Police shot and killed girl. No liberal outrage. She was white.

[Uncensored2008]

She pointed a gun replica at a cop? What an idiot.

Doubtful.

No one will ever see the body cam footage.

What she did was bump into a Fullerton Cop's car. He killed her for it and planted the toy gun that he and other cops keep in their cars for such events.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

No.....I have it on good authority.....joeb131....... that cops only shoot black teenagers......so this didn't actually happen.

I take note he didn't chime in. I wonder why?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

I am MORE outraged than YOU would be if this had happened to a black or a WHITE LIBERAL. You would have mocked and ridiculed the "moron" and claimed "she deserved it". But now you come here accusing us of your own rotten vile loathsome behavior.


you really do suck

I don't know what her politics was. I started the thread to show how the liberal media treats two nearly identical stories except for the difference in race.

We've seen this in the Brown story, the Travon Martin story, the Rice story, all black guys getting shot by a white person; two of the instances police officers.

In all three, the police officer or citizen were found not guilty of wrongdoing, yet the media continued to sensationalize it for months afterwards. In fact rewards were given to the families of the person committing the crime by the cities, and by the HOS in the Martin case. Here in Cleveland, the city gave the Rice family 5 million dollars; money badly needed here for street improvements and emergency services.

The media only publicizes stories of black people. Why? Because black people will make a stink about it. They will have protests that draw media attention, sports figures disrespecting our national anthem, and if the media is lucky, riots where people burn down their own town. The liberal media loves this crap.

A white person gets shot by a police officer, no big deal. The person must have been doing something wrong, and nobody but perhaps a handful of people that the local media will pay attention to will protest.

 

[Rigby5]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

Let me give you some advice: Never be a lawyer.

The police (and we armed citizens) have the right to use deadly force if we believe that we (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. The attacker need not even be armed. For instance I'm 60 years old. If three muscular guys in their 20's are coming after me in a violent way, I have the authority by our government to use deadly force. If I kill one or all of the attackers, it's totally legal for me to do so.

And no, if a police officer pulls his gun out on you, you do not have the right to shoot him or her, no more than if you fight him while being placed under arrest. You do not have the legal authority to place somebody in handcuffs, put them in your car, and drive them to jail. That's called kidnapping and you could end up in prison for 20 years.

Police are not average citizens. They do have special authority to enforce the laws of their city, state or county. Citizens by law must comply with their demands because we give them such authority.

Police have ZERO additional authority over any average citizen in a democratic republic.
You say, "I have the authority by our government to use deadly force", and the problem with that is in a democratic republic, government is NOT at all a source of authority, and can not authorize anyone to do anything.
Sure a cop has a right to defend himself and others, but that comes from his own inherent right of self defense.
It does NOT at all come from government, nothing can or does come from government, and if anyone ever does try to establish government as a source of authority, that would be treason.

It is foolish to claim that everyone does not already inherently have the authority to handcuff and jail anyone suspected of a crime. Police have only existed about 120 years, so what do you think people did before that?
Clearly ordinary people have been arresting people for centuries, and it still happens every time a crime in progress is prevented by average citizens, before police arrive, if they ever arrive at all in some remote rural area.

Police can ONLY be average citizens.
There is absolutely NO way they can ever be anything else, in a democratic republic.
Sure they have guns so can start to claim additional authority illegally, but then it is time to string them up form the lamp posts, because they will have destroyed the democratic republic and be trying to implement a self authorizing autocracy.
Autocracy - Wikipedia

If you think about it for even a second, you will realize how foolish it is to claim, "Citizens by law must comply with their demands because we give them such authority."
In a democratic republic, the ONLY source of ANY legal authority at all are the inherent rights of individuals. We can delegate that authority to someone else who is hired to protect our rights for us, but clearly no one can delegate any authority they do not themselves already possess. And they can not lose that authority by delegating it to someone else to use for them. How could we as average citizens, authorize police to ever arrest, shoot, or do anything that we can not already do ourselves? Clearly we can not. So then anyone claiming police have any superior authority at all is way off track and lost sight of what a democratic republic is or even can be. The best you could possibly claim is that in order to reduce the abuses of lynching, that average citizens should defer to police when ever possible. But clearly that almost never comes up. Police almost never catch a criminal in the act. It is almost always an average citizens who does that.

In short, if we can not shoot a suspect how points a weapon at us, and we instead are required to retreat and seek cover, then police must also. Police can NEVER have any addition, special, or superior privileges or authority. It is not possible, in a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

According to the family, the police have been releasing changing and conflicting stories, besides not allowing the family to see the video.

BB gun found at scene of fatal police shooting of California teen: Prosecutor

Hannah Williams was a professional lifeguard and had no history of crime, so it is hard to believe what the police claim.

Just because she had no criminal record doesn't mean she didn't do it. Investigations take months to complete. Some BB guns do look exactly like real guns, and in a moments notice, you don't have time to study the weapon. You see somebody pulling a gun on you, you have two choices: chance getting killed, or shoot your attacker in self-defense.

The pictures above that I posted under the OP are two guns: One is an air soft gun, and the other a gun that shoots bullets. Can you tell the difference between the two?

You don't have to be able to tell the difference between the BB gun and a real gun in order to know you do not need to shoot. She had never shot a real gun, and that should have been obvious to anyone. And a novice is not going to hit anyone more then 30' away, with a pistol.
Anyone who thinks they need to shoot at that distance from someone who is not demonstrating professional skills, is an idiot.
And anyone who gets within 30' of a suspect without first determining there is no threat, is a complete idiot.

You gave only 2 choice, kill or die, when the reality is you have the 3rd option of simply remaining under reasonable cover until more have been determined about the situation.
When police do NOT do that, they can no longer claim self defense for danger they themselves have caused.

 

[Rigby5]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

Where did you get your information from, Rigby? I am very curious to read your source.
The reason why I say that is a person who has an avatar of the Twilight Zone
posts something that is totally out of this world.

It is obvious that in a democratic republic, we create government by hiring it to do things for us.
Those you hire, can not possibly ever have superior authority to you yourself.
And police do not exist according to government.
They are not mentioned in any constitution.
They were not created until a over a century later.
Therefore they can not possibly have any additional legal authority at all.
And if they think they do, that is the line in the sand, where they have crossed over and become more of a problem then help, and it is time to get rid of them.

 

[Rigby5]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

 

[westwall]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

Ummm, what the **** do you think POINTING a gun at you is? Moron!

 

[Rigby5]

you never point a gun toy or real at anyone unless you intend on using it. and if that toy gun looks real you're dead a legal kill.

So then you are saying that anytime police point a gun at someone who is not an immediate threat, that then you can kill the police?
That is what you are saying, since in a democratic republic, all people have equal authority because inherent rights of individuals are the ONLY source of ANY authority.

Do the police intend to kill someone they are pointing a gun at?
Probably not.
So then where would police get the right to shoot just in case from?
They can't get it from government, because government does not have that authority and can't grant it.

In a democratic republic, police are and MUST be identical to anyone.
So just switch the people around and see if you claim makes sense.
And clearly it does not, so you are wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

A quick read of the OP indicates successful Blue-Suicide to me. Case closed.

Not closed at all.
Blue suicide is illegal for police any more than it would be illegal for anyone.
Unless you are saying that if anyone gets a gun pulled on them, that they should instantly shoot first and not try to back off?

 

[Rigby5]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

I am MORE outraged than YOU would be if this had happened to a black or a WHITE LIBERAL. You would have mocked and ridiculed the "moron" and claimed "she deserved it". But now you come here accusing us of your own rotten vile loathsome behavior.


you really do suck

I don't know what her politics was. I started the thread to show how the liberal media treats two nearly identical stories except for the difference in race.

We've seen this in the Brown story, the Travon Martin story, the Rice story, all black guys getting shot by a white person; two of the instances police officers.

In all three, the police officer or citizen were found not guilty of wrongdoing, yet the media continued to sensationalize it for months afterwards. In fact rewards were given to the families of the person committing the crime by the cities, and by the HOS in the Martin case. Here in Cleveland, the city gave the Rice family 5 million dollars; money badly needed here for street improvements and emergency services.

The media only publicizes stories of black people. Why? Because black people will make a stink about it. They will have protests that draw media attention, sports figures disrespecting our national anthem, and if the media is lucky, riots where people burn down their own town. The liberal media loves this crap.

A white person gets shot by a police officer, no big deal. The person must have been doing something wrong, and nobody but perhaps a handful of people that the local media will pay attention to will protest.

I disagree.
People make more stink over Blacks being murdered because it happens hundreds of time more often, and because they usually do not have guns, fake or not.
This is much more of a close call because of the BB gun.
But police should be MUCH better at reading body language than that, and should be more more careful about keeping cover and not forcing risky situations.

 

[Rigby5]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

Ummm, what the **** do you think POINTING a gun at you is? Moron!

You seemed to have misunderstood.
While she should not have brandished, the police do it all the time, and it is even more illegal when police do it because they have real guns, they are loaded, and the police should have been better trained to know how easily guns can go off accidentally.
It is illegal for police to point loaded guns at people who have not shown any weapon, and yet police illegally do this all the time.

 

[Crepitus]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

Was she killed because she was white?

 

[Rigby5]

She pointed a gun replica at a cop? What an idiot.

Doubtful.

No one will ever see the body cam footage.

What she did was bump into a Fullerton Cop's car. He killed her for it and planted the toy gun that he and other cops keep in their cars for such events.

Yes, that makes much more sense, because a professional lifeguard is not likely to be the time to act as the police describe. She would be trained in rules and following them.

 

[westwall]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

Ummm, what the **** do you think POINTING a gun at you is? Moron!

You seemed to have misunderstood.
While she should not have brandished, the police do it all the time, and it is even more illegal when police do it because they have real guns, they are loaded, and the police should have been better trained to know how easily guns can go off accidentally.
It is illegal for police to point loaded guns at people who have not shown any weapon, and yet police illegally do this all the time.

Police are trained (fortunately this is one thing they do train relatively well) to NOT point the weapon at the person until they are going to shoot. They are also trained to keep their fingers off of the trigger. But, I am a real good shooter, and I train waaaay the heck more than cops do, but if anyone points a gun at me, I shoot them.

Period end of story. Your movie physics belief you can dodge a bullet is laughable. Point a gun at a person and you should, and most likely will get shot for doing so.

 

[Rigby5]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

Ummm, what the **** do you think POINTING a gun at you is? Moron!

You seemed to have misunderstood.
While she should not have brandished, the police do it all the time, and it is even more illegal when police do it because they have real guns, they are loaded, and the police should have been better trained to know how easily guns can go off accidentally.
It is illegal for police to point loaded guns at people who have not shown any weapon, and yet police illegally do this all the time.

Police are trained (fortunately this is one thing they do train relatively well) to NOT point the weapon at the person until they are going to shoot. They are also trained to keep their fingers off of the trigger. But, I am a real good shooter, and I train waaaay the heck more than cops do, but if anyone points a gun at me, I shoot them.

Period end of story. Your movie physics belief you can dodge a bullet is laughable. Point a gun at a person and you should, and most likely will get shot for doing so.

I have had police point a gun at me, with finger inside the trigger guard, over a dozen times, and have seen it more than a hundred times.

The point is not to try to dodge bullets, but to put a vehicle between you and someone you do not know.
It is not hard to do.
Lots of police have easily survived shootings by doing that.
Police apparently are no longer being properly trained, and instead are using armed forces rules of engagement for a combat zone.

 

[Crepitus]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

Actually there are several important differences besides her skin color.

She was 17, not 12. There's a significant difference in maturity level between the two.

She advanced in the officer, pointing the fake gun at him. Rice did nothing of the sort.

The police in the Rice shooting were told in advance the gun was probably a toy, and that.the subject was probably a juvenile. There was no such warning in current case.

There's body camera video of her pointing the suppose gun at the officers.

Yes, this is a tragedy, all such shootings are. It's not receiving as much attention because it's a clear cut case of the officer responding to a threat.

 

[Rigby5]

A 17-year-old girl killed by a Fullerton police officer last week appears to have been pointing a replica handgun at the officer when she was shot, according to body camera footage released by the Police Department on Friday.

The graphic 15-minute video, which also features emergency radio transmissions and statements from Fullerton police officials, provides the most complete account yet of the events leading up to the shooting of Hannah Williams along the 91 Freeway in Anaheim.

The on-duty K-9 officer was driving east on the 91 Freeway when he noticed an SUV speeding past him shortly after 7 p.m., according to a videotaped statement by Fullerton Police Lt. Jon Radus introducing the footage.

As the officer attempts to stop the vehicle for a possible speeding violation, it appears to intentionally collide with his patrol car before making an abrupt U-turn into oncoming traffic and coming to a stop facing the wrong way, Radus said.

When the officer approached the driver’s side door, Williams exited and pointed the replica gun at him, Radus said. She can be seen in the video walking toward the officer with her arms outstretched.

The officer opened fire, striking her. The video shows a still-conscious Williams crying out for help as the officer and a responding LAPD officer handcuff her and provide medical aid.

Body camera video appears to show 17-year-old pointing replica gun at officer before she is shot, police say

What we have here is almost an exact replica of a case in my city with a boy named Tamir Rice. In this case, an officer was confronted by a girl with a toy gun which the officer had no way of knowing, and did what he had to do which is protect his life.

There are several differences between the Rice case and this one. First and most importantly, the liberal media has not expressed outrage in this shooting. Two, you had to dig for this story to find it. Three, they were both minors, but this girl was five years older than Tamir.

A USMB member told me that if Tamir had been white, the officer would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that the officer should have known it was a toy and waited until he was shot at first before defending his life.

Not to worry though, because this is a white girl, this story will die this evening. It won't be like the year long constant reporting by the MSM like what happened in the Rice case. They likely won't investigate the life history of this officer like in the Rice case, and the city won't give the parents of this mentally challenged girl 5 million dollars because she was white and they need to buy votes.

Mod note: Edited Title and OP to remove call-outs...

Actually there are several important differences besides her skin color.

She was 17, not 12. There's a significant difference in maturity level between the two.

She advanced in the officer, pointing the fake gun at him. Rice did nothing of the sort.

The police in the Rice shooting were told in advance the gun was probably a toy, and that.the subject was probably a juvenile. There was no such warning in current case.

There's body camera video of her pointing the suppose gun at the officers.

Yes, this is a tragedy, all such shootings are. It's not receiving as much attention because it's a clear cut case of the officer responding to a threat.

I still do not think this was a legal shooting, but I agree this is much closer than most.
I have not seen the video and do not know how reckless the cop was as far as exposing himself.

 

[westwall]

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

Ummm, what the **** do you think POINTING a gun at you is? Moron!

You seemed to have misunderstood.
While she should not have brandished, the police do it all the time, and it is even more illegal when police do it because they have real guns, they are loaded, and the police should have been better trained to know how easily guns can go off accidentally.
It is illegal for police to point loaded guns at people who have not shown any weapon, and yet police illegally do this all the time.

Police are trained (fortunately this is one thing they do train relatively well) to NOT point the weapon at the person until they are going to shoot. They are also trained to keep their fingers off of the trigger. But, I am a real good shooter, and I train waaaay the heck more than cops do, but if anyone points a gun at me, I shoot them.

Period end of story. Your movie physics belief you can dodge a bullet is laughable. Point a gun at a person and you should, and most likely will get shot for doing so.

I have had police point a gun at me, with finger inside the trigger guard, over a dozen times, and have seen it more than a hundred times.

The point is not to try to dodge bullets, but to put a vehicle between you and someone you do not know.
It is not hard to do.
Lots of police have easily survived shootings by doing that.
Police apparently are no longer being properly trained, and instead are using armed forces rules of engagement for a combat zone.

This is simply not believable. How many felony convictions do you have?

 

[harmonica]

What the law says is that you can't shoot someone just for pointing a weapon.
If police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.
Police can NOT have superior authority to anyone else, because it is the inherent rights of all individual that is the ONLY source of ANY authority at all in a democratic republic.
The mistake is to believe that since government has authority and hire the police, that then police are a higher authority than average people.
That is not at all true in a democratic republic.
The reality is that since the public create government, then government is below the people.
And then since government hires the police, the police then are 2 steps lower than the population as a whole.
Since police also are average citizens, they do then also have the same right of defense as anyone, but no more.
They have no more right or authority to pull the trigger than anyone does.
The risks they face is why they are paid more.
They can't then start shooting people because they no longer want to accept the risk they choose to take money for.

What police SHOULD do is not to shoot, but to take cover.
They should be acting defensively, just like everyone else.
They do not get the right to murder people so that they can just stand there in the open and pretend it was not their fault for getting into a risky situation.

you are a genius!! and very wrong
''''if police can legally shoot a civilian for pointing a weapon, than any civilian could then legal shoot police when they point a weapon.'''' ..????!!!!!!!! ahahahhaa
hahahahhahahahahahah
how old are you???!!! 10???

Penal Code 417 is the California law that prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as "brandishing" a weapon.

This is just one of California gun laws that regulate how and when people may lawfully use their firearms. A conviction under this section subjects you to a jail or prison sentence.

Penal Code 417 PC - "Brandishing" a Weapon or Firearm
.....understand???? in most states you can't just brandish/etc weapons---the police usually are not BRANDISHING weapons
.
etc etc
you are way off base--not even in the ballpark
bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

Brandishing is when you display a weapon of deadly force in a way that intimidates.
That is exactly what police are doing when they point a loaded gun at someone, and since it could easily go off by an accidental trip or tug, that is the felony conduct regardless of life.
Police illegally violate that law constantly.

But brandishing is perfectly legal by any ordinary citizen if they feel their life or property is in danger, and they have no means of safe retreat. Same as police. In fact, it has to be IDENTICAL is this it to remain a democratic republic.

surely you troll---hahahahhahahahahahahha
.....you don't brandish when your life is in danger or the cops are trying to capture/etc a jackass criminal--it's NOT brandishing then --hahahahahahhahahaha
..you must be drinking/smoking dope