San Francisco Police Shoot and Kill Teenager over $2 bus fare GRAPHIC VIDEO

Originally posted by dubiousone

There is no question but that these cops conduct in allowing that man to lie on the ground unattended for two or more minutes after they shot him, regardless of his past and any outstanding warrants, and regardless of what he did before he was shot, appears on its face to be outrageous police misconduct.

By letting him lie on the ground unattended while he bleeds to death was an execution. I don't know how else you could describe it. Not only did the four or so cops on the scene fail to attend to him, they prevented everyone else from getting close.

edit on 7/18/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification

You clearly have little to no understanding of the criminal mentality, and by association, police protocol....

Was the suspect unarmed as he lay there?...How would you know?

The police clearly didn't see him dispose of the weapon, so the safe assumption would be that the suspect is indeed armed and extremely dangerous. Why would they let the general public, who may or may not be affiliated with the suspect anywhere near him? In what way could they assist the injured man? Help him escape? Lend him a weapon? Remove evidence?

Please, from your sheltered position, observe and absorb, but please do not comment on things that you do not understand....

reply to post by thereisnotruth

Question posed to ATS members on this thread; what would you have done if you were a cop, received a call about a fair jumper (big deal, give me a moment to finish my donut, tell my wife I love her on the phone and start the squad car, I will be there) and suddenly found yourself under fire from an armed gunman?

If they'll taze an old lady during a traffic stop to keep her from wandering into the road why can't they taze this kid shooting at them? And a shot to the legs would drop the guy. A shot to the hand or arm would make him drop the gun. Non-lethal bullets. I don't know if this particular guy is even defensible, but overall cops are insane lately and putting citizens more in danger from them - than they are protecting them.

Given the lack of solid evidence, Im going with what on the witnesses said they saw.

In one the of the vids theres a plump black lady who is clearly distressed and pissed asking the cops

"Why you gun him? Why you gun him?"

She said "I seen it, I seen it, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 they shot him, I seen the sparks"

Then a white lady on the phone telling someone "They shot him 5 times, why shoot him 5 times?!"

They seemed to have witnessed all of it, the black lady did anyway, and at no point does she mention the victim shooting a fire arm. Im sure she would have been gratefull to the police if infact the victim was shooting recklessly.

ETA: I dont think cops should ever have guns, most of them in the US seem to get trigger happy.

Ban guns simples.

I know Americans pro gun arguments are "But if the gov ever does anything bad...."...or...."If I encounter a baddy with a gun at least ill have my own..."

Its a vicious cycle, if your paranoid about your government, get them out of power, if your worried about others being armed and your not...take them ALL away.

I dunno what happened to common sense.

IMO so please dont harrass me with pro gun lectures.

Link: SFPD: Gun Recovered Hours After Police Shooting

“Due to the cooperation of the community, independent witnesses, and the incredible teamwork of the Bayview officers and the gang task force, we recovered the weapon at 10:30 last night,” Suhr said. “God bless the Bayview community members who had the courage to come forward and pretty much tell us the entire story.”

Well, they have witnesses that say the guy did have a gun.

Angered by the recent eruption of violence in the Bayview neighborhood, activists called for the formation of a civilian review board and an FBI investigation following Saturday's officer-involved shooting in the Bayview District.

Let us see what happens.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SFA437

 

Running from police is not necessarily an admission of guilt like you said. Conducting a block long gun battle with them, firing numerous shots on a city street in the daytime while you run is.

I did not want to see a teen getting shot by Police and so another poster here is right.
I didn't watch the video and see that the kid was shooting at Police. That is suicide and even I know that.

This does not supersede the fact Cops are over worked underpaid, improperly trained and so stressed out lately they seem on an anti-citizen rampage where lots of citizens are winding up dead or in jail thanks to simple and unadulterated....OVERKILL.

Whether or not you saw it does not change multiple witness statements along his line of flight that said he shot multiple times at the officers. Shooting someone who is spraying rounds down a street while fleeing is not overkill- that is just common sense. Also you did not see the police shoot the suspect on the video but that does not mean it did not happen. Things do occur in the world without being recorded

As for the second part of your posting I agree. No national training standards, substandard training, a shift from peace officer to "law enforcement", militarization of the police, the decay of society, thug & gangsta culture becoming the norm, an us versus them attitude on both side of the issue ... this all leads to bad things happening although the fault isn't as one sided as you seem to be saying in your post.

reply to post by newcovenant


At this moment in time, tazers are illegal to use in San Francisco, as voted by our taxpayers. And really, to hit a moving target from about 35-50 yards that is less than 6 inches wide...dude, you must be a bada** with a gun. I couldn't hit the side of a barn from 20 feet away.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by thereisnotruth

 

If they'll taze an old lady during a traffic stop to keep her from wandering into the road why can't they taze this kid shooting at them? And a shot to the legs would drop the guy. A shot to the hand or arm would make him drop the gun. Non-lethal bullets. I don't know if this particular guy is even defensible, but overall cops are insane lately and putting citizens more in danger from them - than they are protecting them.

Wow- OK I am going to assume you are serious...

One does not use anything other than deadly force to repel deadly force. A Taser is designed to come before hard hand strikes and batons. It also sometimes comes before OC but use of OC precludes any Taser use as the electrical discharge can ignite the alcohol based OC propellant.

Non-lethal bullets do not exist.

When utilizing a firearm to stop a threat one does not shoot for legs. First off shooting someone in the leg does not mean non-fatal wound. Shooting someone in the leg has a strong possibility of severing the femoral artery causing exsanguination and death in minutes. If you think that someone can shoot a gun out of someone's hand while running at full speed- you've watched WAY too many movies and have confused fantasy with reality. A firearm is used to shoot center of mass if one is engaged in a deadly force incident. The firearm is fired center of mass until the suspect's actions that created the deadly force incident stops.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by dubiousone
There is no question but that these cops conduct in allowing that man to lie on the ground unattended for two or more minutes after they shot him, regardless of his past and any outstanding warrants, and regardless of what he did before he was shot, appears on its face to be outrageous police misconduct.

Unless, of course, that's exactly what SFPD policy dictated.

By letting him lie on the ground unattended while he bleeds to death was an execution. I don't know how else you could describe it. Not only did the four or so cops on the scene fail to attend to him, they prevented everyone else from getting close.

edit on 7/18/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification

You mean letting other people get close who could destroy evidence? You set up a perimeter and attempt to preserve the crime scene.

Well, if it's police department policy to execute perps extra-judicially at the scene of the crime, then I suppose it's all A.O.K.! At least in your book.

What evidence was there to destroy other than this man's life? With four or more cops guarding the scene, no-one who provided aid would have been able to "destroy" or abscond with evidence.

Shooting somone, then failing to administer aid, and all the while preventing others from doing so or even attemnpting to do so, is an outrage. But, as you said, if that's police department policy, it's A.O.K.

I smell a lawsuit and huge damages or a settlement.

It may well be that the dead teenager was a "bad" person. But if that's something the cops first became aware of after they shot him and let him die, then it doesn't help their deflection of blame one iota.

God help anyone in San Francisco who fails to pay their $2.00 tranist fare after this incident!

Not sure if anyone added this yet as I did not have the patience to read the pissing match between page 1 and this one but....

Muni is a loose "honor system" in terms of how you pay for transportation services. For the trains, the only time you are required (unless they lock ALL the doors on a train and only open the one near the "driver") to pay is when you get on under market street. If you are in one of the outer areas from the downtown core, you can, in theory, jump on and off the trains without paying. SF has stepped up enforcement on its trains within the past year or so as so many people abuse the system and take the train for free as it is.

This guy probably hopped a train without paying, was about to be asked by the cops to prove payment and bailed, especially considering that they would have likely checked his name against their database or whatever and would have seen the warrant out for the incidents that took place in WA state.

Also, this neighborhood is considered one of the "bad" areas of the city, high in crime and murders compared to the rest of the city.

Do not want to justify what happened here as I do not yet have an opinion one way or the other... but also wanted to provide a little insight to the Muni system here in the city (that I do not use too often... who does when you have a motorcycle!!).

Originally posted by OneEleven

Originally posted by dubiousone

There is no question but that these cops conduct in allowing that man to lie on the ground unattended for two or more minutes after they shot him, regardless of his past and any outstanding warrants, and regardless of what he did before he was shot, appears on its face to be outrageous police misconduct.

By letting him lie on the ground unattended while he bleeds to death was an execution. I don't know how else you could describe it. Not only did the four or so cops on the scene fail to attend to him, they prevented everyone else from getting close.

edit on 7/18/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification

You clearly have little to no understanding of the criminal mentality, and by association, police protocol....

Was the suspect unarmed as he lay there?...How would you know?

The police clearly didn't see him dispose of the weapon, so the safe assumption would be that the suspect is indeed armed and extremely dangerous. Why would they let the general public, who may or may not be affiliated with the suspect anywhere near him? In what way could they assist the injured man? Help him escape? Lend him a weapon? Remove evidence?

Please, from your sheltered position, observe and absorb, but please do not comment on things that you do not understand....

What was he suspected of doing? Failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare? Is that an arrestable offense or an infraction? Is it a capital offense?

In what way would they assist a man who has just been shot five times by the police? Gee. Maybe you can tell us since you have all the flippant answers.

Was the dying teenager reaching for a weapon as he lay on the ground bleeding to death? There is no indication that he was. Turns out he didn't have a weapon on his person at all. Even if he did there's no indication that he could have, would have, or in any manner tried to brandish one as he lay on the ground bleeding to death.

My sheltered position? What are you, my next door neighbor? Do you know my life story? Go ahead, from your sheltered position in your fortified basement at your computer keyboard, keep on protecting all the pussy cops who can't run a block without wheezing and who need to use their guns to enforce a $2.00 transit fare.

This post is not intended as an insult to real cops who can properly assess a situation and perform their duty to not only apprehend but to also attend to a suspect whom they've just injurred, potentially fatally. My hats off and deepest respect to you and your kind.

If you risk committing a crime, you better be aware of the consequences including death by cop. Just because you rob someone for a few dollars and you're not carrying a gun, doesn't mean there's not a chance the victim, a bystander or a cop, may beat the living crap out of you or possibly use deadly force. You crossed the line when you decided to commit the crime. Carrying a weapon in the act of a crime increases that risk two-fold.

Whether or not the cop used unnecessary force is for a judge and jury to decide. The video just doesn't tell the entire unfolding story.

Death is a horrible thing, no doubt. There is always family and friends to consider. We all, however, must remember that there are ALWAYS consequences for our actions. Most of us have a split second flash of thought when doing something, a sense of is this right or wrong. Yet once that road has been taken, we all know that effect of that decision is concrete. If you choose break the law, no matter what that law may be, you must be prepared for the outcome. Death is the extreme to all things, usually not the wanted outcome (unless its premeditated), but a possible outcome non the less. When that person CHOSE to run and shoot (make no mistake, as adults we all make a choice to act as a natural thought process) I'm sure he did not think the outcome would be his demise, but should have at least crossed his mind. We must all live with, or die by, the choices we make. It's unfortunate that he made so many bad ones in a short space of time. You poke a bear with a stick and the bear attacks. Do you fault the bear for attacking or the man who poked him.

reply to post by DJLateralus


Shell casing found that does not belong to the police.

The guy, iuf he had a gun and discharged a round at the police, was NOT shot and killed because of not having a 2 dollar bus fair.

He was shot and killed for shooting at the police.

Mob mentality aside, and senstaional headlines aside (since the obviously opinionated OP article links back to the media site that had a completely different headline - SFPD Shoot, Kill Alleged Armed Man In Bayview), in this case lets see what coems from the investigation.

EDIT to ADD: - Cell phone footage linked on the media site shows a person picking up the gun as well as something else, and walks away with it.

If the guy had a gun and discharged rounds at the police, then he sealed his own fate.

Originally posted by thereisnotruth
reply to post by newcovenant

 

to hit a moving target from about 35-50 yards that is less than 6 inches wide...dude, you must be a bada** with a gun. I couldn't hit the side of a barn from 20 feet away.

Which means relatively speaking...
unless this was a sharpshooter
the cops did not act in self defense
but in retaliation.

reply to post by SFA437


Sorry guy. I am not "one with" the gun.
Rubber bullets is a generic term for non lethal.
They exist...Let's say "kinetic impact munitions"
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dubiousone


What was he suspected of doing? Failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare? Is that an arrestable offense or an infraction? Is it a capital offense?

Not paying a feee to ride - An infraction..

Running form the police after being detained - Misdemeanor.

Shooting at police while fleeing - Felony that opens the door for the use of deadly force in return.

Some other ifno to think about. In addition to shooting at the officers, the officers themselves must also take into account what this person could do if a civilian comes within range of this guy.

In addition to officer self defense, Supreme Court has ruled we can take into account if the person poses and immediate danger tot he public as a whole, and in this case, he met that criteria.

Video on the actual news site shows a gun on the ground being picked up by someone in the crowd and walking away.

Shell casing was found that did not belong to the police.

Funny how that works...

Why is it impossible for poeople to get all the info before making a decision?

I don't see how anyone can watch the video and jump to so many assumptions and judgements really. It seems many people make up their minds without really knowing any of the facts.

Originally posted by Balkan
I don't see how anyone can watch the video and jump to so many assumptions and judgements really. It seems many people make up their minds without really knowing any of the facts.

As I pointed out the op site has a link to the San Franciso news site that carried the story. On that site they have video that shows a gun on the ground being picked up by someone and walking off.
San Fran news site with additional video showing gun.

You can not tell much from this video.

And yes both parties will lie and cover up what actually happened or make it seem it to be in there favor. I know cops will lie, and the thugs are definitely not the most saintliest of peoples. I have seen some of them stab each-other over $20.00 and some drugs personally, and all kinds of other stuff. And if given the chance they will rob and leave you in a ditch.

I think in most of these kinds of cases the truth of the matter is not clear but a messy puddle that is muddied by both and all parties involved. To believe that there is a clear cut out story is folly. So from that vid you can't tell what happened at all, only the end conclusion of what happened.

So sorry op that vid is evidence on nothing. It just raises more questions, of which I am sure everybody will have different answers to those questions.

Why shoot 5 times? Because police only shoot when deadly force is deemed necessary, and you shoot for the largest target.. i.e. the torso.. and you shoot until the target is no longer a threat. While they may not use the term "shoot to kill," that's what they are doing. If there was a gun (or even a knife), that's plenty enough reason to shoot.

It's amazing how fast everyone jumps on the "cops are evil pigs" bandwagon, when all the details are not even known. So.. if this guy actually did murder a pregnant girl.. it will have been ok then? Or would you still defend the kid with the gun?

Originally posted by dubiousone

What was he suspected of doing? Failing to pay a $2.00 transit fare? Is that an arrestable offense or an infraction? Is it a capital offense?

Firing at police and endangering innocent civilians....have you read even ONE article pertaining to this event?

Originally posted by dubiousone
Was the dying teenager reaching for a weapon as he lay on the ground bleeding to death? There is no indication that he was.

At the time, there was no indication that he WASN'T. After shooting at police in broad daylight without the concern of innocent lives at risk, it would be safer, and is PROTOCOL to assume that he WAS.

Originally posted by dubiousone

Turns out he didn't have a weapon on his person at all. Even if he did there's no indication that he could have, would have, or in any manner tried to brandish one as he lay on the ground bleeding to death.

Turns out he was a wanted murderer....You really havn't read a single article have you?....And once again, an injured felon considered armed and dangerous is still a felon, considered armed and dangerous.

Originally posted by dubiousone

My sheltered position? What are you, my next door neighbor? Do you know my life story? Go ahead, from your sheltered position in your fortified basement at your computer keyboard, keep on protecting all the pussy cops who can't run a block without wheezing and who need to use their guns to enforce a $2.00 transit fare.

I wish i could afford to be your next door neighbor, but unfortunately i live in an area where i see this sort of thing on a weekly basis...I don't need to know your life story...you've laid your lack of understanding out for all of us to see, and once again, bringing up the 2.00 transit fare, have shown your reluctance to read a single article pertaining to these events....how can you argue one way or the other without knowing what you're talking about?