Washington police shoot and kill man throwing rocks

a reply to: Guyfriday

we arewatching the cops shoot a guy that is unarmed...

Regardless of what he did in the past we are talking about what he was doing in the now.

He turned around and was shot by 3 men.
That is what we saw

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I'm sorry, but did everyone see a different video? The guy is shown throwing a fist sized rock at point blank range at a cops head, then is seen getting shot with at least three air tasers, and then keeps running. The guy runs across the street, slows down (grated at this point his hands are up) then turns around with his hands in a fighting stance before getting shot.

So explain to me what everyone else is seeing?

I saw police shoot to death an unarmed man with his hands up. What happened before that doesn't matter.

What is the agenda here ...

Are they hiring psychos purposefully
Do they want to push the public into a state of fear so as to not question authority and meekly shut the f up and obey
Or provoke a backlash of civil unrest in order to be even more extreme

All the while the government does nothing about this problem of Police Brutality

Where are the good politicians that are speaking up for public concern

I share my sentiments, or lack thereof, with family and friends. The tragic story of this or that human debris doesn't affect me one way or the other. What do you think happens to street people? Found dead in a ditch, sooner or later.
You must be very young, to have so little experience of death.
a reply to: VinMan

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The problem I have with your observations does not start at the end of the video, it begins at the beginning when 5 shots were fired at the man when he was running away from the officers. For some unknown reason the officers are observed backing away from the suspect and started firing immediately after the suspect tried to flee. Why were the officers backing away from him and why did they try to kill him as he began to flee? As you did imply, we truly do not know the full facts about this sad event but the video "IS" pretty damning.

Can't believe that these cops don't have any common sense to just grab the guy and arrest him . I wonder how traumatised are cops anyway to kill a man just like that . And how can you live another day without the guilt , knowing you killed a man in cold blood?

Is there something like a psychiatric evaluation for cops after they had encountered dangerous and gruesome events so that they not starting to become serial killer cops, and starting to just kill defenceless people?

I wonder what verdict will be .. probably not guilty as always. .

It seems that shooting is not being seen as an absolute last resort so much anymore...and that is scary...

a reply to: TheJourney

I'm afraid that one day, they will get the same treatment. Criminals will not give op that easy anymore and will strike back , just because they know being arrested is out of the way..or they don't shoot dangerous people because the scare retribution?

Seems like this was the vict's 3rd episode of violent raving lunacy. He had become a clear danger to society and was resisting arrest. He was likely to kill others at some point. I'm gonna give the cops the benefit of the doubt on this one now.

a reply to: Tusks

That is not the cops job to make that decision, that is for the judge.
Their job is to get him in front of a judge to decide what needs to be done with him.

They killed an unarmed man with his hands visible and nothing in them, pretty sure that is not how it is suppose to go.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: FraggleRock

A rock can easily kill if it hit the head! Whenever someone throw rocks at me and I'm armed, for sure I will open fire at him!!!

That just makes you a pussy with a gun then. Sorry but thats a sad truth. If that is your mental thought process you are just a pussy with a gun.

a reply to: Guyfriday

The video I watched showed a man fleeing police after throwing rocks. Upon deciding he won't get away, he stops running and turns toward police. This is when police decide that everything this man did was a capital offense and so they proceed to execute him on the sidewalk.

****SIDE NOTE****

Officer Ryan Flanagan it's being reported, has had a previous case involving his use of force.

Flanagan was accused in 2009 of excessive force and racial profiling in a lawsuit that the city settled with a Hispanic woman for $100,000.

Source

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Tusks

That is not the cops job to make that decision, that is for the judge.
Their job is to get him in front of a judge to decide what needs to be done with him.

They killed an unarmed man with his hands visible and nothing in them, pretty sure that is not how it is suppose to go.

True enough---but if the State Judiciary or Prison system keeps dropping the ball on keeping lunatics off the street, one can see how easy it would be for the LEOs to get tired of the same problem over and over, and to fix it with their "hammer."

originally posted by: Tusks

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Tusks

That is not the cops job to make that decision, that is for the judge.
Their job is to get him in front of a judge to decide what needs to be done with him.

They killed an unarmed man with his hands visible and nothing in them, pretty sure that is not how it is suppose to go.

True enough---but if the State Judiciary or Prison system keeps dropping the ball on keeping lunatics off the street, one can see how easy it would be for the LEOs to get tired of the same problem over and over, and to fix it with their "hammer."

So the thought process is: someone who I thought was guilty didn't get prosecuted, so I'm gonna start killing off people who misbehave?

Sorry, but in pretty sure that's not how our legal process works...

a reply to: Tusks

Then they don't need to be cops if they can't handle the job they have.

If they want to be in a killing squad that goes around and takes care of "undesirables" then they need to go to a different country.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Tusks

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Tusks

That is not the cops job to make that decision, that is for the judge.
Their job is to get him in front of a judge to decide what needs to be done with him.

They killed an unarmed man with his hands visible and nothing in them, pretty sure that is not how it is suppose to go.

True enough---but if the State Judiciary or Prison system keeps dropping the ball on keeping lunatics off the street, one can see how easy it would be for the LEOs to get tired of the same problem over and over, and to fix it with their "hammer."

So the thought process is: someone who I thought was guilty didn't get prosecuted, so I'm gonna start killing off people who misbehave?

Sorry, but in pretty sure that's not how our legal process works...

No, it's an explanation of how it frequently does not work---and lunatics (as this guy certainly has a history to qualify) are repeatedly turned loose back on the streets. The thought process for the cops could be more like "If I don't take care of this problem-guy this time, it will keep happening, and the perp is gonna kill an innocent somebody."

So now, instead of incarcerating this guy or forcing some anti-psychotic drugs on him, the State is gonna get to pay his survivors and their lawyers far more money than would have been spent to lock him up. You can see that if the State fails to deliver in its responsibilities, then the folks charged with arresting the perps might logically come to the conclusion that they themselves must become judge, jury, and executioner.

Of course, it could also be anabolic steroid rage, or just a case of a cop wanting to kill something. But from the sounds of the perp's previous arrests, I offer the above as a bit more logical scenario.

originally posted by: stirling
I say standard operating procedure for dummies who have not sufficient training in anything but doughnuts and shooting people...

Yea and coming from a man that has with bear hands disarmed a few would be attackers, one with a gun and another with a knife, this was a to much.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SlapMonkey

He was scared, at least that is how I see his body language.

Forget the freeze frames, when you watch it in real time he runs turns and you can see he isn't sure what to do.
Probably cause he is being chased by 3 people with guns that already shot at him.

Tired of the what if this and what if that shoot first find out later attitude.
Other countries cops seem to be able to get by with out killing people so much, wonder why that is./shrug.

Oh yes, that oft-used and overworn but-the-criminal-who-ran-from-cops-got-scared argument.

If that were a boat, it would sink at the dock, there are so many holes in that logic.

Here's a few thoughts on which to chew: Don't throw large rocks at cars in traffic. Don't run from police. Oh, and don't make a conclusion on a case from one video with no sound that doesn't start recording at the beginning of the incident.

Also, comparing the U.S. statistics of total officers to officer-involved homicides to all coutries may surprise you that we're not very close to the top as that goes. Our numbers are relatively high because we are a very large country. The problem is, just like with compiling international stats on violent crime, not all countries report this stuff or do it accurately...hell, the U.S. doesn't even report it to the FBI accurately. But saying the U.S. is the all-time king of activity like this is simply asinine--I invite you to research Central-American countries and let me know how that goes.

Also, please note that there are 97 other countries that have a higher LEO-to-population ratio. Hell, we sit at about 250 per 100,000 people--even France is over 350 LEOs per 100,000 people. Argentina has more than 550 LEOs per 100,000 people. Singapore? More than 750/100,000. And the Vatican? They're at 15,625 LEOs for every 100,000 people. We are a far cry from a police state, for those who think we are. I think the problem doesn't lie in the amount of officers as much as some of the types that are hired combined with the type of American criminal that they often meet on the street.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If they numbers were closer I would go with that.

Still, 404 is a large number. By comparison, just six people were killed by police in Australia over the same period. Police in England and Wales killed only two people, and German police killed six. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

And yes, people get scared, especially after getting shot at.
Hence the fight or flight instinct we all have.

And sure, the kid should not have been doing what he was doing and deserved his day in court in front of a judge like our process calls for.
Not to be killed by three guys cause they might have thought they saw something in his hand and if they didn't kill him he was gonna kill one or all of the armed cops...
That boat has some holes in it as well.
Once he runs, how is he still a deadly threat?

a reply to: Sremmos80

But you're comparing the lower numbers in other countries--compare the high numbers and then make a better determination as to where we stand. We are not in the #1 spot by a long shot--and irregardless of the numbers, you can't deny that most officer-involved shootings are justified, if you're being honest in this instance.

But irregardless, I agree that there are some officers out there who are way too prone to pulling a weapon, but this story has some interesting information as to the legal leeway provided LEOs for deadly or physical force in the line of duty--all upheld by the SCOTUS:

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

WaPo

I think that there is too much leeway, and that probably provides officers with the confidence to shoot first (or second or third). I thkn the main issue is not the officers, but the fact that of 26,000 excessive force complaints filed, that only 2,000 were upheld by the precincts. That's only 7% that are considered valid cases of excessive force--and most likely becuase they cite the SCOTUS rulings and the like. If the precincts held their officers to a higher standard (and trained them better on non-lethal self-defense), I'd bet money that the cases like this would plummet.

Added: I look at it this way--as we say in the Army, the LEO departments are setting their LEOs up for failure due to lack of proper training. The SCOTUS rulings are a secondary issue.