He Was Still Waving His Knife at Cops After Several Attempts Were Made To Get Him To Surrender

[mudwhistle]

Hmmmm..."flung by the impact".... in the opposite direction of the bullet?...seems odd.
Also...when people are shot in real life (not on tv) there is little to no physical reaction. Bullets literally zip right through your body. People only "fly in the air" etc. in the movies.

You have no idea what you are talking about. People drop, the fall forward, the spin, the fall backward, they do all sorts of things. This is not a "by the spirit" event. This is based on real experience. The bullet flung him around.

Mud is flying his flag of surrender.

No they don't dude.
Of course they fall...but the body itself - caused by the bullet physically entering their body - literally has no reaction. The person may have a reaction where they themselves turn their bodies etc. - but bullets do not cause a human body to move, with exception of course if they are shot in the head - and the head itself will fly back a little. That is only in the movies.

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

 

[idb]

Has anyone seen the video of the U.K. cops subduing a guy with a machete?
It took about 20 minutes and he wanted to hurt someone.
No guns were involved, the guy lived, no one was hurt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no idea what you are talking about. People drop, the fall forward, the spin, the fall backward, they do all sorts of things. This is not a "by the spirit" event. This is based on real experience. The bullet flung him around.

Mud is flying his flag of surrender.

No they don't dude.
Of course they fall...but the body itself - caused by the bullet physically entering their body - literally has no reaction. The person may have a reaction where they themselves turn their bodies etc. - but bullets do not cause a human body to move, with exception of course if they are shot in the head - and the head itself will fly back a little. That is only in the movies.

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

You do?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cop obviously wanted to shoot someone that night.

 

[mudwhistle]

Has anyone seen the video of the U.K. cops subduing a guy with a machete?
It took about 20 minutes and he wanted to hurt someone.
No guns were involved, the guy lived, no one was hurt.

Sometimes shit happens and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Defiant1]

The cop obviously wanted to shoot someone that night.

I would hope that all cops go to work each day hoping to leave their city a safer place at shift's end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I gather a cop did a similar thing in a southern california town, and the cop's whole family disappeared without a trace later.

 

[ogibillm]

You have no idea what you are talking about. People drop, the fall forward, the spin, the fall backward, they do all sorts of things. This is not a "by the spirit" event. This is based on real experience. The bullet flung him around.

Mud is flying his flag of surrender.

No they don't dude.
Of course they fall...but the body itself - caused by the bullet physically entering their body - literally has no reaction. The person may have a reaction where they themselves turn their bodies etc. - but bullets do not cause a human body to move, with exception of course if they are shot in the head - and the head itself will fly back a little. That is only in the movies.

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

 

[ogibillm]

The cop obviously wanted to shoot someone that night.

I would hope that all cops go to work each day hoping to leave their city a safer place at shift's end.

i would too, but believing that is the case is naive.

 

[mudwhistle]

No they don't dude.
Of course they fall...but the body itself - caused by the bullet physically entering their body - literally has no reaction. The person may have a reaction where they themselves turn their bodies etc. - but bullets do not cause a human body to move, with exception of course if they are shot in the head - and the head itself will fly back a little. That is only in the movies.

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

 

[ogibillm]

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

 

[Defiant1]

No they don't dude.
Of course they fall...but the body itself - caused by the bullet physically entering their body - literally has no reaction. The person may have a reaction where they themselves turn their bodies etc. - but bullets do not cause a human body to move, with exception of course if they are shot in the head - and the head itself will fly back a little. That is only in the movies.

Of the two shots fired while the kid was standing one was in his back.

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

What? Did the perp call no backsies or something?

 

[mudwhistle]

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

The part where he shot him while he was down.

Still, you don't have enough information to assume it wasn't a justifiable shooting, although extremely excessive. I figure the kid was history after the first two bullets hit him. The cop in question shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore....if he was the only one that fired. If he wasn't, both of them should be tried for manslaughter and excessive force.

This simply points out several issues. One of which is not everyone should be a cop. Another is that dealing with punks like this is tenuous at best. Yet another issue is why kids don't respect cops. You can lay that one at the Democrats doorstep.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mud is talking through his butt. The investigation plus the video (and, I suspect, the other video the judge will order released on the 10th next week) make it quite clear the cop needs his day in court.

 

[ogibillm]

You can find the examimer's disgram. Why do you insist on calling the forensic evidence bs?

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

The part where he shot him while he was down.

Still, you don't have enough information to assume it wasn't a justifiable shooting, although extremely excessive. I figure the kid was history after the first two bullets hit him. The cop in question shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore....if he was the only one that fired. If he wasn't, both of them should be tried for manslaughter and excessive force.

This simply points out several issues. One of which is not everyone should be a cop. Another is that dealing with punks like this is tenuous at best. Yet another issue is why kids don't respect cops. You can lay that one at the Democrats doorstep.

He was the only one that fired. The only one. Again, undisputed facts that you should be aware of before trying to paint the guy as somehow justified.

He was only put of his car a few seconds before opening fire for some 13-15 seconds, most of which happened while the kid was on the ground. None of the other half dozen or so cops thought the situation called for lethal force. This cop emptied his weapon AND WAS RELOADING but was told to stop firing by another cop.
16 shots all landed. Only 2 can be said to have been fired while the victim was standing - and he crumpled almost immediately.

Maybe Van Dyke just thought that the other cops would help him cover it up, like he helped cover up a cop shooting 10 years before. God knows they tried erasing the BK footage

 

[JakeStarkey]

The cop will be convicted, just as the shooter at the gas station was for shooting at the black teens as they sped away.

 

[mudwhistle]

A "disgram" doesn't tell the entire story...especially if you don't have the training to properly read the damned thing.

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

The part where he shot him while he was down.

Still, you don't have enough information to assume it wasn't a justifiable shooting, although extremely excessive. I figure the kid was history after the first two bullets hit him. The cop in question shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore....if he was the only one that fired. If he wasn't, both of them should be tried for manslaughter and excessive force.

This simply points out several issues. One of which is not everyone should be a cop. Another is that dealing with punks like this is tenuous at best. Yet another issue is why kids don't respect cops. You can lay that one at the Democrats doorstep.

He was the only one that fired. The only one. Again, undisputed facts that you should be aware of before trying to paint the guy as somehow justified.

He was only put of his car a few seconds before opening fire for some 13-15 seconds, most of which happened while the kid was on the ground. None of the other half dozen or so cops thought the situation called for lethal force. This cop emptied his weapon AND WAS RELOADING but was told to stop firing by another cop.
16 shots all landed. Only 2 can be said to have been fired while the victim was standing - and he crumpled almost immediately.

Maybe Van Dyke just thought that the other cops would help him cover it up, like he helped cover up a cop shooting 10 years before. God knows they tried erasing the BK footage

A link to all of this would be good.

I want to know you aren't just repeating all of this from a Mother Jones article.

 

[ogibillm]

phone typing. it sucks.

i don't have the training, but the medical examiner does and they say that of the two wounds suffered while standing one was to the back. it's in the charging documents.

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

The part where he shot him while he was down.

Still, you don't have enough information to assume it wasn't a justifiable shooting, although extremely excessive. I figure the kid was history after the first two bullets hit him. The cop in question shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore....if he was the only one that fired. If he wasn't, both of them should be tried for manslaughter and excessive force.

This simply points out several issues. One of which is not everyone should be a cop. Another is that dealing with punks like this is tenuous at best. Yet another issue is why kids don't respect cops. You can lay that one at the Democrats doorstep.

He was the only one that fired. The only one. Again, undisputed facts that you should be aware of before trying to paint the guy as somehow justified.

He was only put of his car a few seconds before opening fire for some 13-15 seconds, most of which happened while the kid was on the ground. None of the other half dozen or so cops thought the situation called for lethal force. This cop emptied his weapon AND WAS RELOADING but was told to stop firing by another cop.
16 shots all landed. Only 2 can be said to have been fired while the victim was standing - and he crumpled almost immediately.

Maybe Van Dyke just thought that the other cops would help him cover it up, like he helped cover up a cop shooting 10 years before. God knows they tried erasing the BK footage

A link to all of this would be good.

I want to know you aren't just repeating all of this from a Mother Jones article.

Cop emptied pistol, reloaded in Laquan McDonald shooting
Cop in Laquan McDonald video tied to another police shooting death

The charging documents are linked to in the first article.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fucking loser.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, he did spin around. Who knows when exactly the shot in the back entered his body. It could have been first or last.

You assume first of course.

i assume he was shot in the back based on the medical examiner's determination. you called it bs.
he did spin around, after being shot.
i assume that he fired for over ten seconds at the kid while he was already on the ground based on the video.

is there really no part of you that thinks the officer was in the wrong here?

The part where he shot him while he was down.

Still, you don't have enough information to assume it wasn't a justifiable shooting, although extremely excessive. I figure the kid was history after the first two bullets hit him. The cop in question shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun anymore....if he was the only one that fired. If he wasn't, both of them should be tried for manslaughter and excessive force.

This simply points out several issues. One of which is not everyone should be a cop. Another is that dealing with punks like this is tenuous at best. Yet another issue is why kids don't respect cops. You can lay that one at the Democrats doorstep.

He was the only one that fired. The only one. Again, undisputed facts that you should be aware of before trying to paint the guy as somehow justified.

He was only put of his car a few seconds before opening fire for some 13-15 seconds, most of which happened while the kid was on the ground. None of the other half dozen or so cops thought the situation called for lethal force. This cop emptied his weapon AND WAS RELOADING but was told to stop firing by another cop.
16 shots all landed. Only 2 can be said to have been fired while the victim was standing - and he crumpled almost immediately.

Maybe Van Dyke just thought that the other cops would help him cover it up, like he helped cover up a cop shooting 10 years before. God knows they tried erasing the BK footage

A link to all of this would be good.

I want to know you aren't just repeating all of this from a Mother Jones article.

Cop emptied pistol, reloaded in Laquan McDonald shooting
Cop in Laquan McDonald video tied to another police shooting death

The charging documents are linked to in the first article.

I saw the video...and McDonald wasn't walking away at a 90 degree, he was drifting at an angle which still poses a threat...and the knife was longer than 3 inches....that is the standard the media placed on the knife to make it appear less lethal. It appeared to be a switchblade aprox. 4-5 in in length. That knife was long enough to gut a pig. The reason I suspect they're lying about is because the length is all they keep talking about, not that it was a Buck or a Swiss Army knife. They are hiding something. They did the same shit with Trayvon Martin, calling him a child......but in fact he was 6 '2".

I'd like to see the trial....because all of this was timed too conveniently to change the media focus. At the time this was released the big news was Obama trying to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees here...and the Paris attacks. Now this 13 month old wrongful death case is fished out of the trash and placed front and center. It stinks to high heaven that it took so long and it stinks to high heaven that the cop already made bail. Something is screwy about this case.