it does not only apply to people who pose a threat to the cop. It also applies to the community, that that felon would escape to. Read the last 2 words of the FFR, which you went to the trouble of posting here. It says >> "harm to the officer or others."

 

[dannyboys]

The MF gang-banger pointed whatever he had in his hand at the LEOs AFTER being told repeatedly to drop whatever he had in his hand.
END OF FUCKING STORY!

 

[impuretrash]

Davids Shavers and Philandro Castile obeyed the goddamn law law and still were murdered by cops. One was White and one was Black...

Yep and I think what happened to Castile was tragic, but I don't think it was motivated by racism.