Unedited and graphic video of bus Police shooting

Just came across this shooting that was going around last year but the original video never showed what happened. This one does and may be graphic for some. Shows the perp taking 3+ shots to the face/head at point blank. Plus a few before that. I think there was some controversy about the guy being unarmed. Anyway here it is.

www.youtube.com...

It would seem that the female officer underestimated the threat potential, and that error of judgement allowed the perpetrator to make an attempt to take the the weapon. I will not be alone in thinking that this was an instance of gross negligence. The officer is lucky to still be alive and many more people were needlessly put at risk due to incompetence.

She came damn close to shooting the bus driver.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
It would seem that the female officer underestimated the threat potential, and that error of judgement allowed the perpetrator to make an attempt to take the the weapon. I will not be alone in thinking that this was an instance of gross negligence. The officer is lucky to still be alive and many more people were needlessly put a risk due to incompetence.

Yea I agree. That got out of hand the second it started.

She is damn lucky her partner was there. I don't think she would be alive had he not been right there, and as sloppy as it might seem, he didn't hesitate to get in there and put his pistol to the suspects head. Which can be hard to do in the middle of a scuffle with a lunatic.

It was very fortunate there was a second officer on-scene. The female officer most likely would have lost physically and the perp would have then been armed with a firearm.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Completely agreed.
She chased the perp with her firearm drawn around the blind corner.
Because he initially ran away, she must have thought that the bad dude was going to try to flee, perhaps to the back of the bus...Not close the distance on that firearm and try to disarm her.

She is very lucky that her partner was there or there would have been at least one dead officer.
Poor bus driver almost got taken out by the cop also

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

She endangered everyone on the bus by rushing into the closely confined quarters of the interior of the bus.

The fight began with her decision to jump into the bus after him. She should have stayed outside (the bus is surrounded) and directed the driver to exit, then began talking to the suspect who was clearly unarmed (he grabbed a fire extinguisher earlier).

Anyway, one bullet riddled body in the morgue and three others nearly also injured or even killed.

Reckless endangerment on the police woman's part.

I cannot watch such videos. However, from the description it sounds like another poorly trained American police(wo)man carrying out an extrajudicial execution.

If this happened in the UK the government would fall. Indeed, in the rare event that a police officer uses a weapon there's always and independent investigation.

Before I am flamed, I know the US is a violent society and the police often shoot first because the other person may have a bazooka in their jacket, but they need to be less Spaghetti Western about it. More conversational. Use a bit of character and wit, instead of murdering people.

Also, my experience with the US police has been good on the two occasions I have been in contact on my travels to the US.

a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

Diversity in action.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

Diversity in action.

because of people with thoughts like this, it needed to be lowered, the irony...

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

Diversity in action.

because of people with thoughts like this, it needed to be lowered, the irony...

The actual irony there is your discriminatory remarks against police officers with low I.Q.s. That is not an inclusive viewpoint.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

Diversity in action.

because of people with thoughts like this, it needed to be lowered, the irony...

The actual irony there is your discriminatory remarks against police officers with low I.Q.s. That is not an inclusive viewpoint.

not a discriminatory remark, as it is a true law passed, and see the states and rural regions where it was enacted first.

you should read your remark and read the definition of 'discriminatory' then try to re-rationalize your 'remark'

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: paraphi

the U.S. minimum I.Q. requirement is 60 (down from 90).

all you have to be capable to do to be a cop here, is breathe and walk simultaneously.

Diversity in action.

because of people with thoughts like this, it needed to be lowered, the irony...

The actual irony there is your discriminatory remarks against police officers with low I.Q.s. That is not an inclusive viewpoint.

not a discriminatory remark, as it is a true law passed, and see the states and rural regions where it was enacted first.

you should read your remark and read the definition of 'discriminatory' then try to re-rationalize your 'remark'

Enshrining a principle in law does not make it non-discriminatory.

One less scumbag, women to desk duty, metal for male officer, next!