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

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

edit on 18-7-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

If I wasn't so concerned about our country right now, I might have brushed this incident off as, just another crime in the hood. But I am, and therefore, I won't. That said, I felt compelled to respond to this post. Following are my words, thoughts and sentiments.This reply is in no way meant or intended to be disrespectful to ATS or its readers. Nevertheless, I hope that people who read it, pause for thought and then act in wisdom. Frankie NInja

Well,

I must confess, you almost had me there. I was about to agree with you, until you started picking my argument apart. Even then, I read through because I want to grow intellectually.

The more I read your post, the more I realized that you speak an awful lot like an attorney. Which I am not.

BUT, lets begin..

You point out that: "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."

There are probably more shootings in the Bay View than from than any other part of The City. To imply it was the kids casing, is jumping to conclusions. It could belong to ANYONE as I'm pretty sure a few more showed up overnight. As far as the "gun on the ground" look again, what was picked up was a CELL PHONE and the police were looking for it because it may have information pertinent to the incident.

The "totality of the circumstance" is legal jargon that to the average Joe,to them it usually means "bend over" and as far as "All of the other information coming out about this kid does play a part in what occured, but not by law enforcement" I would argue that it WOULD have played a part... in court. With a jury of his peers.

"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."

OR

That he didn't want to get a $75 citation for fare evasion and since I was not in his mind, I have NO WAY to argue that as fact, or conjecture on YOUR part.

Out on parole and in violation? TRUE! but AFTER the fact. The fare inspectors or police whichever, did not know that and had no reason to look for that information. Only to verify FARE WAS PAID and if not, to cite the person.

"The kid was in possession of a firearm" - valid violation and I agree with you here.

"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 "

All so common in the Bay Area people don't even flinch anymore. Sadly I have to agree with you there.

The kid MOST DEFINITELY was a coward... no argument. And our STRONG COURAGEOUS, INTELLIGENT UPSTANDING PROTECTORS OF OUR COMMUNITY WERE WHAT? GENIUS? by letting him bleed out? Is that how you measure bravery?


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

Let me be clear... I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS KID. The preponderance of post mortum evidence points to a troubled youth who had a lot to ANSWER FOR. Someone who had had more than a few run ins with the law and was more of a burden to society than an asset. That said, we are not arguing what he may or may not have done in Seattle or elsewhere for that matter. We are arguing the events that occurred at that plaza on 3rd street and Palou in SAN FRANCISCO, NOT SEATTLE, yesterday.

"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." - Forgive my non-Berkeley education and perhaps you can illuminate me on exactly what it is you mean by giving "into"t "in to(?)" public opinion and standing up for what is right?

PLEASE explain to me and the readership exactly what is WRONG about, oh... i don't know...

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
DUE PROCESS
TRIAL BY A JURY OF PEERS
EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
VIDEO
AUDIO

"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." I GUESS YOU HAVEN'T READ ANYTHING AT ALL THAT I HAVE POSTED EITHER BECAUSE I CLEARLY HAVE STATED, I AM USUALLY ON THE SIDE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.... I HAVE ALSO STATED THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GROW INTELLECTUALLY. So, to use your analogy, you ol' whippersnapper, (judging by your verbiage one can take a guess at your demographic) YES, YES THERE ARE THREE FINGERS POINTING BACK AT ME... AND YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING? Silly me, HOW COULD YOU, you sit their high and mighty at your computer, with your demagoguery trying to twist and turn the Constitution to suit YOUR needs. But it just doesn't work that way. (Sorry to disappoint, I know you were expecting ebonics from me)

For someone that comes across as an expert in law, apparently you have forgotten the adage that says, "“It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.” - Voltaire BUT I DIGRESS...

Yes, THREE fingers pointing at me and they are all saying.. HEY! LISTEN TO FRANKIE! MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE SO QUICK TO RUSH TO JUDGEMENT WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING ALL THE FACTS! THAT MAY JUST BE ME ONE DAY LAYING ON THE FLOOR BLEEDING TO DEATH!

"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."

SHOW ME WHERE I SAY THE KID DID NOTHING WRONG. SHOW ME WHERE I SAY THE COPS ARE CRIMINALS. AND SHOW ME WHO I AM CONDEMNING IF NOT ANIMALS THAT WOULD RATHER BRUSH THIS OFF AND SAY GOOD RIDDANCE AS IF HE WERE SOME SORT OF ANIMAL. BAD THOUGH HE MAY HAVE BEEN, HE WAS A HUMAN BEING AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN A MURDERER DOES NOT JUSTIFY SUCH BITTER HATRED AS HAS BEEN SPEWED HERE... SIR!

""Hypocrisy and ignorance at its finest. Congrats"" Couldn't have said it any better myself.


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

Perhaps you would do a service to us all if rather than trying to come across as a scholar, you take your own advice and learn how they ARE and NOT how they work (according to you) and while you are at it, you might want to learn to use a SPELL CHECK.... SIR

reply to post by Humint1


I can go into detail as to why the police didnt take medical action, but it is not going to change the mind of any person in this thread who is anti law enforcement.

Food for thought -
People are not required to take action, including police. There is no duty to act - period.
People are not required to take action when it comes to medical emergencies - including police.

Officers who have taken medical action with dual backgrounds have gotten in trouble for it since we are not allowed to switch hats midstream. It creates a very real liablity issue that can impact any charges that may come down the pipeline towards the officers, as well as any internal affairs investigation.

All it takes is an officr acting outside of policy, regardless of how right that action is, to be severed in terms of responsibility. This mean the police department, as well as the city themselves, can dissassociate themselves from the officer in any civil action.

Because the officer is now dissassociated with the agency / city, we are no longer covered under the civil, immunity shield.

EMS was called as is required.

The officers acted appropriately given the circumstances.

The reason I wont make this argument is because people wont understand it, will twist it in any way they want in order to run the police into the ground, while completely ignoring the reasons those prohibilitions are in place.

People bitch because the cops shot him.
Now they bitch because the cops "didnt help".

At any point, out of curiosity, are you guys going to quit trying to blame everyone else other than the person who started it all?

The kid would not have been shot had he not pulled a gun and shot first.
The kid would not have died had he not pulled a gun and shot at the cops.

This is all the kids fault, and no one eleses.

Originally posted by wuffdan
reply to post by FrankieNinja

 

maybe you should be waiting for the rapists and murders..I am a sinner but will be saved. how bout you! And by the way the only group I dislike more than cops are gang bangers and dipsticks like you. have a nice day...

So, let me get this straight, I'm a gang banger and a dip stick. COOL! It's still a few notches above the slime off a slugs ass like yourself. SPARKY.

reply to post by FrankieNinja


Im not a lawyer, I am a Police Officer.

I dont side with the police all the time as members on this site can attest to.

What I do is pick apart argument when they are based on non truth ./ non law. Just because you or someone else says this is how it should be, does not mean its how the law actually works.

Feel free to ask questions and I will answer them.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I stand corrected. Xcat put me in my place.

edit on 18-7-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)

I probably could have picked a vetter way to make my point without the wise ass comments / snide remarks..

Sorry.

reply to post by filosophia


The simplicity of your argument is way beyond what some of these posters can even begin to comprehend... Well said!

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
This thread has a lot of stupid people in it who assume way too much conspiracy is going on. I live in the San Francisco Area and heard first hand accounts from a buddy who was ACTUALLY at the scene. He works for Green Peace as one of those people who stand on the corner and talk to people about environmental issues and he happened to be stationed at that area. He didn't physically see it go down, but he told me FIRST HAND that he did hear a gun shot, followed by silence, then followed by more gunshot. This is direct evidence that the guy WAS armed, and DID fire first, with the cops firing back in response. My buddy talked to eye witnesses and was told that the kid fired a random shot backwards towards the police, but it went into the general public. I think that justifies the cops' actions to take him out instead of innocent people getting shot from that moron.

NO, the cops did not plant a gun. NO, the cops did not plant the bullet found. NO, this is not another conspiracy that ATS is going to blow out of proportion. Now I officially see how conspiracies grow. People who were not there decide to read a story their way and fill in the blanks with whatever the feel like.

Yours is a point worth noting but, their is one bad flaw to your surety, your friend, in your words," He didn't physically see it go down" therefore, its valuable... but secondary information which I hope will be useful in determining what went down. And I sure do hope we find out and just is served for ALL involved.

This is for all you cop haters out there.

I've lived in a few ghetto's in my day, for those of you who know Phoenix picture 13th ave. and Buckeye, 16th st and Roeser, etc.... Anyway, it's my personal experience telling me that the police don't go around randomly shooting at the poor black, white or Mexican people. Sure, you've got a few trigger happy mental cases with a badge out there, but believe me, they are in the minority and they get the majority of the press. And you are buying into it hook, line and sinker.

There is almost ALWAYS a reason behind something like this that you are not going to see on a video or hear at a news conference. And it's not because they're hiding anything from you. Get over yourself. As much as you would like answers to satisfy your own legitimate concerns, there are quite a few others who would like the same information YOU want to help the criminals. And if you don't understand how something like that works, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Why the hell would they broadcast everything they are doing at all times while they're doing it? They have a job to do and YOU aint part of it. Sorry. There is so much hatred for the cops on this board it's unbelievable and I don't see any basis in fact for ANY of the bitchin' except to say that everyone else is doing it and everyone can't be wrong, right?

Think again.

Someone else on this board summed it up perfectly with one word: Karma.

You get what you put in and people get what they deserve. Period.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
PLEASE explain to me and the readership exactly what is WRONG about, oh... i don't know...

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
DUE PROCESS
TRIAL BY A JURY OF PEERS
EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
VIDEO
AUDIO

Innocent until proven guilty is reserved for th courts, not the police. We do not determines a person innocense or guilt, a court does by either a jury of their peers, or by a judge, depending on the accused and their choice. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with the Police.

In this case, the officers did not determine the guilt or innocense. What they did was defended themselves against a person who took a shot at them with a gun, just as any person is allowed to do under law..

Due process - In this case there is a seizure under the 4th amendment, which would be the kid being shot and killed. That issue will be resolved when the PA decides if charges will or will not be filed aginst the officers. Due process is still present. It has absolutely NOTHING to do when a person shoots at the police or takes an action that places others in immenent fear of their or another person life. As I have stated before your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

Tiral by jury of peers - As I said, that is reserved for the judicial portion, not the law enforcement portion.

Examination of Evidence and facts - This occurs during the investigation portion as well as the prosecution / defense portion. Examination of the evidence and facts ultimately remains in the realm of the Judicial, NOT law enforcement (which is the executive). When we are taking fire, we arent going to be examining the evidence at that exact momnt as it flies by us. The investigation portions comes after a crime is committed. In case you missed it, the invesitgation portion started when the kid dicided to break the law and not pay for his ticket. Had he paid the 2 bucks, this never would have occured most likely.

Examination of Testimony - We are seeing that by looking at what the officers have said, compared against the mob of people who watched a person remove the gun the kid had in an effort to frame the police. As soon as they finish that investigation, we can revisit this area.

Audio / Video - Again, see above. While ther eis plenty of footage showing the kid dead with no gun, there is also video showing a 3rd party picking the gun up and walking away from the scene.

Taking everything above into account, you still come to the same conclusion. The above is secondary to self preservation. In this case, the officers are allowed to defend themsleves as well as others in the manner they did. Their justification for use of force in the csase is their testimony the kid pulled a gun and fired rounds at them.

None of the above is relevant until AFTER the fact. None of the above can occur until a law violation occurs.


As I said, I do law enforcement. As far as the insinuation about my age, I am 33 years old and have been doing this job for a bit more than 10 years now. As far as twisting the Constitution, not at all. What I have done is to correct people on how the Constitution works, including a persons individual rights. People make claims about a violation of the 4th or the 6th, yet they dont understand or bother to articulate how tis a violation. Usually at the end of their argument, they have done everything but make their case as to why its a violation of the Constitution.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
For someone that comes across as an expert in law, apparently you have forgotten the adage that says, "“It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.” - Voltaire BUT I DIGRESS...

yeah, because Voltaire is such a person to quote in this regard considering his personal viewpoints on life, but I digress. What you have done in your above comment is once again prove my point. It is NOT the police who determines a person innosence or guilt, its the Judicial system, IE judge, jury, PA and Defense.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
Yes, THREE fingers pointing at me and they are all saying.. HEY! LISTEN TO FRANKIE! MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE SO QUICK TO RUSH TO JUDGEMENT WITHOUT FIRST KNOWING ALL THE FACTS! THAT MAY JUST BE ME ONE DAY LAYING ON THE FLOOR BLEEDING TO DEATH!

and I will say it again, contrary to what you and others think it should be, that police are not required to act. There is no law that forces police to perform medical services. However dispicable you think it is, its there and its law. That same law also says that should you come across an instance where a person requires medical attention, you can refuse to assist and not be held accountible for it.

The courts have ruled this time and again because of the occurences of blood born / transmission based diseases. Maybe you should take a look at the policy and procedure for the agency the officers work for BEFORE condemning their perceived refusal to act when it came to the gunshot wound.

Any action taken outsid eof departmental policy places the officers in danger of loosing civill immunity and allows not only the agency itself but the city as a whole to distance and detatch themsleves from the officers. If the officers attempted to give medical assistance and the person died, and a fmialy member brings a wrongful death lawsuit, the city and agency can say, because their policy says officers are not allowed to act in that manner, violated policy and are on their own.

See the problem now? The same system you say was ignored has been used in order to create this type of enviornment.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
SHOW ME WHERE I SAY THE KID DID NOTHING WRONG. SHOW ME WHERE I SAY THE COPS ARE CRIMINALS. AND SHOW ME WHO I AM CONDEMNING IF NOT ANIMALS THAT WOULD RATHER BRUSH THIS OFF AND SAY GOOD RIDDANCE AS IF HE WERE SOME SORT OF ANIMAL. BAD THOUGH HE MAY HAVE BEEN, HE WAS A HUMAN BEING AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN A MURDERER DOES NOT JUSTIFY SUCH BITTER HATRED AS HAS BEEN SPEWED HERE... SIR!

Your argument has been based on the innocence of the kid, and I am with you on that one. Its up to the courts to determine guilt of the accused. However where your argument goes off the tracks revolves around the actions of him shooting at the police an the police shooting back.

The issues surrounding this young man were NOT known to the police at time of contact however. They were known to the kid though, and its evident by his choice of events.

So while your argument is the incidents are irrelevant so to speak, my argumetnt is they are very relevant, because they guided the kids actions based on his contact with law enforcement.

Originally posted by FrankieNinja
""Hypocrisy and ignorance at its finest. Congrats"" Couldn't have said it any better myself.


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

Perhaps you would do a service to us all if rather than trying to come across as a scholar, you take your own advice and learn how they ARE and NOT how they work (according to you) and while you are at it, you might want to learn to use a SPELL CHECK.... SIR

I have done this on several pages now, as well as this post.

What more are you wanting?

reply to post by Xcathdra


If I were you I would stop pleading your case to him. He's coming across as way too emotional to be rational, and you are way to rational to be emotional. You'll never see eye to with that Ninja person.

Some people just have it in for law enforcement and that's that.

reply to post by FrankieNinja


If this person was shot in the back then the exit wound would be serious, and if in the abdominal area extremely serious. The amount of blood indicates that, and no matter of the previous events, he should have been given primary care immediately. The police would be very aware of that in the area of gunshot wounds, and they should have at least first aid knowledge, they are negligent from that point of view.

From the video it seems all but one chose to stand back and continue to point their guns in a very open area.
I can't see this person firing a gun and getting very far before police decide to shoot back, and then this person getting much further before falling, and that a missing gun should not be an issue, but only the video of a gun being picked up can prove that, and I would presume that the person who picked up the gun is now in custody, but time will tell.

This all stems from people's hatred of the erosion of autonomy. The federal, and hence the state, governments both have such ridiculous and "nanny-like" laws and doctrine in-place that 90% of the populace is frustrated beyond belief. This frustration is intensified at the poorest and most desperate levels. Fact is the poor, low class communities were forced to turn to black market activities, like drug dealing (and the gang banging that comes with the life style). The globally adopted neoliberal doctrine of the present never gave them a chance. It is hard for any empathetic and non-egocentric individual to point a finger at a crowd they know little to nothing about. Reading and listening does not cut it. That lifestyle must be experienced to be appreciated or understood completely.

This frustration and anger is then directed at average Joe LEO. Joe's job is necessary, as without it we would tear ourselves apart. The "police need to disappear" crowd thinks a bit too highly of our collective consciousness and goodwill when it comes to unity and our ability to fully govern ourselves without supervision. Most LEO's I've came across, many who work dangerous and tough areas like the one mentioned here, are good men and women. Pulling their weapons and using lethal force is nothing they take lightly and they hope they can go a whole career without resorting to such. Some have already not been so fortunate. Joe is likely to be one of these individuals. Unfortunately the nature of shootouts is not as cut and clear as many make it out to be. This is not a video game, this is not a movie, this is not a training exercise. Adrenaline, conditions, fatigue, experience and caliber of training all come into play. I pray the for the young man and his family. I pray for the officers who made the decision to resort to lethal force, as this incident will haunt them all their days, whether it is found to be a justifiable use of deadly force or not. I'm not, nor have I ever been law enforcement. There are a multitude of reasons for that, none of which are worth mentioning for sake of the topic at hand. Given the paramilitary nature of law enforcement, I can empathize and understand much of what they do though.

Getting to the not-so-grand point, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of our policy makers. The "war on drugs," reasonable cause doctrine, lethal force doctrine, pursuit and apprehension doctrine and all manner of other laws regulate what officers, deputies and troopers do and how they do it. I can assure you that many LEOs are as fed up with petty and nonsensical laws and regulations as citizens are. It is many of these ridiculous laws that cause so much turmoil and conflict within the poorer communities as well as with the rest of us. It is ultimately the responsibility of the people, regardless of which side an argument you lie, to reform and revitalize these laws. This then becomes a political discussion regarding "taking power back" that is much to intertwined and lengthy to discuss at-large here.

Thanks for the thread OP, that was extremely hard to watch coming from a relatively hardened man.

Let's not play into the LEO vs. Everyone else garbage that only bloodies and complicates the true means of progression: taking back the reigns of government to the TRUE will of the people.

reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart


You said it Right!!! This was really hard to watch knowing that these cops weren;t even trying to help him but had No #ing Reason to Shoot him and now they are trying to cover their @sses!!! It is a damn shame!

When the police rightly shoot a suspect as they did in the north hollywood shootout i've seen footage of them clearing the suspect. It appears from this limited footage that the cops stood around sloppily watching the guy bleed out, as they continued to aim their weapons at him. With their guns drawn and aimed at the suspect/victim i do not believe they "cleared the suspect" meaning locate and remove the weapon, the loose clothing could obscure a hidden weapon but there were sufficient officers to maintain safe angles of approach to ensure disarmament of the suspect. They just stood there....sloppily, looking bad in front of a tense and angry and encroaching crowd. the whole situation is fine training material on how to avoid a total clustercluck in the future.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Agree with you here but I've switched hats midstream on occasion- but we were a Public Safety agency and did Fire, EMS and Police simultaneously. The department lays out a LOT more money on the front in training but saves hundreds of thousands on the back side by not needing separate departments. We carried field trauma kits as well as bunker gear in our cars and were all certified EMT- I at a minimum. (That's an "i" not a 1 after EMS )

Only works in small towns though.

NC (where I was an officer) also falls under "Duty to Act to Level of Training" by state statute and most department's SOP. Runs counter to the Supreme Court's decision that police have no obligation to act to prevent crime and/or loss of life but it's never been challenged.

I've just shot my observations through the prism of my own experience but YMMV

reply to post by vjr1113


I doubt the police would shoot him for jumping a fare gate. What if bystanders were hit by this guy. Sounds like they tagged a dangerous man. A hundred dollar fine isn't worth getting shot over, but it sounds reckless and dangerous use of firearm the public should be glad he ainting shooting in public anymore. America is dangerous place with all these gangbangers, crazy gangbangers usually get shot, its a fact of karma.

reply to post by buster2010


So why'd the let him bleed out instead of helping?

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Agree with you here but I've switched hats midstream on occasion- but we were a Public Safety agency and did Fire, EMS and Police simultaneously. The department lays out a LOT more money on the front in training but saves hundreds of thousands on the back side by not needing separate departments. We carried field trauma kits as well as bunker gear in our cars and were all certified EMT- I at a minimum. (That's an "i" not a 1 after EMS

)

Only works in small towns though.

NC (where I was an officer) also falls under "Duty to Act to Level of Training" by state statute and most department's SOP. Runs counter to the Supreme Court's decision that police have no obligation to act to prevent crime and/or loss of life but it's never been challenged.

I've just shot my observations through the prism of my own experience but YMMV

I know a few rural towns around Virginia that do the same. I've never spoken with a member of a "Public Safety" agency. Are you all trained in law enforcement and first-responder medical aid or only a select few? Are there any that could arm themselves with a sidearm, a syringe or a fire hose on any given day? Sounds like a rewarding job actually.

Everything about your post was spot on except this:

Originally posted by ateuprto
Fact is the poor, low class communities were forced to turn to black market activities, like drug dealing (and the gang banging that comes with the life style). The globally adopted neoliberal doctrine of the present never gave them a chance.

Sorry, I'm not buying that. In a case like this I firmly believe that no one can lead someone else to a place they've never been to before. In other words, it's in their constitutional make up to be that way. Don't get me wrong, I've seen instances where people who were born in the ghetto got out and became successful. They are the minority among the minority though. Regardless of what life throws at you or who does the throwing, you have options. You have choices. It is up to the individual to want a better life bad enough to go out and get it. And if you can't get it in the town you live in, move. Save up your money from donating blood if you have to and go somewhere where nobody knows you.

Even in these terrible economic times, you don't have to live a black market life. I don't care who you are. You may have to be relegated to day labor jobs and eek out a marginal existence, but at least you're doing the right thing by yourself. And even at the gutter level such as that, it will come back to you and good things will happen to you. I've done it myself and I've seen other people do it. It can be done.

Sorry, but I'm not going feel for the people who can't do the most simple and basic things needed to get a better life for themselves and/or their families. The people who know me back in the day when it was hardscrabble for me know better than to try to throw that sh*t in my face.