Police kill homeless man in downtown Los Angeles(video)

Marc Summers wrote:

Haha, you're a nutjob.

That seems like a fair assessment.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
If I kill a crackhead during a struggle on video, the case goes to trial to determine if it was justified. Why should a cop be any different?

Edit- is it their community college education that gives them this free pass? Shit, Nucky should be on my side on that one.

Because it is in their job definition to have to shoot people.  Does your job routinely put you in harms way where you have to make split second decisions about whether or not to shoot someone?  Are you routinely the last line of defense in situation that could easily escalate?

You make mistakes in your job I'm sure, it's just that your mistakes don't have the same consequences.  

Also, there's an issue of supply and demand.  It would be great if we could ensure that all policeman were at the pinnacle of the social evolutionary scale but we simply need too many bodies and have too little resources for that to be a reality. There are great cops, and there are bad cops and they're all human.

So you have the system we have.  And it is flawed, and there are assholes, and people aren't perfect, but they do the job.  And there are maybe more bad ones than we'd like, but there's a balance that most people have settled for.

Tl;dr - Don't put yourself in a position in which someone has to decide whether or not to shoot you.  Split those hairs, you're bound to be disappointed.

Cameron wrote:

To summarize, the state will determine whether the state's use of force in this instance was justified.

Yeah, justice will be done...

The state, the county, the feds, the civilian review boards...and anyone who watches the robbery suspect go for a cops gun after repeatedly resisting arrest.

Justice was already done, it's right there on video.

When I moved here 35 years ago my local friends told me what Rule #1 is

Do Not Fuck with tLAPD, they shoot 1st and cover up later

Some thngz don't change

Here's a still frame pic from the video of the robbery suspect pulling the cops gun out of his holster. But I suppose they should have waited until he shot someone, because we can't really know what this felon's intent was.

https://imgur.com/5H0sXDI,OF4cFMp,cVNkynK,C681zIN,T7O9ezi#1

Rodeo Burger wrote:Here's a still frame pic from the video of the robbery suspect pulling the cops gun out of his holster. But I suppose they should have waited until he shot someone, because we can't really know what this felon's intent was.

https://imgur.com/5H0sXDI,OF4cFMp,cVNkynK,C681zIN,T7O9ezi#1

Oh, shit.

I stand corrected. That's not good.

If only the poor dead man had been allowed to be armed, this all could have been prevented.

Cym Jim wrote:If only the poor dead man had been allowed to be armed, this all could have been prevented.

Is this like the....'everyone is a racist' thing that some black people do?

wow... cops beat up and murder an unarmed guy? never thought that would happen..

a) glad it's on video

b) it's not gonna matter because... well.

Those guys are heroes.

Question

What should the police officers have done differently to arrest this individual?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:wow... cops beat up and murder an unarmed guy? never thought that would happen..

a) glad it's on video

b) it's not gonna matter because... well.

Looks like he armed himself by pulling the gun out of the cops holster. But what ever fits the narrative

Ass Dan wrote:

Looks like he armed himself by pulling the gun out of the cops holster. But what ever fits the narrative

correct - see the b) sub-point in my previous post.

Meh another person who tried to kill a cop is dead.

In before Bob S says unarmed and black...oh fuck too late.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
If I kill a crackhead during a struggle on video, the case goes to trial to determine if it was justified. Why should a cop be any different?

Edit- is it their community college education that gives them this free pass? Shit, Nucky should be on my side on that one.

Sigh. You just don't 'go to trial.'

The_Dude wrote:In before Bob S says unarmed and black...oh fuck too late.

while you might find it funny that cops once again murdered an unarmed black person, I'm not going to apologize for pointing it out.

seems to me that if cops can't subdue an unarmed homeless man without murdering him, they might be in the wrong line of work...

oh - and to be clear - they used a taser gun on the unarmed homeless guy - then shot the unarmed man at least 5 times.

so.. yeah, it's on video but as we can already see here, it's not going to matter. Because some lives matter more than others.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:oh - and to be clear - they used a taser gun on the unarmed homeless guy - then shot the unarmed man at least 5 times.

so.. yeah, it's on video but as we can already see here, it's not going to matter. Because some lives matter more than others.

Situations like this are indeed tough, but do you think this homeless man valued his own life any more than these police?!? I mean, he was on enough drugs where a taser didn't have any impact. They obviously used the non lethal force first and he still grabbed for a gun.

I also believe the police should probably use more general restraint, but this guy was not really looking to live much longer based on his actions.

Marc Summers wrote:

Situations like this are indeed tough, but do you think this homeless man valued his own life any more than these police?!? I mean, he was on enough drugs where a taser didn't have any impact. They obviously used the non lethal force first and he still grabbed for a gun.

I also believe the police should probably use more general restraint, but this guy was not really looking to live much longer based on his actions.

I have no idea how long the homeless man planned on living. Unfortunately, the cops made that decision for him.

Marc Summers wrote:

Situations like this are indeed tough, but do you think this homeless man valued his own life any more than these police?!? I mean, he was on enough drugs where a taser didn't have any impact. They obviously used the non lethal force first and he still grabbed for a gun.

I also believe the police should probably use more general restraint, but this guy was not really looking to live much longer based on his actions.

Its hilarious how the victims are never responsible for their own demise according to the apologists and racists like Sharpton, etc.

Hey...here's a good way to not get killed by a police officer...don't try to attack them and go for their gun?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I have no idea how long the homeless man planned on living. Unfortunately, the cops made that decision for him.

And Michael Brown would still be dead if he obeyed officer Wilson and didn't attack him, right? He had no influence on his own demise?

The_Dude wrote:

And Michael Brown would still be dead if he obeyed officer Wilson and didn't attack him, right?  He had no influence on his own demise?  

let's see.. one guy was murdered and the other guy is alive and well to tell about it. Who attacked who?

you have much more faith in the government and their side of the story than I do..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:let's see.. one guy was murdered and the other guy is alive and well to tell about it. Who attacked who?

you have much more faith in the government and their side of the story than I do..

The great thing about video is that we can see exactly what happened.

Marc Summers wrote:

The great thing about video is that we can see exactly what happened.

agree - I see an unarmed guy getting tased and shot 5 times.

To be honest, I'm leaning towards Bobby Sak's side here.

My question was a serious one... because there has to be a way for 4-5 larger, we have to assume "trained" guys to subdue one smaller guy without it escalating to the point of killing him.

xsanguine wrote:To be honest, I'm leaning towards Bobby Sak's side here.

My question was a serious one... because there has to be a way for 4-5 larger, we have to assume "trained" guys to subdue one smaller guy without it escalating to the point of killing him.

obviously, I agree with you..

but you have to remember, a lot of people - including people here at tSwill - believe that certain lives are less worthy of being lived. And, therefore, when ended prematurely - as in the case of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and this man in Los Angeles, are met not with sympathy, but with a bizarre amount of ridicule and glee.

but, yeah, if 5-6 cops can't subdue a unarmed homeless man without shooting him 5 times, maybe they should look for other work. But as long as they keep shooting and killing the less fortunate among us, their actions will be met with blinded support.

xsanguine wrote:To be honest, I'm leaning towards Bobby Sak's side here.

My question was a serious one... because there has to be a way for 4-5 larger, we have to assume "trained" guys to subdue one smaller guy without it escalating to the point of killing him.

I don't know and Im sure we will find out as the process plays itself out.  I am not a big fan of armchair QB of other people who risk their lives and have only seconds to make life or death decisions.

I cant tell from the video exactly what occurred for the cop to shoot the guy but I;m sick of people attacking others and trying to do serious bodily harm.  I have no remorse for those people if they end up dead.  No place in society for those.  Hell, I'd wish we'd have capital punishment for catching people conspiring to kill.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
agree - I see an unarmed guy getting tased and shot 5 times.

You can clearly hear them saying, "Drop the gun!" meaning that the homeless guy managed to get a hold of one of the officer's pistols.

Marc Summers wrote:

You can clearly hear them saying, "Drop the gun!" meaning that the homeless guy managed to get a hold of one of the officer's pistols.

yeah but he was unarmed and black

-Bobby S

Robert J Sakimano wrote:obviously, I agree with you..

but you have to remember, a lot of people - including people here at tSwill - believe that certain lives are less worthy of being lived. And, therefore, when ended prematurely - as in the case of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and this man in Los Angeles, are met not with sympathy, but with a bizarre amount of ridicule and glee.

but, yeah, if 5-6 cops can't subdue a unarmed homeless man without shooting him 5 times, maybe they should look for other work. But as long as they keep shooting and killing the less fortunate among us, their actions will be met with blinded support.

Initially I was seeing the scenario through the eyes of the officer... and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But the mistake I think I was making was assuming that the actions they took were the only actions available given the circumstances.

If I'm struggling with someone and someone is grabbing at my gun and gets a hold of it... I'm in some deep trouble and I'm hoping to Allah that my backup gets him before he gets me. That was the beginning and the end of it for me, initially.

But I think the officers need to be a little bit more aware of their techniques and need to be able to subdue a person like that without giving them an opportunity to reach for my weapon. Those arms should have been the first thing they grabbed... not trying to get into the mounted position on the guy and punching away.

I don't think it was a matter of the cops feeling the guy's life was less worthy... I think it was a matter of not thinking properly in the heat of the moment and using the smart option. Control the subjects arms at all costs... control those before you control his body or his legs or anything else.

The_Dude wrote:

I don't know and Im sure we will find out as the process plays itself out.  I am not a big fan of armchair QB of other people who risk their lives and have only seconds to make life or death decisions.

I cant tell from the video exactly what occurred for the cop to shoot the guy but I;m sick of people attacking others and trying to do serious bodily harm.  I have no remorse for those people if they end up dead.  No place in society for those.  Hell, I'd wish we'd have capital punishment for catching people conspiring to kill.

If we ended the draconian, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-American war on drugs... enslaving people for possessing or selling plant material.... we wouldn't even need capital punishment.

We could lock up violent individuals for the rest of their lives without any problem whatsoever. If you kill someone, you should never have any chance of being free, ever again. If you rape someone, you should never have the chance to see the outside of a jail cell ever again. If you assault someone and cause significant bodily harm... you should be in prison for a very, VERY long time.

But instead we let politicians and we let corporations who've been enabled by politicians control this entire situation and it results in atrocities. Enslaving people for possessing, using, or selling plants or plant alkaloids is no less a horrific human tragedy than pre Civil War slavery was.

I'ma get off my soap box now before I ramble on... and on... and on...

xsanguine wrote:

If we ended the draconian, anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-American war on drugs... enslaving people for possessing or selling plant material.... we wouldn't even need capital punishment.

We could lock up violent individuals for the rest of their lives without any problem whatsoever. If you kill someone, you should never have any chance of being free, ever again. If you rape someone, you should never have the chance to see the outside of a jail cell ever again. If you assault someone and cause significant bodily harm... you should be in prison for a very, VERY long time.

But instead we let politicians and we let corporations who've been enabled by politicians control this entire situation and it results in atrocities. Enslaving people for possessing, using, or selling plants or plant alkaloids is no less a horrific human tragedy than pre Civil War slavery was.

I'ma get off my soap box now before I ramble on... and on... and on...

I don't understand why people think of rape as some supremely horrific crime.

Yes, it's a crime that should be punished, and yes society absolutely has a vested interest in making sure males/females are not raped. But frankly, I don't see why people see it as some type of crime that warrants very strict punishment on its own(unless other laws were violated in the process). I've basically had a girl rape me before and didn't suffer any bad effects.

lol

color me shocked that the 2nd Amendment pro-freedom gun nuts aren't running to the defense of this unarmed American who was assaulted and killed by government employees..

oh, right.. nevermind.

Marc Summers wrote:
I don't understand why people think of rape as some supremely horrific crime.

Yes, it's a crime that should be punished, and yes society absolutely has a vested interest in making sure males/females are not raped. But frankly, I don't see why people see it as some type of crime that warrants very strict punishment on its own(unless other laws were violated in the process). I've basically had a girl rape me before and didn't suffer any bad effects.

Your razor is not sharp enough to split hairs this fine. I understand what you are trying to communicate, however, you are completely ignoring the psychological factors that make this crime particularly violent. Even if you want to go down the road of questioning the social stigma and psychological factors that are man made through countless years of social evolution as the primary psychological factor you are still going to fall well short of a reasonable argument.

You are obviously smart enough to know this and understand exactly what you are doing here. Please refrain from these kinds of comments on this site.

Thanks.

Marc Summers wrote:

I don't understand why people think of rape as some supremely horrific crime.

did you really just say that?

please.. tell me more about why rape isn't a "supremely horrific crime" and why this unarmed man in Los Angeles deserved to be killed..

SeeRockCity wrote:

Your razor is not sharp enough to split hairs this fine. I understand what you are trying to communicate, however, you are completely ignoring the psychological factors that make this crime particularly violent. Even if you want to go down the road of questioning the social stigma and psychological factors that are man made through countless years of social evolution as the primary psychological factor you are still going to fall well short of a reasonable argument.

You are obviously smart enough to know this and understand exactly what you are doing here. Please refrain from these kinds of comments on this site.

Thanks.

+1