Black Teen Fatally Shot By Austin Police Was Naked And Unarmed

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

By chance, do remember where Motorola was located when u did some work for them? Curious because I can't remember where in Austin Motorola is located (guess I'll ask the girlfriend, too).

Eeep. It's been a while, but what comes to mind is something like 'Bluestein Blvd'.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My question is............did anyone ever figure out why no taser? That seems odd.

Austin is a sort of backwater city in many respects; I can understand they might not have the money for tasers.

But that does seem really strange.

He was nekkid. They was afeared that they would fry his naughty bits.

Maybe it's like that guy with the third degree burns after the car wreck - the cops testified something along the lines that he was gross and bloody and they didn't want him coming into contact with them, so pew pew pew pew 'murica.

In this case - naked guy, ew gross he's not touching me with his junk, "he's coming right for me" pew pew pew pew 'murica.

a reply to: Bedlam

ew gross he's not touching me with his junk,

MAN JUNK...NOOOOOOO!!!!!!

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: Bedlam

ew gross he's not touching me with his junk,

MAN JUNK...NOOOOOOO

Truthfully, I think if you were naked and wanted to give me a great big hug I'd probably get shooty much less you wanting to hit me.

Looks like a bad shooting. But the cop was black so yeah we dont have to hear how whitey killed another innocent black kid. Kid probably had drugs in his system or mental illness. If he was on PCP or the officer thought he was on PCP that may be why the officer shot him. But the kid did charge the cop once again black kid being stupid. Dont get into a fight with police! Let them arrest you, shut up go to jail eat your turkey bacon in the morning and let your lawyer handle it. Think about it. Dude is naked, acting weird and irratic, and is NAKED running around the street then charges cop. Sounds like PCP or smoking baths salts to me. Sounds like another sad sad poor black kid making stupid decisions again. Just really glad it wasnt a white cop that shot him.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is how they operate (police) nowadays.

remember this is texas... not saying cops anywhere else are better but in texas is shoot first ask later.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is an incredibly obvious situation where a cop should use their pepper spray or tazer.

Cops are paid to take risks, not be cowards who never take any risk and shoot thousands of people on an ongoing basis.

Cops may be heroes in other places, but here in the USA they are zeros because they take zero risk on the job. I imagine a cops life to be quite cushy, because normally you'd have an unsafe job doing that but they just shoot everyone who puts their hands down near their pocket (putting your hands down is now considered aggressive), or putting their hands up to give a sign of surrender (also considered highly aggressive by cops).

I know this has been said multiple times on this thread but I'm just offering my opinion any way.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is it ok to be biased and accept that I could be wrong if the required evidence comes through? Because I'm more than willing to say I was wrong if the evidence came through showing that the police officer was in the right.

I know we've discussed things extensively before, do you honestly think that I have any trouble admitting when I'm wrong if adequately proven so?

No, I really don't think you'd have an issue doing that, but the problem that I'm advocating against is the rush to conclusions and the insinuations and the biased eye with which you started this thread--what that does is feed those who are unable or unwilling to change their stance as evidence comes out. I refer to that as the Michael Brown Syndrome, where at the end of the day, the evidence showed one thing, but the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" mantra still lives on today, even knowing that it is based on a lie.

I just don't see the point in starting the conversation assuming that excessive force was used and putting all of the blame on the LEO (or LEOs, as the case often is) involved before all--or even most--of the evidence has been made public. Emotion-based opinions on issues that require hard evidence are arguments based on a logical fallacy from the get-go, and when I see that happening, it's very hard for me to let it go, especially when it is as hard-nosed an opinion as your OP is:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ok. I cannot see a reasonable excuse to use deadly force in this circumstance...How can you, as a police officer, get confused and think this kid represents a serious threat to your life?

Well at least the cop ordered him to stop before firing... Though, why lethal force is the go to NEXT measure in the escalation of force measures in this police officer's head is beyond me. Especially for a naked teenager. If the teenager happens to attack him, is the cop afraid his nakedness will rub up against him or something? Sheesh, overpowering a teenager shouldn't exactly be cause for the use of a gun.

You come out swinging, editorializing that there was no "reasonable" need for deadly force, you belittle the cop and his decision by pretending he was scared of the nudity, you repeatedly point out that the suspect is a teenager (which means nothing in this modern day, where 15-year-olds look like they're about to graduate college), and you assume/imply that there is no way that this kid could be a serious threat to the LEO's life.

All of that within your OP. Can you see why I come out swinging so hard on behalf of other possibilities and waiting for more evidence? As long as you can see my logic behind my stance, then we're good, as I don't expect you to conform to any specific opinion at this point because we don't seem to know enough about it. I just want you to understand the reasoning behind how the use of deadly force could have been an appropriate measure. If I haven't argued my case by now, I'm not sure it'll get through.

And in the same spirit of your comment to me, I hope that you understand that if the evidence comes out and the cop was shown to be in the absolute wrong, I can get on board with that, too.

so one: someone mentions PCP is all it took for people to start assuming drugs were involved, then the next couple of pages he WAS on pcp and probably had super human syrength;because thats the side effects of pcp...

so it shows the power of presumption; that cop did what most did in the first few pages. surmised drugs were in the kids system and convinced himself that it was so, therefor superhuman strenght,therefor danger, and killed the naked, confused,scared and ill young 17 yr old who possibly had a mental illness or breakdown or didn't know how to cope with an issue.

serve and protect means serving and protecting, even those with mental illness or drug abuse ilness as it is a form of illness.
i cant wait for the day an irrational LEO tries to take my life because he,just himself, 'felt' threatened. it will be one of our last mistakes... and i plan on dying from a horrific skiing accident