Kinda witnessed this one: Police shoot unarmed black man

[HomerJS]

Based on the description he wasn't trying to attack them with his car he was trying to escape.

The way phrased interpreted as an attack therefore justifying shooting. I'm wondering if that was one of those "phrases". Like "stop resisting"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Would’ve been a bit much to do that back when they just wanted to check on someone in a car sleeping behind closed businesses.

Not at all. As I said, in my experience, that's what happens.

Also, that vehicle was FAR from “disabled.“ There’s an obvious path out that was wide open with nothing to stop the SUV from taking it just as soon as the driver realized it. Nothing was blocking the vehicle from behind. If anything, the one that was intending to block from behind was forcing it in the orientation where everything was wide-open.

If you have some other footage to show me, I'll watch it. I'm going by the body cam footage in the link. The vehicle was pinned on 3 sides.

Yes, shots were fired “immediately after.“ ...probably because that’s when he chose to floor it with guns pointed at him. It happened fast, no doubt about that.

There was only a few seconds from the time they pinned the vehicle and the shots. Immediately after doesn't need to be in quotes because that's literally what happened. Got out, bang.

 

[CZroe]

Based on the description he wasn't trying to attack them with his car he was trying to escape.

The way phrased interpreted as an attack therefore justifying shooting. I'm wondering if that was one of those "phrases". Like "stop resisting

...he was attempting to escape by forcing his way through the police trying to stop him. He even did it to the officer on foot when they were still behind the store. One steps in front of him right before he drives forward. He was clearly undeterred by the firearms both times and had complete disregard for their safety. It’s clear that he was going to force his way through those no matter what. When the SUV broke free it would have uncontrollably lurched past the car in front as it regained traction and he’d be LUCKY if he somehow missed the officer standing there.

 

[dank69]

...

“Hey, Siri. Define ram“

To force through is to “ram.“

Can you get any more disingenuous?!
...

What was seen in the video does not meet that 2nd definition. You know, the one that applies to vehicles or vessel. The cop technically rammed the victim, but there are still better words to describe even that maneuver as it wasn't all that violent. The cop put himself in danger in order to shoot him. Nobody was in danger until that cop needlessly exited the safety of his vehicle. Even if the car did manage to turn to the right and start moving, the other three cops could have blocked or disabled him again easily.

 

[dank69]

...he was attempting to escape by forcing his way through the police trying to stop him. He even did it to the officer on foot when they were still behind the store. One steps in front of him right before he drives forward. He was clearly undeterred by the firearms both times and had complete disregard for their safety. It’s clear that he was going to force his way through those no matter what. When the SUV broke free it would have uncontrollably lurched past the car in front as it regained traction and he’d be LUCKY if he somehow missed the officer standing there.

"Steps in front of him." Lol, he was to the side the whole time. He got near the front, but never in front.

 

[CZroe]

Not at all. As I said, in my experience, that's what happens.



If you have some other footage to show me, I'll watch it. I'm going by the body cam footage in the link. The vehicle was pinned on 3 sides.



There was only a few seconds from the time they pinned the vehicle and the shots. Immediately after doesn't need to be in quotes because that's literally what happened. Got out, bang.

It’s in quotes because it’s quoting the part of the message I’m responding to, not because I’m questioning whether or not it happened “immediately after“ and I don’t want anyone attributing the words to me. See? I did it again. “Got out [drew, aimed, engine revved and tires squealed], bang.”

GBI did release body camera footage from the other officers but what I described is based on the one you saw. As you know, you only have to effectively block the vehicle from moving forward or backwards for it to be immobilized, since they obviously can’t drive sideways. So let’s look at the scene again.

The vehicle blocking the front is effectively positioned.

The third vehicle to its left is not blocking the car from moving forward or backwards. It’s also not blocking an escape route.

As anyone can plainly see, the vehicle intending to block the vehicle from moving backwards isn’t effectively positioned because it’s actually touching the side of the rear bumper at an acute angle.

If the SUV went in reverse the cruiser supposedly pinning it from moving back would only angle the SUV toward the escape path where the shooting officer is standing, which would be wide-open on the SUV‘s right.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Here it is again right when the trigger was pulled:
//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190710/e95c7d33d077e4f7a3637ed20cfd6032.jpg

 

[ch33zw1z]

@CZroe - As you can clearly see in that screenshot, theres two cruisers pinching the vehicle from either side. I dont know what else to say, it's right there in front of you. The likelihood of the SUV actually going backwards is extremely slim, which is also made moot by the headshot right after the car was pinned, immediately after

Also, putting quotes around words the was you are is a way of questioning it. It's plausible to expect people to take it that way. Food for thought.

In addition, their failure to prevent this at the initial stop shouldn't go unnoticed or unaddressed.

 

[Lanyap]

Shooting was excessive IMO. I’m surprised they used the pit maneuver so soon on a guy that was running from a loitering accusation. Cop was too aggressive. He chose a bad time to shoot since his fellow officers were on either side of the vehicle. Bullet could have easily ricocheted and hit them. This incident is an example of how not to handle a loitering call.

 

[CZroe]

@CZroe - As you can clearly see in that screenshot, theres two cruisers pinching the vehicle from either side. I dont know what else to say, it's right there in front of you. The likelihood of the SUV actually going backwards is extremely slim, which is also made moot by the headshot right after the car was pinned, immediately after

Also, putting quotes around words the was you are is a way of questioning it. It's plausible to expect people to take it that way. Food for thought.

In addition, their failure to prevent this at the initial stop shouldn't go unnoticed or unaddressed.

???

How does the car touching the side of the rear bumper ever begin to prevent the SUV from moving backwards? How does the car in front maintain blocking contact when it is no longer occupied? Again: You have to block the front AND the rear to effectively prevent the vehicle from moving. They only had the front. That SUV was blocked. There was nothing stopping the SUV from turning right and leaving just as soon as the driver realized it.

Shooting was excessive IMO. I’m surprised they used the pit maneuver so soon on a guy that was running from a loitering accusation. Cop was too aggressive. He chose a bad time to shoot since his fellow officers were on either side of the vehicle. Bullet could have easily ricocheted and hit them. This incident is an example of how not to handle a loitering call.

It was WAY beyond a simple “loitering call” by that point and it’s patently dishonest to act like nothing else happened prior. The man had refused to comply with a lawful stop, resisted arrest, responded to escalation by fleeing, and demonstrated his intent to continue all of this behavior at great risk to everyone by that point.

 

[dank69]

It’s in quotes because it’s quoting the part of the message I’m responding to, not because I’m questioning whether or not it happened “immediately after“ and I don’t want anyone attributing the words to me. See? I did it again. “Got out [drew, aimed, engine revved and tires squealed], bang.”

GBI did release body camera footage from the other officers but what I described is based on the one you saw. As you know, you only have to effectively block the vehicle from moving forward or backwards for it to be immobilized, since they obviously can’t drive sideways. So let’s look at the scene again.

The vehicle blocking the front is effectively positioned.

The third vehicle to its left is not blocking the car from moving forward or backwards. It’s also not blocking an escape route.

As anyone can plainly see, the vehicle intending to block the vehicle from moving backwards isn’t effectively positioned because it’s actually touching the side of the rear bumper at an acute angle.

If the SUV went in reverse the cruiser supposedly pinning it from moving back would only angle the SUV toward the escape path where the shooting officer is standing, which would be wide-open on the SUV‘s right.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Here it is again right when the trigger was pulled:
//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190710/e95c7d33d077e4f7a3637ed20cfd6032.jpg

By the time the guy put it in reverse, backed up, hit something or stopped manually, shifted back into D or 1, and then driven forward, that cop that needlessly exited the vehicle in the first place could have gotten out of the way. Nobody was in immediate danger when he drew and fired.

 

[dank69]

???

How does the car touching the side of the rear bumper ever begin to prevent the SUV from moving backwards? How does the car in front maintain blocking contact when it is no longer occupied? ...

Which is why he should not have exited until the car near the rear got into a better position to immobilize the SUV.

 

[Perknose]

Well, I read the whole thread before watching the video. What I saw was an unnecessary execution.

Yes. When you need to use a firearm to neutralize a threat to your life, you shoot to kill.

Yes, you do. That officer's life was not in danger, but he shot, and he shot to kill. It was an execution, for fleeing the scene from a possible loitering charge. The punishment, death, did not suit the crime, and it did not suit the circumstances.

You called dank a LIAR for saying he wasn't ramming the police car but just uselessly spinning his tires trying to push it out of the way. He wasn't "ramming" anything. Does this make YOU a LIAR?

I watched the video. This, from you, by your standards in this thread, is a fucking, dead nuts observable LIE:

He already drove forward with either deadly intent or complete disregard for life when an officer moved in front of his parked vehicle to block him the first time ...

That officer was NEVER in front of the vehicle and your sly insinuation on top of your LIE "with either deadly intent" is a further LIE. He was simply trying to run away.

I understand that it was a dangerous situation, but the almost immediate execution of this unarmed loiterer by the cop was lethally lazy, sub-standard policing.

It did not have to go down that way. It should not have gone down that way. With more competent cops, it would not have gone down that way.

That you smugly think otherwise is sad and despicable.

 

[ch33zw1z]

???

How does the car touching the side of the rear bumper ever begin to prevent the SUV from moving backwards? How does the car in front maintain blocking contact when it is no longer occupied? Again: You have to block the front AND the rear to effectively prevent the vehicle from moving. They only had the front. That SUV was blocked. There was nothing stopping the SUV from turning right and leaving just as soon as the driver realized it.

Watch the video, both the cars on the side rammed into it. Plus there was already right side damage to the vehicle you can see in the chase. The driver would have a very difficult time moving any direction the way the cruisers were positioned.

Look, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. I can see why people call this excessive force. The LEOs could have prevented it altogether. We're they within their legal right to discharge the weapon, probably, but doesn't mean I'll ignore what the video presents. If other footage is released, I reserve the right to change my opinion.

 

[dank69]

Watch the video, both the cars on the side rammed into it. Plus there was already right side damage to the vehicle you can see in the chase. The driver would have a very difficult time moving any direction the way the cruisers were positioned.

Look, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. I can see why people call this excessive force. The LEOs could have prevented it altogether. We're they within their legal right to discharge the weapon, probably, but doesn't mean I'll ignore what the video presents. If other footage is released, I reserve the right to change my opinion.

He is trying to argue that the media is being dishonest, and he is arguing his case in a very dishonest manner.

 

[KMFJD]

this is not a war zone, what is with this eagerness to just shoot people? It's pathetic, this militarization of the police needs to be undone

 

[UglyCasanova]

Based on the description he wasn't trying to attack them with his car he was trying to escape.

Which doesn’t really matter. The motive is irrelevant when he’s putting others lives in danger.

 

[Perknose]

Which doesn’t really matter. The motive is irrelevant when he’s putting others lives in danger.

No one's life was in immediate danger when that cop summarily ended his life. Dimbulbs like you are the fetid swamp in which these immoral and unnecessary police executions are allowed to thrive.

 

[kage69]

Dumb mfer, all you had to do was listen to them and take your damn ticket. Instead you felt the law didn't apply to you, you escalated the situation, and then you put cops in a position to fear for their safety. How much so I can't say, I'd like to see other feeds of the incident.

Regardless, compliance != optional

 

[darkswordsman17]

He is trying to argue that the media is being dishonest, and he is arguing his case in a very dishonest manner.

As him and his "brother" have done on every single police related topic on this forum. On other topics, you can believe they're just ignorant due to consuming right wing media too much, so I consider them more stupid than actively malicious at those times. On these, they're consistently outright dishonest and will lie and throw out all the fallacious reasoning they can while screaming that other people are the ones doing that.

Hell you can see it with the way he's framed talking about this one by including himself as a witness, authority, and thereby arbiter of truth about it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No one's life was in immediate danger when that cop summarily ended his life. Dimbulbs like you are the fetid swamp in which these immoral and unnecessary police executions are allowed to thrive.

His feels tho.

 

[Lanyap]

???

How does the car touching the side of the rear bumper ever begin to prevent the SUV from moving backwards? How does the car in front maintain blocking contact when it is no longer occupied? Again: You have to block the front AND the rear to effectively prevent the vehicle from moving. They only had the front. That SUV was blocked. There was nothing stopping the SUV from turning right and leaving just as soon as the driver realized it.


It was WAY beyond a simple “loitering call” by that point and it’s patently dishonest to act like nothing else happened prior. The man had refused to comply with a lawful stop, resisted arrest, responded to escalation by fleeing, and demonstrated his intent to continue all of this behavior at great risk to everyone by that point.

Cops handle this type of situation on a daily basis without shooting anyone.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

"Does he have a weapon?" lol

That's code for "does he have a gun".

Legally speaking - anything can be a weapon. A piece of a paper and giving a paper cut is a weapon. A fist is a weapon. I *THINK* it's pretty safe to say... a fucking car is a weapon.

But hey, liberal media gonna liberal media.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

No one's life was in immediate danger when that cop summarily ended his life. Dimbulbs like you are the fetid swamp in which these immoral and unnecessary police executions are allowed to thrive.

But ramming people with motor vehicles at full speed - isn't at ALL dangerous in any way whatsoever. Until a cop gets smushed, he was just a hard working father that was just trying to live his life right?

Fuck off.

Your logic is so flawed that your head has to be fully encompased in your ass. It's like someone can be stabbing left and right with a knife, but until it hits flesh it's not in anyway dangerous until after the fact.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Which doesn’t really matter. The motive is irrelevant when he’s putting others lives in danger.

Ding ding...
Just like running 60mph through a school zone - the driver may not intentionally have wanted to kill children. The fact that they luckily didn't hit one is regardless of the point.

 

[dank69]

But ramming people with motor vehicles at full speed - isn't at ALL dangerous in any way whatsoever. Until a cop gets smushed, he was just a hard working father that was just trying to live his life right?

Fuck off.

Your logic is so flawed that your head has to be fully encompased in your ass. It's like someone can be stabbing left and right with a knife, but until it hits flesh it's not in anyway dangerous until after the fact.

Somebody didn't watch the video.