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

Originally posted by DaMod
The disturbing part is afterward they let him just bleed out and die.. They didn't help him.. They just applied some crowd control until this young man bled to death.

Actually he died later that night in the hospital.

Originally posted by DaMod
I'm sorry but there is no justification in just letting someone bleed out all over the road when I know for a fact police officers are certified in first aid and would have had the know how to even attempt to save this man's life..

First aid is band-aids and peroxide. Even First Responder training does not really cover sucking chest wounds. This guy needed a full med kit for effective treatment on scene which officers do not carry on their person. While personally I would have attempted to staunch bleeding and think that taking no action to secure the suspect and provide rudimentary treatment of his wounds is way off base I understand the reasons for not doing so- namely they thought he was still armed and still presented a danger to them and others.

Originally posted by DaMod
Why would they want him to die?

Not so much they wanted him to die but they wanted to ensure the suspect didn't start cranking off more rounds while a crowd was encircling them.

19-year-old man, who was believed to have been carrying a gun, was shot and collapsed on the sidewalk, police said. A police spokesman said the shooting began after two uniformed officers conducted a fair inspection on a Muni light rail vehicle. They detained the man on the platform, but he fled on foot.

what i don't get is even if he had a gun the police would've found it when they detained him on the platform so even if he did run deadly force wouldn't be necessary unless he's like some crazy ass hand to hand combat dude. But before that, he was detained on the platform because they were doing a fair search on the rail. if they didn't find a gun then why was he detained. Even crazier than that lets say this dude detained (handcuffs or something weren't involved?) got away from two cops, he was face down on the ground so he couldn't have been shooting back. but let's say he was. We're not in the middle of kansas somewhere they were in San Francisco!!!! they were surrounded by people. No one else saw or heard the man shooting his gun back. But i don't know, random # happens everyday. we weren't there so we don't know. but from the outside looking in...

regardless of what happened one of our brothers was taken from us R.I.P.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

People carry guns illegally in CALIFORNIA because they cant carry them legally. It is next to impossible to get a concealed weapon license.
And since when do cops check people for their Bus or Rail tickets....thats insane.

reply to post by vlady95

Why Not ??? I carry everywhere, except where it is illegal. I do have a concealed carry license, but in CA you cant get one.

reply to post by lifeform11


Starred

My point exactly since page 1

reply to post by FrankieNinja


I put forth that firing a weapon wildly in response to questions about fare jumping on a busy street in the middle of the day is an act of cowardice. Given his history of violence and the warrant out for his arrest in the murder of a pregnant teenager and her unborn child I'd say cowardice is pretty much an accurate description of his overallpersonality.

This convicted rapist, suspected double murderer and parolee made his choice and paid for it.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

FerrisBueller -

The gun, which was not found immediately after the 5 p.m. shooting in the city's Bayview District, was believed to have been taken from the ground as officers tended to the suspect, said police Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

That doesn't make much sense, that they found it later. If there was a gun, would it not have served everyone better to show it at the scene and incident? Unless they found it somewhere other than on the guy.

edit on 17-7-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

Someone could've picked it up and tried to frame the cops. Not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility among others.

f#ck the police bunch of lying turds their word is worthless! they allways say they were defending themselves even when their caught on film then they change the story to an accident. i dont believe them i believe the person shot is innocent untill proven guilty.

why leave the guy to bleed out??? if hes such a threat why do some of the cops have their back to him? even a jr high school kid knows the first 5 mins of a bleeding wound are the most important time to try and prevent/slow bloodloss. by the time an ambualnce gets to the scene its too late even if they can save the meat carcass the brain will be too damaged from lack of blood/oxygen. even if the guy was comepletly guilty of everything they say and the shooting was more than justified(possible i just assume citizens are innocent till convicted) isnt it their job to help with first aid? do we pay to train them in first aid? pay for a first aid kit in every cruiser? supose a very dangerous violent suspect needs emergency medical care shouldnt the cops be first in to make sure the emts arent in any danger? so any way before a bunch of people who dont read the constitution chime in with guilty criminal justified b.s.

why leave the guy to bleed out? welcome to amerika.

Originally posted by destinedcat

19-year-old man, who was believed to have been carrying a gun, was shot and collapsed on the sidewalk, police said. A police spokesman said the shooting began after two uniformed officers conducted a fair inspection on a Muni light rail vehicle. They detained the man on the platform, but he fled on foot.

what i don't get is even if he had a gun the police would've found it when they detained him on the platform so even if he did run deadly force wouldn't be necessary unless he's like some crazy ass hand to hand combat dude. But before that, he was detained on the platform because they were doing a fair search on the rail. if they didn't find a gun then why was he detained. Even crazier than that lets say this dude detained (handcuffs or something weren't involved?) got away from two cops, he was face down on the ground so he couldn't have been shooting back. but let's say he was. We're not in the middle of kansas somewhere they were in San Francisco!!!! they were surrounded by people. No one else saw or heard the man shooting his gun back. But i don't know, random # happens everyday. we weren't there so we don't know. but from the outside looking in...

regardless of what happened one of our brothers was taken from us R.I.P.

He was not in a custodial detention. He was being asked about fare jumping. As such he was not in handcuffs.

Since they did not have control of his person during the field interview he ran rather than face his murder warrant for the killing of the pregnant teenage girl and her unborn son and the shooting of three others while out on parole for rape. On top of all that he shot at the police with a handgun carried in violation of State and federal law (I refuse to use a capital F when referring to the FedGod) due to his parolee status as well as prior felony conviction for rape. Oh yeah- just by being in Cali he was in violation of his parole.

Witnesses have stated that he shot at the police, more than once. Many witnesses.

As for him resting in peace- my sympathies lie with the family of the murdered girl and her child and with the victim of his rape and her family.

Not saying what's right. but if you shoot back, expect you be shot back.

Originally posted by OneEleven

Originally posted by dubiousone

I do not agree that it was the right thing for them to do. I condemn it. It is wrong for them to do that in a civilized society where the policy is, or at least was, to treat even the worst miscreants as redeemable human souls.

If you believe for one second that the Bayview area of San Francisco, or it's equivalent is a 'civilized society', you're sorely mistaken, once again. "Supposed to Be" is not the same as "IS". Until you go on safari, you have no idea what kind of animals roam the park.

Once again, your total lack of understanding leads me to believe one of two scenarios.

1. You live a sheltered life in an area which these things do not occur, therefor seem completely foreign to you, which is GREAT, but gives you no say so in such matters. I wouldn't argue with an Aboriginal on which herbs to eat in the bush.

2. You're an idiot.

I'm leaning towards #1. I'd hate to think i was arguing with a complete dud, which would only bring me down to that level. I'd much rather picture you as a "just dosn't know any better".

Either way, further correspondence (with you) is unwarranted.

I'm leaning toward # 2 with respect to you, coupled with an irredeemable degree of arrogance and naivete'.

Originally posted by famalhut

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist

FerrisBueller -

The gun, which was not found immediately after the 5 p.m. shooting in the city's Bayview District, was believed to have been taken from the ground as officers tended to the suspect, said police Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

That doesn't make much sense, that they found it later. If there was a gun, would it not have served everyone better to show it at the scene and incident? Unless they found it somewhere other than on the guy.

edit on 17-7-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

Someone could've picked it up and tried to frame the cops. Not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility among others.

edit on 18-7-2011 by famalhut because: typo

The bystanders found the weapon about 20-25 feet from the suspects person.

I am sure they didn't snatch it to frame the police but rather to keep or resell later. Damn things are expensive when bought outside normal gun shops. Easily over retail. I've seen stolen Glocks sell for 700-800 bucks when you can buy them all day long legally for 350 and POS Jennings/Bryco/Ravens which sell for 60 bucks sell for 400.

Plus the guy who snagged it figured the suspect didn't have a use for it anymore and given what has been said about this neighborhood the guy might not have even been a criminal but a normal citizen stripped by the government of the most effective tool to protect himself from guys like the suspect. Whichever way it went- I understand and sympathize with whoever picked it up.

Unfortunately the new standard in law enforcement is to "neutrilize" the target then do as this video shows. In my own personal experience in law enforcement beginning back when the brave men & women started getting out of military service after Desert Shield/Storm and up to the present, law enforcement agencys have sought out and recruited those who have combat experience. This was the change in patterning of the new law enforcement professional (not my words there) to the current shoot now and ask questions later mentality. Not withstanding all of the issues with low light target recognition, weapon use and so on type issues law enforcement face. But in today's younger Monster drink gulping tactical styled law enforcement community many go for the kill shot and worry about the rest of the story afterwards.

This change in law enforcement worried me greatly at the time during my tenure as training supervisor and I made my concerns known at the time. I recognized the shift from "public service" towards tactical operations within many agencys I help to train as their personnel were in my opinion, too gung ho to get in the mix and action demonstrated by their very attitudes towards their weapon(s) and their talk at the time. I know of several who are no longer in law enforcement as a direct result of their mistakes made while on duty within their "tactical ted attitude". Unfortunately this attitude is prevelant in many agencys nowadays. And it does not serve the citizens very well. Especially when an Officer should know how and when to retreat in order not to take an innocent life just as he or she should know within the same degree of certainty when to take a life within that very same degree of certainty.

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
SF police recover gun after police shooting

(07-17) 17:44 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

A gun believed to have been used by a suspect who was fatally shot by San Francisco police officers Saturday has been recovered by investigators, police said Sunday.

The gun, which was not found immediately after the 5 p.m. shooting in the city's Bayview District, was believed to have been taken from the ground as officers tended to the suspect, said police Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

Investigators were able to find the gun after a member of the public provided video taken after the shooting, said Andraychak.

"I do not know the source, but it does appear to have been taken in the moments after the incident," said Andraychak.

In reference to what this article says... pics or it didn't happen

reply to post by Humint1


I agree with 90% of what you said.

Police work has gone from peace officer to law enforcement. That is the troubling thing but I do not think it applies here.

If someone is willing to start emptying a mag in the middle of the day on city streets that person needs to be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible to avoid serious physical injury and/or death to the residents who are just trying to get through life. If you were referring to Pima Country and their raid on Mr. Guerera then I'd have agreed wholeheartedly and without any reservation whatsoever.

Other than that one point...

Originally posted by N3k9Ni

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
SF police recover gun after police shooting

(07-17) 17:44 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

A gun believed to have been used by a suspect who was fatally shot by San Francisco police officers Saturday has been recovered by investigators, police said Sunday.

The gun, which was not found immediately after the 5 p.m. shooting in the city's Bayview District, was believed to have been taken from the ground as officers tended to the suspect, said police Sgt. Michael Andraychak.

Investigators were able to find the gun after a member of the public provided video taken after the shooting, said Andraychak.

"I do not know the source, but it does appear to have been taken in the moments after the incident," said Andraychak.

In reference to what this article says... pics or it didn't happen

There's video- so it did happen. Check page 4 or page 13-14.

If I was a cop and someone shot at me, I'd shoot him regardless of if he was still shooting or not. So if he took a shot and then ran, I'd definitely shoot him in the back until he went down.

I've had a gun pointed at me during a robbery and honestly, I don't know how cops can still think when that happens. I couldn't think straight for 5 minutes after I was so hopped up on adrenaline.

If this guy took a shot and he was such a bad guy, it sounds like it's a good thing he's off the streets.

I will never believe that the guy shot were a good boy,

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
The boy was shot in the back.

Which is still in compliance with the Tennesse Vs. Gardner ruling. Law Enforcement as a rule of thumb is not allowed to shoot at a fleeing felon - UNLESS they can articulate the person is an imminent danger to the public at large, and in this case, he was by cirture of his actions by discharging a firearm in public at the police.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
Also, I am appalled at how people are already convicting him of murder elsewhere, without knowing ANYTHING about THAT case. MAYBE it was mistaken identity, MAYBE it was a false accusation against him. MAYBE HE REALLY WAS GUILTY.

While I understand the irritation towards the 100 meter rush to judgement, excluding all other 3rd case info, its a fact the person shot at the police. A casing was found that does not belong to the police, and 4rd party video shows a gun on the ground that is then picked up by a 3rd party and walking away with it.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
If I were a betting man, I would be compelled to believe that this kid definitely was a bad apple. BUT I DONT KNOW THAT. I DONT KNOW THE FACTS I DONT KNOW THE STORY AND I DIDNT SEE HIM DO ANYTHING.

The phrase you are looking for to view the situation is called totality of circumstances. All of the othr information coming out about this kid does play a part in what occured, but not by law enforcement.

The kids actions, fleeing police when detained for not paying a 2dollar fee, lends credence to the possibility this kid knew he was wanted in the questioning of the dead female and unborn child. He was out on parole, which is a known fact again to the kid. A person who is on PnP, when contact is made with law enforcement, that contact is reported back to the PnP officer through whats called a PnP hit.

The officer who has contact is required to give a PnP response over the radio to dispatch which detailes the reason for the encounter, and a any action taken. It is then up to the person on PnP to also report to the PnP officer his reason for contact.

The kid was in possession of a firearm, which again is a violation of PnP. In addition to new charges for being in possession as a felon, he can go bakc to jail for the entire term of his origional sentence.

Gee, I wonder why this kid fled?

Not paying the toll to ride - Infraction - However, being on PnP its considered theft.
Fleeing the police - Misdemeanor
Being in possession of a firearm - Felony 5 year mandatory minimum
Shooting at police - Felony

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
I DO KNOW, that I am right at that spot EVERY DAY, MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY. Shooting anyone, especially a 19 year old... INTHE BACK as was widely witnessed.... is an act of COWARDICE!

Not at all. I reer you back to the law and Supreme Court decision.

I would actually say that the coward is the kid. He is the one who fled, he is the one who sot at the cops.

The kid is the one who set this chain of events into motion, not the police.

Mayde if the kid was responsible enough to take care of the issues, instead of running from them, it would not have occured.

The other cowards are the 32rd parties present yelling at the cops, demanding to know where the kids gun in. A 3rd party picked the gun up and left the scene with it. Cowards, every single one of those 3rd parties, for not only allowing it to happen, but also for not comeing forward to say someone in the crowd stile the weapon.

Which by the way is evidence tampering - A felony in this case.

I would also go so far as to say you are showing your cowardice as well, for giving into public opinion instead of standing up for what is right, regardless of how wrong people think it might be.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
But this lynch mob mentality that is rearing its ugly face is FAR more menacing than ANYTHING this kid did. I hope all you hate mongers are proud of yourself. We may never know if he really was guilty or not because he was denied due process...

Actually he was not - Again I refer you back to federal law in this regards. Secondly, if you are going to point fingers at people, then make sure you point it at the kid for starting the chain of events, the kidfor running from the cops, the kid for being in possession of a firearm, the kid for discharging that weapn not only at the police, but discharging it in public without due regard for anyone near him.

Make sure you blame the crowd for watching a 3rd party pick up the gun and leave the scene with it.
Make sure you blame the person who picked the evidence up and left wiht it.
Make sure oyu blame the crowd for not telling law enforcement that someone stile the gun.

And finally, when you are done pointing at all of those people, take a gander and notice that while your one finger is pointing at everyone else, you have 3 more finger on your hand poiinting directly back at you.

You are in here trying to give a defence to the actions of this kid, while condemning everyone who disagrees with you or sides with the police.

You are doing to the police, the exact same thing you accuse them of doing to this kid.

Hypocrisy and ignorance at its finest. Congrats

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
You know... that little thing mentioned as a constitutional right? HA! Whats the constitution amongst animals...

And your constitutional rights END the moment they interfere with the rights of others.
Contrary to popular belief, police do NOT have to wait to be shot at before discharging a firearm.

However, based on your argument to date, You have absolutely no idea how the Constitution works, how Constitutional rights work, or state and local law work, and how all of that impacts a persons actions and response from the police.

Maybe you should take some time to learn how these things work before yelling they were vioated.

Just a suggestion.

double post

reply to post by SFA437

If someone is willing to start emptying a mag in the middle of the day on city streets that person needs to be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible to avoid serious physical injury and/or death to the residents who are just trying to get through life.

I could not agree with you more about that fact.

But to see the law enforcement types today fail to respond to the needs of their victim, regardless if the shooting was warranted, is evidence of training failures on a epic scale. Not to mention that one must question their basic humanity as well.