Body cam released in fatal shooting of Patrick Harmon by Salt Lake City Police Department

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: notsure1
obviously the guns wins as proof in the op video. They even have that saying dont bring a knife to a gun fight for a reason.

You're assuming that he had the knife. I see no proof of that as of yet.

You're also assuming that long-held clichés are valid just because they exist. If the victim would have actually immediately turn and attacked the officer with a knife, the ending most likely would have been extremely different. It was the victim's hesitation that both made him lose his life and protected the officer from injury or death himself.

Again, that assumes that knife was even present--I haven't read any further to see if this has been proven.

That the MO.. Blame the victim for being shot in the back. sigh....lol

originally posted by: intrptr
The video shows him trying to run away. The act of deciding, then drawing and discharging his service sidearm because the 'subject' was fleeing is all to clear.

What knife, is right.

Of course you draw a weapon of you're chasing someone with warrants--why wouldn't you? If they're desperate enough to run, they're often times desperate enough to do other things.

Haven't had to train on drawing a pistol from a holster and raising it in time to fire off the first round, especially when sprinting, have you? It's possible for some people to do that in time to fend off an unsuspected knife attack, but probably not for 99% of people and LEOs in this world.

I trained in the Israeli 'point and shoot' method, and I was able to draw, charge the firearm, and put three round into the chest of a target at 7 yards in just slightly over one second, but that was from a stand still and expecting to do it with the intent of doing it quickly.

This is not how most (if any) LEOs are trained to shoot, to my knowledge--at least none that I've spoken to about it in the past. Also, it wouldn't have helped much in this situation if the victim had continued with his attack.

You're putting too high of an expectation on the abilities of human beings if you think that all of that can be process and completed in the span of a split second.

And I never said, "What knife?," I said that I'd like to see an evidentiary photo of it--something official.

a reply to: notsure1

That the MO.. Jettison all logic and just react based on bias. sigh....lol

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well, there you go.

Thanks.

I think cops should just be allowed to shoot people for no reason whatsoever. Might as well just get that out in the open, so people know to duck and cover whenever they see one.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: notsure1

That the MO.. Jettison all logic and just react based on bias. sigh....lol

you are the one acting on bias.. I bet we cant find one cop shooting video on this site where you said the cop was guilty.

That is your bias always defend the cop even when they shoot someone in the back..

a reply to: notsure1

I bet we cant find one cop shooting video on this site where you said the cop was guilty.

Given your demonstrated inability to google, I'm sure you couldn't find much of anything.

even when they shoot someone in the back..

You do understand that there are times when it's perfectly legal to shoot somebody in the back? I mean obviously you don't, but still.

originally posted by: roadgravel

“Fox said that in ten years of law enforcement and two military deployments, it was the scariest situation he had ever been in,” according to the report.

Looks as though that seals the deal.

Cops should be able to shoot anyone, any time. It's sorta what they do now.

How many times have you been shot after you were stopped by police? I've been stopped many times and never once shot at. I've also never resisted or tried to run.

a reply to: Involutionist

The cop who killed the 15 year old is in prison for murder. Wasn't the other kid playing around with a pellet gun that didn't look like a pellet gun? Let someone aim one at you and we'll see how you react. Or perhaps an unloaded gun that you don't know is unloaded.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin



You do realize it is bigoted to paint a whole demographic with same brush, right? How the F# do you have the audacity to assume all black people possess the same mind-set, attitude and psychological make-up?

Clearly you don't understand what bigotry means. Misuse of that word, alone, speaks volumes about who and what you listen to.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: slider1982

I don't think anyone is arguing that the LEO set out to kill the guy or that the LEO is evil. But the fact that you agree that mistakes will be made shows that this should not be justified. When you make a mistake and someone ends up dead, you need to face the repercussions. The guy who ran made a mistake, he's dead. The cop made a mistake, and he won't even be suspended never mind fired and prosecuted.

How many innocent people will die if you start arresting cops for eliminating threats? You guys expect the police to let them go if the suspect turns to run.

"Eh, let em go, maybe we'll catch him again and hopefully he won't turn his back to us next time."

It doesn't work that way, and if we get to the point where it's like that then cops will be letting armed and dangerous criminals go for fear of being imprisoned for doing their job.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
Funny I've never ran from multiple stops by police and I'm still living.

Really makes you think.

So if someone runs they should die?

I never said such a thing.

But one sure fire way of making sure something doesn't happen is to follow instructions.

Man on a a bicycle, with a warrant, known to police. How far you think he was going to get?

They could have gone after him on foot, or let him go. "Sure fire", they will see him again.

Oh, never mind.

Case in point. Then we have a man who is armed and dangerous out in the public again, but this time he might kill someone.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: intrptr
Got away with it too. After all he was unarmed and fleeing , while black.

And this comment proves that you are armed...with a keyboard...and typing...while blinded by ideological biases.

The difference is that one of us is correct.

The report says that he had a knife--that makes him armed (although I would like an image of the knife for proof).

He fled, but then stopped and postured up for an apparent attack on the police officer. At that point, he was not fleeing.

His race is not an issue, unless you are blinded by ideological biases. If you notice at the start of the video, the officers are being absolutely respectful and polite to him.

Grow up.

It's too bad that I can't give you more than one star for this post... Agreed 1,000%

a reply to: LSU0408

Because there's no middle ground right? God forbid you chase them and work up a sweat. Just shoot the idiot. I'm wondering what his warrant was for, probably possession of pot.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
Funny I've never ran from multiple stops by police and I'm still living.

Really makes you think.

So if someone runs they should die?

I never said such a thing.

But one sure fire way of making sure something doesn't happen is to follow instructions.

Man on a a bicycle, with a warrant, known to police. How far you think he was going to get?

They could have gone after him on foot, or let him go. "Sure fire", they will see him again.

Oh, never mind.

Case in point. Then we have a man who is armed and dangerous out in the public again, but this time he might kill someone.

Shot because 'he might do something in the future'. He was shot because he ran, was running away when shot, three times in the back.

Fail

a reply to: intrptr

Well for clarity’s sake, he was actually shot in the side at least once.

And there’s that whole Supreme Court ruling about when you can shoot somebody running away. If we’re going to ignore that he turned towards the cops with a knife and all that, I mean.

a reply to: Night Star

I totally agree-3 shots and a taser-how can that be justified?

There's no doubt about US leos extending their powers for fear? Then why be a cop. These lazy decisions by cops are what are turning Americans against them. Cooler heads have got to start prevailing.

All lives matter including police lives but they chose to do this for a profession. Warrants for petty crimes should not involve deadly shootings. And this killing starts to look like the lazy way for untrained police to take care of the situation. That way they don't have to chase or to fight, even though they have strong tasers, to take someone who begging not to be arrested, into custody.

We need a total overhaul of the purpose of our leos. It starts maybe in small towns or from the top but maybe include our entire nation. This senseless, lazy killing for any offense must stop. I'm sick.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: majesticgent

And of course no charges for the cop for shooting a guy in the back. BLM has a point.

No they don't. For one, this is exceptionally rare. For another, they do it to white people far more without any of the fan fare. In fact we ONLY hear about it when it's a black dude. In as far as mass media "coverage" that is. Lastly, black men kill other black men at rates no other groups comes close to except white and we're 65% of the country. If Black lives matter, why are we being lectured on it by people who apparently have very little value in their own people's lives?

I think the fact that they do it to white people all the time means BLM has a point. The cops are never held responsible .

And I can show video after video of cops shooting white teens and being cleared of any wrongdoing. Just because BLM is a black group doesnt mean they dont have a point.

Then why not CLM? Civilian Lives Matter

We've seen firsthand that Black Lives Matter don't care about black lives unless they're shot by a cop or white person, so they really don't have a point to that moniker.

I do not like BLM. I hate the way they go about doing what they do..... But I think police killing people not just black people for nothing has got to stop. That is where I think they have a point.

I understand that, but they only protest for blacks that were shot by police. They don't mention a word if the victim is white, Asian, or Mexican.

Uh maybe they're busy enough with the hundreds of police killing black civilians each year to deal with the other hundreds?

Here's a thought - why don't YOU get off your butt and go protest against the police for killing the non-black civilians?

a reply to: majesticgent

He wasn't shot in the back, the criminal turned with the knife and took an aggressive posture. There is two body cams, watch them both.

Innocent people don't run away.