Police Shot Man 80 Times Until He "Had No Face"!

There was a case here locally, where police arrived at a convenience store and shot and killed a drunk that was waving around a cell phone. Videos by witnesses clearly showed that the man was waving a cell phone and also, that the LEO was close to him and could see that was the case. There was a big outcry by the citizenry. I think law suit situation is pending. Seems like more and more of this type of scenario is playing out all the time. When studies are now suggesting that one is more likely to get killed by LEOs than t*rrorists, that definitely shows something is very wrong. I guess money is saved when cops become judge, jury AND executioner all in one...like a one size fits all solution.

I still think about those grossly over weight police at Columbine...hiding behind trees for like over an hour while they were "protecting and serving" all those kids.

Heaven forbid cops ever get called to a kids birthday party because of loud music complaint and the lil guy happened to get a toy gun for his Birthday...game over for the lil tyke maybe? So much "over kill" and over reactions nowadays, it wouldn't surprise me/

a reply to: boymonkey74

This is how it's done in the uk

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I did like the line "highly trained Police Officers" followed by the remark they needed to fire 80 rounds to subdue a man wielding a pellet gun.

Doesn't sound very highly trained in the slightest. In fact, it sounds like they had almost no training at all.

Do they not have to justify every shot fired? Here in the UK our armed Police are not only taught when to fire, but also to judge the surrounding area, whether anyone will be caught in the crossfire, is the shot justified and afterwards they must make an account of each shot they discharged.

Not that I am saying "we're better", before anyone get's they pants in a twist, but you'd think in a nation where people are more exposed to firearms, better judgement about their use would prevail. It certainly seems, lately anyway, that Police in the US simply open fire at the drop of a hat without much concern over whether it is a reasonable response, much less having to justify it afterwards.

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

In the US a mentally ill man waves a pellet gun at the police and the police shoot him in the face 80 times. In Germany a mentally ill man waves a machete at police. Police fire one time hitting the man in the leg. The man is taken into custody. The end.

The police in this country are getting to be just as bad as the politicians. I know, that seems harsh. But sadly, its true.

Maybe we could send our cops to germany or any foreign country where the police are better trained and do a better job...for training? They aren't getting any training here. All our cops get here are military surplus weapons and equipment.

“These officers, although justified, are going to have to carry that around with them for the rest of their lives,” Laredo Police Chief Ray Garner told the Houston Chronicle. "I've been in contact with all six of the officers from that evening through today. They seem to be holding up. No officer goes to work thinking they're going to kill somebody.”

This part here.

WHAT THE MOTHER @*$#?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! JUSTIFIED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? 80 TIMES IN THE FREAKING HEAD?? Since when is shooting someone 80 times justified? Just....please....someone explain this.

Ok, the dude was crazy. And he was carrying a weapon, although it was a petty kid's weapon used for shooting squirrels and pigeons. Let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that the cops showed up, and believed the man was holding a real high powered rifle, and they felt that their own safety was in jeopardy, and they had no other choice but to shoot him. Since when does ANY suspect require 80 FREAKING HEAD SHOTS to take down? Guys on PCP don't need 80 FREAKING HEAD SHOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A few headshots will take anyone down. After that, they are dead. 80 isn't even overkill. 80 is criminal. 80 is a bunch of turd cops emptying magazines into what was by then a corpse on the ground.

Further more, headshots themselves are pretty hard to take, as I know from experience. The easiest shots to take are center mass. So if you are a crack shot enough that you can make that many successful headshots, it means you also possess the marksmanship skills to shoot him in the leg or arm, and neutralize him without killing him.

The most disturbing part was the last part. That the cops are "holding up". WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?! They used a mentally ill man's head for target practice. Most cops, that is, the cops that are not psychopaths with badges, tend to be very upset even when shooting a dangerous criminal that was threatening people's lives, and have to go through a lot of counseling. But these six pigs are "holding up"?

Justified? Maybe in Texas. But not in the free, civilized modern world. These cops would, in any civilized state or country, at the bare minimum, be without jobs.

a reply to: amazing

Just for comparison purposes, to be an Armed officer in the UK, you must have been "on the beat" for at least two years, then pass a rigorous selection procedure to even begin training, which lasts 3 weeks for basic firearms training and then 5 weeks on a tactical course. Specialist Firearms officers (for use in sieges etc) have a further 8 weeks training on top of that before being allowed out into the wider world.

EDIT: To add, there is a high washout rate in these courses, as they only take the most capable. In the whole of the UK, excluding Northern Ireland, there are around 6,500 Armed Officers out of around 130,000 Police Officers

a reply to: arosebyanyothername

Does appear to be the case, yes.

But if someone told you it was a pellet gun, would you blindly believe them?

a reply to: arosebyanyothername

Police were informed by guard the gun was a pellet gun. What part of that is not clear?

This is how disinfo works/diffuse the issue with emotional words and critical thinking makes a fast exit.

It's funny how you have a problem with this bit, stating how it's disinfo works, yet you and so many are caught up on the 80 rounds bit..that came from a cousin..who wasn't there...who probably even hasn't seen the body.

That right now is pure speculation and media hyperbole, and you all get sucked into it. Just the way they want.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Quite frankly, at this point the onus falls on the police to prove that they are innocent.

After all, they assume we're guilty. That everyone is holding a lethal weapon. That unarmed people are going to are going to attack them after getting shot at. That a black man in Wal-Mart holding what appears to be a rifle is really about to shoot them.

Why don't we return the favor and presume them guilty until proven innocent?

We do the same for politicians, and both are public servants, aren't they?

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: arosebyanyothername

Does appear to be the case, yes.

But if someone told you it was a pellet gun, would you blindly believe them?

It depends on the context of the situation. And in this situation I see absolutely no logical reason why the guard would lie to police when they arrived. So yes, I would believe the guard that it was nothing more than a pellet gun in this situation.

a reply to: FraggleRock

It's not about lying though.

What if he was wrong?

I agree things could have been handled better, but they can't go in assuming the gun was a toy.

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: Restricted
There were no brains on the ground. His head was intact.

I guess all that stuff leaking out is just tears of joy, eh?

You know I read through the whole thread up till this point of my posting, and I noticed something during your mini-debate. The thing I found the most interesting was the apparent assertion by the the other fellow, that the video does not show a man laying on the ground bleeding.
He seemed to understand that there was nothing on the ground before the shooting, and that there was indeed something on the ground after the shooting.
The question I would ask is only this, "Do bullet wounds cause the leakage of fluids from a human body?"

If you answered yes (As I certainly did), I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to safely acknowledge that the "mysterious substance" under the mans corpse is in fact leaking wounds.
Or in layman's terms... bleeding.

Now if we can all agree that bullet wounds can in fact, and more often than not, cause "leakage" the next question would be... what point exactly was he trying to make by attempting to convince folks that bullet wounds don't cause blood loss or "leakage"?

Count me confused.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: FraggleRock

It's not about lying though.

What if he was wrong?

I agree things could have been handled better, but they can't go in assuming the gun was a toy.

Yes, assumption is bad more often than not. Though assumption can be taken out of a situation with facts. This gate guard was a valuable tool for the police to gather information from had they chosen to do so. He had apparently approached the victim earlier in the day regarding the pellet gun. So this was beyond simply guessing what it was and then relaying that information onto police. He knew what it was because he dealt with it.

Guard: "The guy only has a pellet gun."
Police: "How do you know that?"
Guard: "Because I talked to him earlier and saw it with my own eyes."
Police "Okay, thanks for the information."

See how easy that could have been?

a reply to: FraggleRock

Sorry but it's not that simple.

What if he had a real gun stashed somewhere?

Well in that case you just shoot the piss out of him, fistbump and take selfies with the body.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: FraggleRock

Sorry but it's not that simple.

What if he had a real gun stashed somewhere?

What if indeed. I'm sure there are plenty of what ifs a person could throw at this situation. None of them change the facts though. What if the police actually did their job and gathered information and handled the situation professionally and with a little compassion? What if "highly trained law enforcement" didn't handle almost every situation they find themselves in with a flurry of gunfire?

Though I suppose you wanted an actual answer. What if? Deal with such a detail if it arises rather than always making paranoid assumptions. Act on the information you have, not on the information you think could be. Yes that creates risk but that's a part of their job. Or at least it used to be.

Modern police run on this premise that there should be no risk in their line of work ever. They just want to go home at night, right? So they eliminate any potential threat, which for them is everything, including but not limited to the family pet.

According to a witness the police knew it was a pellet gun:

Witness: Laredo Police Knew It Was a Pellet Gun When They Killed Jose Garza
Gateway Truck Stop CFO Victor Treviño Speaks Out, Contradicts Police Narrative


Prior to police arriving on the scene, the truck stop’s private security questioned Garza about what appeared to be a gun in his possession. Garza reportedly told the guard that he had just purchased the pellet gun at the local Walmart. Treviño says the guard checked it to be sure, but could tell it was just a BB gun based on the cartridges. According to the Gateway CFO’s statements, Garza complied with the guard’s request to put away the pellet gun and fell asleep on the couch in front of the building.

Source article and video

“These officers, although justified, are going to have to carry that around with them for the rest of their lives”

Wow, I feel really bad for these guys... I can imagine shooting a guy 80 times in the face really takes its toll.... T__T

a reply to: LrdRedhawk

Great minds think alike! I was thinking about posting this after I read about it. I understand the man had a "weapon" but, my God, what's up with the legit OVERKILL of this human being by LEO's?

S&F for posting, OP.