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

Originally posted by lifeform11
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...

Again-

The video given to the police by the bystander that allowed them to ID the guy who took the pistol from the scene has not been released.

Just because it isn't on the internet does not mean that it did not happen or it does not exist.

The guy in the striped hoodie picks up what looks to be a phone. In the PRIOR video the pistol is visible on the ground about 15 feet away from where the phone was and has nothing to do with striped hoodie guy. The video of the bystander picking up the gun & beating feet with it has not been made public however he has been identified and the weapon has been recovered.

Hope this clears up any confusion on the issue.

Originally posted by lifeform11
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.

So the police are murderers for not attempting to provide care to someone who would not have stopped to help the officers if they were shot... but it is justified if you do the exact same thing.

Interesting.

Originally posted by lifeform11

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.

Sure since paramedics go to school and receive advanced training (way more than police/fire).

Flip the argument around... If you have a paramedic who attempts to do something above their level of training, and the patient dies because of it, and they did not call for medical control, then they are accountible for that death.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


What's the chances that these cops would have allowed someone to pick up the shooters gun? If you guys are so niave then what chance do we have to live in peace, equality and freedom? $hit like this gets me fuming .

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

What's the chances that these cops would have allowed someone to pick up the shooters gun? If you guys are so niave then what chance do we have to live in peace, equality and freedom? $hit like this gets me fuming

.

I would say pretty good since it was caught on video that was turned over to the cops. Did you not bother to read all sources for this incident?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

 

What's the chances that these cops would have allowed someone to pick up the shooters gun? If you guys are so niave then what chance do we have to live in peace, equality and freedom? $hit like this gets me fuming

.

I would say pretty good since it was caught on video that was turned over to the cops. Did you not bother to read all sources for this incident?

Even if he did do you honestly expect people to confuse the issue at hand with facts and truth when emotion and shrill screeching works so much better?

Hell- look at the title of this goatrope.

It should read "Cops Shoot Crazed Gunman with Murder Warants for Shooting Up Street While Out on Parole for Rape"

reply to post by SFA437

So the police are murderers for not attempting to provide care to someone who would not have stopped to help the officers if they were shot... but it is justified if you do the exact same thing. Interesting.

so it is wrong if i do it but justified when the police do it? the rule is wrong, police should be exempt from charges for trying to save a life. i might get a lawsuit from the family if i tried especially if they felt i touched them in the wrong way, so yes i would use the same excuse. although it is very likely i would take the risk and save the life anyway if i could, i am like that.

i am just pointing out how all of a sudden it is not acceptable if the roles were reversed. all of a sudden you see it as wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

* * * *

Not everyone who is appalled at how the police handled this situation and dares to express their point of view is "anti law enforcement". When the police behave as they did here they must be criticized and called to account for their actions. You probably think you're some kind of patriot and true American. It has been said that a true patriot holds his/her government accountable for everything it does, both the good and the bad. (I don't recall the name of the author of that bit of wisdom)

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by SFA437

 

So the police are murderers for not attempting to provide care to someone who would not have stopped to help the officers if they were shot... but it is justified if you do the exact same thing. Interesting.

so it is wrong if i do it but justified when the police do it? the rule is wrong, police should be exempt from charges for trying to save a life. i might get a lawsuit from the family if i tried especially if they felt i touched them in the wrong way, so yes i would use the same excuse. although it is very likely i would take the risk and save the life anyway if i could, i am like that.

i am just pointing out how all of a sudden it is not acceptable if the roles were reversed. all of a sudden you see it as wrong.

edit on 18-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

It IS wrong but something that is forced on anyone in public service by attorneys eager to make a quick buck off the suffering of others. FWIW I'd have tried to assist in staunching the blood flow with whatever I had handy after the suspect was secured and cleared of any weapons. I'd take my chances with the courts afterwards- probably lose but it's the way I am wired.

I misread your intentions with your original post- I'm tracking now

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Dang man!! While it is hard to judge without the facts, is it standard procedure to shoot and then watch them for 2 minutes as they bleed out? Shouldn't one officer, like one finally did, step forward to check the guy, for weapons AND to aid him? "Where's the gun?" Good question, but agin I don't know the facts, it just seems a little whack.
What a volatile scene too, it could have gotten a lot worse, for everyone.

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)

It makes sense, but in the wrong way...

It's written all over that the gun was planted there, so the cops would have an excused for having shooted. Standard corrupt behavior from cops, when it's not planting a bag of coke in an arrestee's pockets.

Rage ensues. These pigs will pay very soon I think, their total abuses of power will have an end, with their own power in society.

reply to post by dubiousone


I see we have another member of the 100 meter rush to judgment club. At no point have I ever comapred myself to, or considered myself a patriot.

What I have done is attempt to offer people who may not know how some areas work, in this case law enforcement, and answer to their questions.

The cops did nothing wrong in this case.

Does that make me part of the problem because I beleive that?

By the way a true patriot will know how their government works when they go to hold it accountible.

If they dont know how the government works, then why bother trying to hold them accountible?

reply to post by SFA437


Hey SFA437. I fully understand and have understood from the beginning everything you are explaining. That is why I commented. My comments were to the people who have reported previously in this thread that the video in this thread shows the gun being picked up. It's like people were continuing to say the sky is green but when I look it continues to be blue.

I noticed this phenomenon happens a lot here. Hard to have a decent conversation when you got blue sky in a green sky world.

Thanks for the clarification anyway. I think someone will get something from it.

reply to post by Echtelion


Yup and all the cellphone videos showing the firearm on the ground were produced by cops as well as the video of a bystander picking it up and taking off with it; as well as all the witness statements that say the suspect was firing behind him as he ran. Guess all of them were told to take the videos under threat of death by the cops and they were staged hours before the incident in order to make it appear to be spontaneous. On top of that the cops of course knew the direction the guy was going to run hours before they knew he existed so they planned accordingly...

reply to post by TattarrattaT


Gotcha

Kind of hard discerning the gist of forum posts versus talking face-to-face.

reply to post by Xcathdra


what i would like to know seeing as though you experience it, do police officers think it is wrong they are not able to save a life and have to watch while a person dies? or is there an attitude of well he/she is a criminal they deserve to die like some posters in this thread?

whats your experience? are officers o.k. with it, or do they think that in certain circumstance the rule prevents them from helping to save a life?

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.

No problem, then ill bring a video to you -

Having reviewed the video tape and the article the following can be stated:
The facts are as follows:
1) Police do a fare check on a public transportation, pulling the suspect off for not having paid the fare. This is legitimate, as there are those that will buck the system to try to get free rides.
2) The person ran.
3) A weapon was discharged at the police, and they responded.
4) Suspect is shot, and did not lay still, continuing to move, while EMS was on its way.
5) Suspect dies in hospital.
6) A bullet case was found, that did not come from any of the service weapons.
While this may seem to be a bit of an overkill situation, the fault lies in both the police and the suspect. Had the suspect not ran, then he would not have been shot. The police are trained to react to situations as they come up, and looking at it from their point of view they have 2 choices at the time a firearm is discharged, one is that they can choose to fire back, and the other is they can ignore it. The mandate of most police departments is to serve and protect. That means in a crowded city, a weapon being fired, could kill anyone at any time, and the focus is on one person, the belief has to be that the shot came from said suspect.
Many people, tend to be foolish, and in this case the person who ran, is an idiot, for running and all for what? He snuck on and took a free ride on a train, a ticket and a fine? The question comes up, why did he run? It is at most a slap on the hand, what was he hiding?
This is a case of both stupidity on the part of the suspect and overreaction on the part of the police.

reply to post by Xcathdra


i am not following, are you saying there were two guns? or are you saying the handgun on the ground shapeshifted into a cell phone gun later in the video which the guy in the striped top picked up?

Many people, tend to be foolish, and in this case the person who ran, is an idiot, for running and all for what? He snuck on and took a free ride on a train, a ticket and a fine? The question comes up, why did he run? It is at most a slap on the hand, what was he hiding?
This is a case of both stupidity on the part of the suspect and overreaction on the part of the police.

The following news story is why the kid ran...not sure if anyone posted it or not.

www.q13fox.com...

Not sure when the police were notified he was a person of interest in the Seattle case. But the kid did have a reason for running.

Just delivering a message.

ETA: Unfortunately...the news stated tonite that the boy that was shot was the person that was involved in the Seattle shooting.

ps. if youre reply is more than 1 sentance, no one reads it.

well some oddballs do. but pls this threads a joke make with the one liners a;ready..

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

what i would like to know seeing as though you experience it, do police officers think it is wrong they are not able to save a life and have to watch while a person dies? or is there an attitude of well he/she is a criminal they deserve to die like some posters in this thread?

whats your experience? are officers o.k. with it, or do they think that in certain circumstance the rule prevents them from helping to save a life?

A good question if I have ever seen one. The response is long winded and I appologize for that.

My Background -
Have I ever pointed my gun at a person with my finger on the trigger - Yes many times
Have I ever had to pull the trigger? - No thankfully
Have I ever been involved / present during an officer involved shooting? Yes

Thought process is completely different from my viewpoint compared to some of the people in the thread who are not law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, we dont rise to the occasion - we fall back to our level of training.

In a situation like this, its to stop the threat. Once we discharge our weapon into an individual, that perosn is pretty much seized under the 4th amendment (Supreme Court Rulings). That individual is technically in police custody at that point, which means our actions towards that person are now severely curtailed, including taking medical action.

Anything we do at that point directed at the individual who was shot falls under a different set of rules than that of EMS or Fire. Regardless of our feelings or intent, any action we take can be used against us. As I pointed out several posts back about being on the stand and being asked questions that call into question a persons level of training, or lack of, and actions, no matter how good the intention, can and generally are used against us.

If Departmental policy says you cannot treat certain medical conditions inflicted, it means just that. Again, any deviation from departmental policy can allow the department / city to disassociate themselves / detach themselves from the officer and his actions. The officer then loses their civil immunity, meaning we can be sued as an individual, instead of grouped with an entity.

As far as personal feelings go on assisting people in that type of situation, I cant really give an answer for the simple fact I dont know the personal feelings of the officers who have been invovled in that.

From a personal point of view, taking itnto account my training, experience, current law, and departmental policy, I would place the individual into handcuffs and wait for EMS to arrive, just as these officers did. I dont expect people to understand that reaction at all, and its very difficult to explain it in such a way that does not come across as being cold or callous.

If a civilian shoots and kills another civilian in self defense, the result is an investigation by the police and the PA's office. They review all the facts and the PA then decides if the shooting is justified under self defense. Thats pretty much it.

For Law Enforcement its different.
In addition to an investigation into the shooting in terms of State law violations, we also will be suspended with pay pending an criminal investigation to determine if the shooting was proper and within law. That report goes to the PA for review and possible charges or no charges. In additition to the agency investigation, an outside agency is generally contacted for a paralell, independant investigation into the shooting to ensure nothing is being covered up / missed / left out by the origionating agency.

Then we get an IA investigation into whether or not our actions were within departmental policy. By actions, I mean any and all actions, not just the shooting itself. From point A all the way to point Z, they look to see if any action, comment, movement etc was valid. If during this portion its determined any action is not within policy, we are screwed, regardless of the criminal outcome, since this opens the door for civil problems now.

Then a review is done to determine whether or not the officers violated 42 USC 1983. A Federal law that applies to any agent of the government who is acting under color of law. Since the shooting resulted in the persons death, his 4th amendment rights were possibly violated (shooting and killing a person is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment).

Now, during the investigation we will be treated just like a civilian would, with one exception. Because Law Enforcement operates under a quasi military setup with an established chain of command, we run into the issue of a higher ranking individaul ordering us to give a statement.

In addition to reading the officers their miranda rights, they are also read their garrity rights. The garrity rights states, essentially, that any information offered during the interview can be used against us. It says we can refuse the order, however refusal to answer will result in that being taken as a sign of refusal to cooperate, which can be used against us in an internal department disciplinary review action.

Essentially, it preserves our 5th amendment rights, but penalizes us for taking the 5th.

As another member pointed out, point the finger at the civil attorneys.

Do I personally think that there should be some law that protects law enforcement against civil / departmental / criminal action in order to allow them to assist a person in a situation like this?

I do not, because we are still not trained to attend to injuries of that type in a competant manner. If a law exists, and it turns out our actions, while rednering medical first aid, resulted in the persons death, it prevents any and all recourse from the family.

I dont mind having a law that protects me while performing my duties in a lawful manner. I do not support any laws that creates blanket immunity for law enforcement when it comes to actions we are not trained to perform. In instances like this, it would have to be complete immunity, or nothing at all. There will not be an inbetween just because of the overall circumstances.

Plus, who is to say an officer doesnt take the opprotunity to make sure the suspet is dead so he cant speak?

The last thing we ever want to do is shoot and kill a person, contrary to comments from people in these forums. I wont lie though, that there are situations where we are relieved an individual dies. This is not because of any hate, but because the persons actions will end up, or did end up, killing an innocent person.

There are some people on this planet who truely do not care about the lives of others, and will have no trouble sleeping when they take those lives.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the issue. Sorry if its not what you are looking for.