Crime Arizona Officer Shoots Unarmed Man: Acquitted

[MikeMcMann]

It's mere protocol in the face of a perceived deadly threat. I don't why you think a guy, especially in this case, holding a fuck you automatic rifle, would be too fearful for their lives against a guy who doesn't have a gun pointed at them. He has the upper hand, and if the suspect wants to challenge that(accidentally or not), the guy with the big ass gun doesn't have much to fear, except for his gun jamming. They're just going to eliminate the threat and do their job to protect themselves and anyone else from the threat.

To boil every cop who shoots a guy, down to them not being man enough to wait for the threat to fully materialize and put themselves and everyone within the vicinity at risk, is silly. It's their job to measure the risk, and act accordingly. I personally think the shooter in this case had nerves of steel, considering how many chances he gave the suspect in all that confusion, before he finally saw a threat worth shooting at. Guy could've easily been blown away much earlier by a jumpier cop with an itchier trigger finger.

Sorry but your post is littered with inconsistencies.

The guy feels no threat because he has the automatic weapon but he must kill off someone for simply not following instructions to eliminate a threat?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

You can debate instructions all you want but it's pretty simple when police are pointing weapons at you and tell you not to reach for your waistband or you're going to get shot and you reach, they are going to follow through

They were giving him like ten different instructions and telling him to crawl forward on his knee caps while doing the hokey-pokey. Its very easy for someone to slip and put their hand out to steady themselves. They created a bad situation and when he failed shot him. Stop apologizing for murderers.

 

[robotsonic]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying cops should just shoot people without positively ID'ing they are carrying weapons? LOL you guys are unreal.

This is genuinely how some of these lunatics think, that a bunch of terrified, unprofessional cowards running around with assault rifles and opening fire whenever they feel even slightly in danger is a completely reasonable way for police to be acting.

Say I phoned up the police and told them I saw a guy with a gun at hereticBD's house. Something tells me that if they charged in with flashbangs and ARs firing he wouldn't be so quick to defend these insane tactics. Some people are short sighted idiots who can't put themselves in someone else's shoes. I only hope that someday this shit happens to him and he may finally understand why the police are acting like maniacs in this situation.

 

[ineverpost]

If a cop is in fear for their life, they have legal protection to use deadly force. You can't prove or disprove what someone is feeling, so yes, all cops have a license to kill.

The video was not shown to the jury, so the court system protects the police departments, however, the tax payers will be footing the massive record breaking settlement that will be coming as a result of this. Not sure why they all protect each other, but I'm guessing that it is a combination of mutual benefits and possibly fear of retaliation.

 

[deadshot138]

If a cop is in fear for their life, they have legal protection to use deadly force. You can't prove or disprove what someone is feeling, so yes, all cops have a license to kill.

The video was not shown to the jury, so the court system protects the police departments, however, the tax payers will be footing the massive record breaking settlement that will be coming as a result of this. Not sure why they all protect each other, but I'm guessing that it is a combination of mutual benefits and possibly fear of retaliation.

Reasonableness is the key factor in that “belief” that their life is threatened. You can’t just willy nilly blow someone away and get away with it because you say you feared for your life

 

[lfd0311]

The sergeant gave excessive and unclear instructions while power tripping. If his aim was to come in and cuff the man, he had multiple opportunities to do so, which he passed up. If his aim was to have them walk past them and then be cuffed by the officers behind them, then he did a horrible job of doing that as well. He basically led the man in a high-stakes game of Simon Says which ended up being deadly.

The lower-ranking officer who pulled the trigger, shot prematurely and showed poor judgment by inscribing "you're fucked" on the rifle that he killed that guy with. This video should be used in police training to show officers and aspiring officers what NOT to do.

A person isn't cuffed until they're cuffed. You don't walk past someone who isn't cuffed. What is hard to understand about that? Yes, his instructions about what he wanted him to do at the beginning of the video could have maybe been a little clearer, but the woman got them right. This guy was an idiotic shit show, and that got the Police first called to the Hotel, and then shot. That's not really anyone's fault but his.

 

[lfd0311]

In states where police have been given additional training, weapon use has dropped dramatically, so yes, better training would definitely help.

What additional training did you want here? People keep throwing out this idiotic line, but it's empty and meaningless. Basically what you're saying is that you want the Police to act less aggressively in a potential mass shooting situation.

 

[lfd0311]

I agree, it's almost always more than one incident that changes everything in a particular field, but that was a watershed moment and things changed most drastically after that. Things were different in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s to some extent. I think if that same encounter happens in the 80s, the man probably just gets detained and then let off with a warning.

Things were different in the 60's-90's. The FBI did a study on Police Officer deaths in that time period and discovered that the overwhelming majority of Officers killed in the line of duty during that 30-35 year span were killed with their own pistols, taken from them by either a suspect they were simply trying to subdue, or by a person they thought was simply a bystander who walked up behind them in the course of making an arrest, took thier pistol off of them and shot them with it. Most of Policing during that time was very hands on. the police were required to physically subdue criminals. It isn't like that anymore. The last thing police departments want is their officers getting into fights with random dudes on the street. Not just for the reasons mentioned above, but for PR reasons. Constantly beating people up doesn't look good. Obviously shooting people who aren't armed isn't a good look either. The one constant thing that every police officer has to deal with is that they bring a gun into every situation they go into, and it is that gun that their tactics are designed around.

 

[lfd0311]

Not sure what type of training this officer had, but I’ve seen people fail out of the academy for shooting someone with a gun in his hand because it wasn’t pointed at anyone. They couldn’t articulate an imminent threat in the debrief, simply having a gun wasn’t enough without intent or a target.

There was no weapon, intent or delivery system here. It’s a bad shoot and the cop should have been convicted. Jury must have been ignorant to the rules or something.

Again, he reaches back towards his waistband 3 different times. That's something you can't do. That isn't the jury being ignorant of anything. That's the jury enterpreting the law correctly.

 

[Higus]

Saw the video. If I was in the victim's shoes with a psycho cop pointing a gun at me playing a fucked up version of "Simon Says", I'm pretty sure I'd have gotten killed too. The jury disgusts me.

 

[HereticBD]

Sorry but your post is littered with inconsistencies.

The guy feels no threat because he has the automatic weapon but he must kill off someone for simply not following instructions to eliminate a threat?

Yes. What is so hard to understand? The guy is being treated as a threat. That doesn't have to mean the officer is some scared pussy, who shot out of blind fear. The cop has him dead to rights if the suspect tries anything. He didn't have to worry much about the suspect getting the upper hand. However, that doesn't mean the suspect won't be foolish enough try something, which is why the gun is on them in the first place. Just because the cop has the clear upper hand, doesn't eliminate the possibility that they will have to shoot a suspect who tries to challenge them. In this case it was reaching for something out of sight, that could easily be perceived as the suspect going for a gun. It was either shoot or roll the dice. As I've already explained, cops don't roll the dice in a situation like that, and just assume you aren't reaching for a gun. You are already considered a threat at that point, and any threatening move that could have life threatening consequences, are met with a bullet. It's as simple as that.

 

[ineverpost]

Reasonableness is the key factor in that “belief” that their life is threatened. You can’t just willy nilly blow someone away and get away with it because you say you feared for your life

Actually, judging by the acquittals, you can.

 

[tramendous]

Also its funny how everyone including a jury of the officer's peers are incorrect but them.

the jury are his peers? This shit gets more corrupt by the minute. They also wouldnt let the jury know he had 'youre fucked' written on the gun. This guy was looking to kill someone.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

A person isn't cuffed until they're cuffed. You don't walk past someone who isn't cuffed. What is hard to understand about that? Yes, his instructions about what he wanted him to do at the beginning of the video could have maybe been a little clearer, but the woman got them right. This guy was an idiotic shit show, and that got the Police first called to the Hotel, and then shot. That's not really anyone's fault but his.

so its his fault some idtio called 911 thinking they saw someone with a gun... well this kid was not that someone, this kid was just minding his business, waling out of the room, in vegas probably drunk, nothing wrong with that... then all of the sudden 2 couple of rambos show up and start threating him to kill him if he does not do exactly as he said, for no fucking reason, is that hs fault? is his fault not being able to remain calm after being threat to be shot for no reason by 2 guys? was he fault not to be super cool like your self wouldve reacted, thats his fault.... fuck you, get your son killed by something like this, and then say, well cops did allright, my kid was a dumb fuck.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yes. What is so hard to understand? The guy is being treated as a threat. That doesn't have to mean the officer is some scared pussy, who shot out of blind fear. The cop has him dead to rights if the suspect tries anything. He didn't have to worry much about the suspect getting the upper hand. However, that doesn't mean the suspect won't be foolish enough try something, which is why the gun is on them in the first place. Just because the cop has the clear upper hand, doesn't eliminate the possibility that they will have to shoot a suspect who tries to challenge them. In this case it was reaching for something out of sight, that could easily be perceived as the suspect going for a gun. It was either shoot or roll the dice. As I've already explained, cops don't roll the dice in a situation like that, and just assume you aren't reaching for a gun. You are already considered a threat at that point, and any threatening move that could have life threatening consequences, are met with a bullet. It's as simple as that.

What is hard to understand is the inconsistencies which again this post is littered with.

You flat out admitted they are acting out of fear which equals scared and there is no way around that definition. But because you think the word scared has a more negative connotation (pussy) you are trying to spin it as 'they are frightened or afraid and acting from fear but they are not scared'. That is some major league spin to avoid the truth of the word.

Just because you have someone dead to rights does not mean you have to shoot them because they are not compliant. If you have them dead to rights, if you have the drop on them and short of them pulling off some comic movie type action shit where they are flipping from their belly in a barrel roll and shooting the heavily armored officer before he shoots them, then the officer should not be acting out of fear as you admit he is. He should be in a position of confidence.

But again I think the problem is that you and too many in the American public have simply accepted that shooting someone for simple non compliance even when the actual threat is assessed to not be evident is ok.

'Hey he didn't follow instructions... and if a cop is pointing a gun at you and telling you what to do and you don't you get shot and I am not going to cry for you'.

Sadly I see the above type sentiment, or some degree of that repeated constantly and it is just wrong. There is only one reason a cop should kill someone and that is due to threat. Not simple fear or being scared. That is not enough reason for a citizen to kill another and the cops should be held to a higher standard.

 

[MikeMcMann]

so its his fault some idtio called 911 thinking they saw someone with a gun... well this kid was not that someone, this kid was just minding his business, waling out of the room, in vegas probably drunk, nothing wrong with that... then all of the sudden 2 couple of rambos show up and start threating him to kill him if he does not do exactly as he said, for no fucking reason, is that hs fault? is his fault not being able to remain calm after being threat to be shot for no reason by 2 guys? was he fault not to be super cool like your self wouldve reacted, thats his fault.... fuck you, get your son killed by something like this, and then say, well cops did allright, my kid was a dumb fuck.

The mentality is simply this even if innocent...

- if you are drunk and do not follow instructions to the tee you deserve to die
- if you are nervous and do not follow instructions to the tee you deserve to die
- if you do not speak English fluently and do not follow instructions to the tee you deserve to die
- if you are mentally challenges and do not follow instructions to the tee you deserve to die

Guys like the guy you are responding to sadly seem to think compliance is all that matters and even if no threat is evident you still deserve to die. Its horribly sad.

 

[HereticBD]

What is hard to understand is the inconsistencies which again this post is littered with.

You flat out admitted they are acting out of fear which equals scared and there is no way around that definition. But because you think the word scared has a more negative connotation (pussy) you are trying to spin it as 'they are frightened or afraid and acting from fear but they are not scared'. That is some major league spin to avoid the truth of the word.

Just because you have someone dead to rights does not mean you have to shoot them because they are not compliant. If you have them dead to rights, if you have the drop on them and short of them pulling off some comic movie type action shit where they are flipping from their belly in a barrel roll and shooting the heavily armored officer before he shoots them, then the officer should not be acting out of fear as you admit he is. He should be in a position of confidence.

But again I think the problem is that you and too many in the American public have simply accepted that shooting someone for simple non compliance even when the actual threat is assessed to not be evident is ok.

'Hey he didn't follow instructions... and if a cop is pointing a gun at you and telling you what to do and you don't you get shot and I am not going to cry for you'.

Sadly I see the above type sentiment, or some degree of that repeated constantly and it is just wrong. There is only one reason a cop should kill someone and that is due to threat. Not simple fear or being scared. That is not enough reason for a citizen to kill another and the cops should be held to a higher standard.

But see, you're playing fast and loose with the term "non-compliance". There are degrees of non-compliance, in which cops are trained to treat with varying degrees of severity. A guy suspected of being armed, reaching out of sight, after being told not to, is about as high level as it gets, and will be met with a severe response. Likely a fatal one.

If you want to play semantics with the terms "threat" or "fear", knock yourself out. I've made position clear, that the cop with the gun was doing his job. The end.

Oh', and I'm Canadian BTW. Our cops are taught the same thing in the face of such a threat. It's got little to do with culture. If a cop is responding to a call where a gun is alleged to be involved, they don't fuck around, and any perceived lethal threat, like a suspect reaching for his waistband with guns drawn on him, will usually be met with a bullet, or five.

 

[MikeMcMann]

But see, you're playing fast and loose with the term "non-compliance". There are degrees of non-compliance, in which cops are trained to treat with varying degrees of severity. A guy suspected of being armed, reaching out of sight, after being told not to, is about as high level as it gets, and will be met with a severe response. Likely a fatal one.

If you want to play semantics with the terms "threat" or "fear", knock yourself out. I've made position clear, that the cop with the gun was doing his job. The end.

Oh', and I'm Canadian BTW. Our cops are taught the same thing in the face of such a threat. It's got little to do with culture. If a cop is responding to a call where a gun is alleged to be involved, they don't fuck around, and any perceived lethal threat, like a suspect reaching for his waistband with guns drawn on him, will usually be met with a bullet, or five.

I don't agree and see it as you playing fast and loose with the term "non-compliance" and 'threat'. You seem to want to define it from everything being 'they have the drop and no reason to be afraid or scared' to 'they have every reason to shoot if afraid'.

And I too am Canadian and sorry but you are wrong if you assume that, that level of perceived threat would ever fly as a reason for a Cop to shoot an unarmed citizen. Sure you can again play games with the word 'threat' and yes if the cop truly feels threat in Canada, yes he can act. But if that execution was shown on Canadian TV with Canadian cops there would likely be an inquest. We absolutely expect more restraint from our cops.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

But see, you're playing fast and loose with the term "non-compliance". There are degrees of non-compliance, in which cops are trained to treat with varying degrees of severity. A guy suspected of being armed, reaching out of sight, after being told not to, is about as high level as it gets, and will be met with a severe response. Likely a fatal one.

If you want to play semantics with the terms "threat" or "fear", knock yourself out. I've made position clear, that the cop with the gun was doing his job. The end.

Oh', and I'm Canadian BTW. Our cops are taught the same thing in the face of such a threat. It's got little to do with culture. If a cop is responding to a call where a gun is alleged to be involved, they don't fuck around, and any perceived lethal threat, like a suspect reaching for his waistband with guns drawn on him, will usually be met with a bullet, or five.

How many Canadians have been shot in the past 10 years in cases similar to this one?

 

[lfd0311]

so its his fault some idtio called 911 thinking they saw someone with a gun... well this kid was not that someone, this kid was just minding his business, waling out of the room, in vegas probably drunk, nothing wrong with that... then all of the sudden 2 couple of rambos show up and start threating him to kill him if he does not do exactly as he said, for no fucking reason, is that hs fault? is his fault not being able to remain calm after being threat to be shot for no reason by 2 guys? was he fault not to be super cool like your self wouldve reacted, thats his fault.... fuck you, get your son killed by something like this, and then say, well cops did allright, my kid was a dumb fuck.

Wow. So much ignorance in this post. He's in Mesa, AZ. He isn't in Vegas. He was pointing a scoped pellet rifle out the window of his 5th floor hotel room at people walking by in the parking lot. Pretending this guy did nothing to bring this on is stupid.