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

reply to post by Zmboop


if you'd just shot a guy (a lowlife scumbag).and he still had a loaded gun on him, would you walk over and ask if he was ok?
personally no i wouldnt, i'd watch him die

reply to post by ateuprto


We were all trained at EMT Intermediate or better and many were paramedics. One Lieutenant was a PA and and did a stint in an ER as a resident. He could do limited surgery in the field which was a great asset to have.

We also trained as firefighters with a minimum of NFPA 2 certification with several having emphasis on FAR 107 ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighter) due to our coverage of a regional airport that has commercial aircraft.

On top of that we all went through Basic Law Enforcement Training with the associated recurrent training involved with that.

Kept us very busy both on duty and off (training was on our own time but classes were free) but it was a very cool job. Best part was with the smaller town you knew everyone- even the "bad guys"- and you were able to develop a level of respect even if you were on opposite sides of the fence.

Originally posted by Zmboop
reply to post by buster2010

 

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

Two words answer that question:

Civil attorneys.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Fair enough, thank you for the intelligent response.

I would continue to argue my point based an a number of factors stemming all the way back to the days of slavery, but that is neither here nor there with regards to the OP. I certainly understand where you are coming from and while it is highly accurate, I would point to, what is in my opinion, a valid and verifiable reason, a causal effect for why only the minority successfully escapes the lifestyle.

Maybe I'll work up an intelligent and ATS worthy thread over the next week, I'll be sure and PM you as your input would be greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by DJLateralus

 

I see about a hundred people gathering around the police and their victim, I hear raised voices and a lot of outrage, I see a missed opportunity.
They aren't going to stop until we make it clear we won't tolerate it. Period.

It is too bad you don't have the same passion towards convicted rapists and parole violators who crank rounds off on public streets to avoid warrants issued for the killing of pregnant teenage girls.

That sort of behavior you'll gladly tolerate though...

edit on 18-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

Watch the video and turn up the volume, you can hear the crowd asking where the gun is. If he shot at the cops you can be sure he was shot right after, meaning the gun should be on or next to him, he couldn't even stand up so he obviously wasn't able to run far after they shot him.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by DJLateralus

 

I see about a hundred people gathering around the police and their victim, I hear raised voices and a lot of outrage, I see a missed opportunity.
They aren't going to stop until we make it clear we won't tolerate it. Period.

It is too bad you don't have the same passion towards convicted rapists and parole violators who crank rounds off on public streets to avoid warrants issued for the killing of pregnant teenage girls.

That sort of behavior you'll gladly tolerate though...

edit on 18-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

Watch the video and turn up the volume, you can hear the crowd asking where the gun is. If he shot at the cops you can be sure he was shot right after, meaning the gun should be on or next to him, he couldn't even stand up so he obviously wasn't able to run far after they shot him.

Take a tool weighing about 2 pounds and hop in your car or on a bicycle. Get it up to 15 MPH (the average speed of a human being running) and simply drop it at a marked point. See how far it will slide across smooth concrete. You'll wind up with about 10 meters before the item comes to a rest.

Based on the location of the shots the hydrostatic shock of the temporary wound cavity created by the bullet would have caused him to drop the weapon as he went down as his extremities would have been numbed. Earlier on I said he might have even run after being shot however I did not know the location of the wounds and a thoracic shot would cause the person to most likely drop insensate upon impact..

Basic physics and physiology disproves your assertion.

Also I would suggest you watch the video where you see the gun and wait for the video of a bystander scooping it up and beating feet with it to be released.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


If the perp is known to have a gun and already fired it at officers, they are still at risk of being shot even if the perp is down and bleeding out - he is still potentially dangerous. Maybe they can't tell if he still has the gun or not.

HOWEVER, the cops should have approached and restrained him, and made sure he was unarmed in order to render aid. A couple .40 cal slugs to the torso takes the fight out of most people, ya know? The fact that they just stood there waiting for something to happen like the retards they are is just plain wrong. If I were the mayor, I would fire every one of these idiots.

By the way, for those of you who are going to rip me because the cops are just "protecting themselves", let me remind you that they are public servants charged with protecting the public, not themselves. The fact that we see cops everywhere protecting themselves and only themselves is one indication that the police state is already here.

reply to post by ateuprto


Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I just see too many people nitpicking the details while the big picture is being ignored.

I'd like to see what your thread would be BTW. You seem rational and intelligent.

Originally posted by neonitus
reply to post by Zmboop

 

if you'd just shot a guy (a lowlife scumbag).and he still had a loaded gun on him, would you walk over and ask if he was ok?
personally no i wouldnt, i'd watch him die

Could you enlarge on that a little? and as to how exactly it is related to this incident, which is far from resolved.

reply to post by ateuprto


We receive basic first aid during the academy, which is to say we receive about the same level of medical training, less about 10/20 hours that Fire Fighters receive during their training. We have just enough first aid information to do a basic assesment to report to dispatch.

Apply pressure etc etc etc.

However, a person who is standing who then falls to the ground with head contact (IE head hitting the ground without anything breaking the fall) turns the situation into a possible trauma (head injury from falling position - at least in my state).

With that being said we are not a true Public Safety.

To see a good example of one, check out Kalamazoo Michigan - The City. They have a true public safety, where as all of their police / fire / ems are all cross trained. Its a site to see "armed" firemen running after a shoplifter from walmart, tackeling them, arresting, and then transporting them to jail in the fire truck (happened some years ago).

Story aside they are all cross trained, so police can do fire, fire can do EMS, Ems can do police etc.

My point though is we are not dealing with a patient. When medical shows up on scene they are, while law enforcement, as in this case in San Francisco, is still dealing with a suspect. Because the person is a suspect and in police custody at this point, we cant exactly load the kid into the back of the patrol car to take him to the hospital.

While I understand the viewpoint on th Supreme Court ruling, because its a Supreme Court ruling, its going to override any state / local law in terms of officer responsibility and duty to act.

Exactly how does one sort out all of the issues involved if the police make an attempt beyond required to save a perosns life they just shot outside of requesting EMS?

Not doing anything, as we see in this case, gets the targeted comments of allowing the person to die.
Had these officers attempted to do soemthing, then the argument would be the officers werent helping, but attempting to assist the death process so this could could not testify against the officers. I wont even go into the details of a wrongful death suit brought by family.

Think about it. You shoot my family member, then you try to help him medically?

Some will see the arguments as nothing but irrelevant. However, to those making that argument I ask if you have ever been in law enforcement, or EMS, or Fire and have been in a similar situation.

From a law enforcement standpoint, looking after the actions down the road at any potential legal proceeding you are goingt to be faced with this question.

Did you / officer so and so discharge your duty weapons and the deceased?
Did you attempt to render any medical aid?
What was the extent of that aid?
So in addition to requesting a full response (EMS/FIRE), you also attempted to stop the bleeding from the gunshot wound?

Officer are you trained in emergency medical medicine?
Officer what is the level of training you have when it comes to dealing with this type of injury?
Officer, were you performing at or above your level of training when you decided to assist?
Officer what, exactly, were the actions you took to stop the bleeding?
Officer do you know that by doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G on this type of injury that you cand actually cause more damage than help to the injured person?
Well officer, if you didnt know that your actions could endanger the individual, then your training in medical issues was at a lower level. Meaning you were attempting to perform an action that is above your level of training, which could have contributed to the death of the individual.

Officer was it your intent to kill this individual?
I dont understand officer, if it was not your intent to kill this individual, then why did you shoot him?
If it was not your intent to kill this individual, then why did you take medical action above your level of training that contributed to his death?

Officer is it the Policy of such and such polkice department to render medical first aid in this type of situation?
If its not allowed under policy officer, then why did you take action?

So let me get this right officer... You chase my client.. During this chase you and your partner discharge your firearms at my client, striking him in the lower abdomen. You radio for assitance, which is required by policy, yet you then ignore policy by attempting to render medical first aid above your level of training as a public safety officer is that not correct?

So tell me officer was your actions towards my client meant to kill him?

I dont understand officer, first you chase then shoot my client - because as you stated you shot to stop the threat, then you attempt to save my client from the bullets you and your partner just pumped into him.

Why?

To those who have never had the experience of being on the witness stand keep this in mind when being cross examined.

When you take the stand you take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In reality, because of the manner in which our legal system works where you can be asked a 40 point question and be limited in your response to yes or no, this is in reality what you do take an oath for -

To tell the truth, the half truth, and whatever helps your client out for the defense. Which means you could have information that would take you 25 minutes to explain, and the defense can tell you to just answer the quetion, yes or no, and you have no choice but to comply.

There is a huge difference in an officer taking medical action at a car accident, and an officer taking medical action towards a person in their custody. Completely different set of rules apply.

It's disgusting watching everybody just start shouting at the cops, who by the way look at least calm unlike the other videos recently showing a-hole cops mouthing off/arresting/assaulting filming bystanders, I give them credit for that.

That being said - how can anybody tell from the video what happened?? Making assumptions from some video after the fact is wrong. Do people think we should do away with the law based on a bystanders video and sensationalized OP posting here? If you hate the cops and laws so much there are other ways to change it besides rushing to judge the police based on a cell phone video.

Yes, I agree the police are getting more crazy lately and being protected after the fact. There is something terribly wrong with that and it needs to be addressed. However we're all to blame for the government system we have right now because the majority of people voting suck. How many people in that mob vote or care about anything other than YouTube followers or likes?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Not doing anything, as we see in this case, gets the targeted comments of allowing the person to die.

correct, they did try to help eventually but only after a certain amount of blood had already escaped, earlier intervention even if he still died would of shown the officers were not out to kill him but had no choice but to shoot him.

Had these officers attempted to do soemthing, then the argument would be the officers werent helping, but attempting to assist the death process so this could could not testify against the officers. I wont even go into the details of a wrongful death suit brought by family.

can they use this arguement on paramedics then? sorry i do not argree with your arguement for letting somebody die. how can giving basic first aid be seen to a judge as helping him to die.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Not doing anything, as we see in this case, gets the targeted comments of allowing the person to die.

correct, they did try to help eventually but only after a certain amount of blood had already escaped, earlier intervention even if he still died would of shown the officers were not out to kill him but had no choice but to shoot him.

Had these officers attempted to do soemthing, then the argument would be the officers werent helping, but attempting to assist the death process so this could could not testify against the officers. I wont even go into the details of a wrongful death suit brought by family.

can they use this arguement on paramedics then? sorry i do not argree with your arguement for letting somebody die. how can giving basic first aid be seen to a judge as helping him to die.

Yes they can if the EMT personnel are exceeding the level of care they are certified to provide.

Whether you agree or not does not change fact.

Basic first aid does not cover abdominal/thoracic wounds. That at least is an EMT-B, preferably EMT-I level of care scenario.

Asking about how a judge would rule in favor of someone attempting to provide care above their level of training- it was all explained to you in great detail. That is how civil suits run.

If anyone wishes to point fingers at why the suspect was not touched point them at civil attorneys and those who oppose tort reform.

Don't understand what so many of you think the cops could've done to help the guy recover from gunshot wounds... I know its sickening to see them just stand around still aiming their guns while the poor guy bleeds out, but what do you expect, for the cops to perform surgery in the middle of an urban crime scene? I'm not defending the cop's actions here, even though if it is true the guy open fired on them then it is only to be expected the police shoot back... though if he was really unarmed and simply fleeing the scene, I don't know how could anyone defend a slaying of that nature.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Why does everybody keep saying there is video of someone picking up the gun? Please do not direct me to the video where the guy in a hoody picks up a CELL PHONE.

I do think there is a gun in the video, and it is likely it was picked up by someone, but the videos posted here do not actually show it being picked up.

How can we communicate when there is a video right in front of us that shows one thing, but you guys still see another? It always amazes me how strong (mis)perceptions can be.

Thanks.

reply to post by SFA437


well thats stupid, so basically if i am untrained to the correct level, and i see somebody who urgently needs pressure applied to slow the bleeding i must stand there and watch, even if the injuried person is a police officer who has been shot by a criminal?

well it's good to know, i will make sure i never get a law suit. stupid rules preventing people from saving lives or at least attempting to.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by SFA437

 

well thats stupid, so basically if i am untrained to the correct level, and i see somebody who urgently needs pressure applied to slow the bleeding i must stand there and watch, even if the injuried person is a police officer who has been shot by a criminal?

well it's good to know, i will make sure i never get a law suit. stupid rules preventing people from saving lives or at least attempting to.

Civilians are covered under Good Samaritan laws in most states.

When you take that into consideration and that a regular Joe doesn't have the deep pockets of a State, city or town you would have nothing to worry about. Lawyers don't sue Average Joes- they sue companies and governmental entities.

Originally posted by TattarrattaT
Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Why does everybody keep saying there is video of someone picking up the gun? Please do not direct me to the video where the guy in a hoody picks up a CELL PHONE.

I do think there is a gun in the video, and it is likely it was picked up by someone, but the videos posted here do not actually show it being picked up.

How can we communicate when there is a video right in front of us that shows one thing, but you guys still see another? It always amazes me how strong (mis)perceptions can be.

Thanks.

Because the police were given one by a citizen who recorded it which allowed them to identify the person who took it from the crime scene and recover it.

Just because something is not on YouTube does not mean it does not exist

reply to post by TattarrattaT


there is no video of anyone picking up a gun, you can see the gun in the early part of the video but there is nobody on film picking it up.

you see a guy picking up a phone that somebody dropped, this has become a gun somehow...
it reminds me of this....



maybe its because the black person picks up the phone and it looks like a gun?

reply to post by SFA437


i am not sure i would bother trying, especially knowing if the roles were reversed i would be left to die.