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

Yes yes we have a nice bridge for you that suits the ignet as well. Just ride the boat across the misty river and there sits your bridge of deisre filled with many like you, unless you are an automatic avatar designed to stirr up threads a bit. But I do smell troll so yes the bridge is that way. SORRY for the off topic but you know how trolls get, smh its just amazing to see 1 in a sensitive death involving thread.

Be well

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


You're alluding to the frequency match? The next step?

reply to post by SieMa


im not a big fan of cops least not the shady ones but it dosent work like that you cant shoot at cops or wave a gun at them and then throw it and be like ok no backsies if it did the world would be like hot potato with people shooting people then dropping the gun just to have some one else pick it up while i rarely defend police if you shoot at them your bringing it on your self

Originally posted by sapien82
america is one step closer to a police state, with every other man woman or kid killed by the police in the US .
from watching this video its just even more evidence of abuse of power , you dont need to shoot someone to check if they have a gun. You ask them to drop their weapon they say they dont have one , then you slowly approach them under cover from a fellow officer then restrain them.

Dont shoot first and ask questions later

I hope these guys get the sack and heavy compensation paid to the family of the guy who bled on the sidewalk for nothing

Didn't read a single word of this entire thread did you? I hate laziness almost as much as ignorance and you have both in spades there high speed.

They shot him because he lit up the street like the 4th of July, spraying bullets as he was running to evade arrest for multiple warrants including one for the murder of a pregnant teen and the shooting of 3 others, for violating his parole for rape, for violating state and federal law for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for violating his parole by fleeing the state he lived in... the list is endless.

I love how you suggest they calmly ask him to drop his gun as he is shooting at them.

How do you manage to type with your head that far up your 4th point of contact?

Originally posted by sapien82
yeh isnt it police proticol to disarm someone first before going for the kill shot , if possible.
AS far as I can see they made no attempt to ask for him to drop any weapon.
Instead they are just trigger happy and wanted to kill someone.

There is no such thing as a "kill shot", there is no such thing as police protocol and I am beginning to believe you're about my son's age and get all your information regarding police work, procedures and the law by watching TV.

Taking your ridiculous, uninformed suggestion to it's conclusion- how do you disarm someone who is firing their weapon while trying to run because they are wanted for the murder of a pregnant teenage girl and her unborn baby while out on parole for rape?

Also as far as i can see the original video showed the scene AFTER he was shot so you're pretty much full of scatological products on your observations from top to bottom.

reply to post by stuncrazy


Please remove head from 4th point of contact.

If you even bothered to read any of this thread past page 1 and your own nonsensical contributions you'd have realized it's been discussed ad nauseum. Deny ignorance- don't revel in it.

A sight like this disturbs me to my very core, it also reminds me how morally corrupt are fellow people are. What really annoys me is that it is just another evil deed being carried out by our controllers and we still have not had enough of this crap. When will we realise that this is not the way life is supposed to be. We need a change and im starting to lose all hope in humanitys role on this earth. How did we let it come to this?

"Rights are'nt rights if they can be taken away from you, their just temporary privileges!" - George Carlin

reply to post by SFA437


ok upon further investigation on my part i see you're point. i jumped the gun on this one. (no pun intended)

Originally posted by Grievere
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

hence why I said the officer THINKS he is above the law, not that he is.

Oh ok.. my bad...

Since you are apparently able to know what others are thinking, was Lee Harvey Oswald the lone gunman? Did President Obama know that one of his donors was a Pakistani ISI agent?

Or are you only able to tell us what police are thinking?

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

 

yeh isnt it police proticol to disarm someone first before going for the kill shot , if possible.
AS far as I can see they made no attempt to ask for him to drop any weapon.
Instead they are just trigger happy and wanted to kill someone.

Not even close... Our "protocol" is when confronted with an armed individual, we will be looking at that person while pointing a weapon at them. If the situation allows we can attempt to talk to the person while giving orders to put the gun down.

In the OP article, that was not possible since the guy was running from the police, and then took a shot at the police. The police defended themselves and shot back.

Police shoot center mass to stop the threat.
We are not allowed to attempt a wounding shot, since the target is smaller.

We are not like the military where you have collateral damage from operations. When we shoot, in addition to taking into account our focus, we also must take into account any perosn in the immediate area. Goiing through the academy for weapons training every time we missed a shot, we were berated for killing grandma and grandson a ways beyond the target.

The simplest resolution to this would have been for the kid not to run. It wouldhave been for him not to pull a gun and shoot at the police.

1. San Francisco?
2. Where is the ambulance?
3. Everyone has a camera now.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Completely off topic.....I don't entertain the idea that I can read minds. Just simply stating something from my own personal experience, with which like minded peers agree. Have you ever been to jail? Have you ever been robbed by police? how about being in a police raid that was unjustified? if not well then do not attack my reasons for THINKING that they THINK they are above the law.

FIFIGI
Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
NO-one deserves to die. Why are you promoting shooting in head instead of not shooting or shooting in a leg?

Well we disagree on that point, some people do deserve to die, and those people are harming or taking the lives of others with intent and no remorse or regret,
Yes they do deserve to die,
It's amazing how many find god or jesus after they get found themselves.
Leg shot? He's still deadly.
Head shot, quick and out.
Is it glorious? No. Is it a fact of life on this planet with deadly humans?Yes.

reply to post by Grievere


Actually I will attack your post when you state that all cops think they are above the law, which is a flat out fallacy. Its irrelevant if I have ever been involved in any of those things for the simple fact it has nothing to do with the topic.

To go along with your hyppthetical though, any person who is involved in a situation like you described would be hard pressed to back up their claims that all cops would be above the law in those incidents. The same argument could be made then by the police when dealing with everyday people using your "example" and mindset.

You guys get iritated when you think the police sterotype, yet apparently you ignore your own accusation and mindset towards the police by strereotyping them.

Funny how that works.....

DO you have anything relevant to add about the op topic?

The kid is apparently not only troubled, but has a criminal past.
He has been identified as a person of intrest in the Seattle incident.
Video footage is present that does in fact show a gun on the ground.


What exactly seems to be your issue with this incident?

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


Police are not allowed to fire "warning" shots, nor are we allowed to fire a "wounding" shot. We are trained to shoot center mass to stop the threat.

The "warning" you want would be the officer yelling at the person to drop the weapn and show their hands.

Absent the person complying with that command, the "wounding": shot you are looking for is going to come from the bullets missing any vital organs.

It really is simple.
Stop when you have been ordered to by the police.
Drop the gun when youhave been ordered to by the police.

Absent that, you made the bed, and now you get to lay in it.

traces of gun powder was found on the guys' hands sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com... he had a gun

Originally posted by vlady95
Here's a solution: Don't shoot at the cops and don't run. I'm not saying the cops are right (many times they are wrong) but if you shoot at people you should expect to be shot at.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly decided/stated that you have the RIGHT to use deadly force AGAINST the police if you feel your life is in danger and you have done NOTHING wrong. Justifiable Homicide it works both ways. I have no PROBLEM shooting and killing an officer if I thought he was going to attack me for no reason. I have a right to speak my mind and be derogatory TO an uneducated officer. If he does not KNOW that the PEOPLE are the authority and WE have the right and the power and it is THEIR DUTY to protect and serve, then we have an issue and these cops NEED to be exterminated or removed from the public.

reply to post by research100


Aww beat me to it!

Police said Tuesday that tests revealed the residue on Kenneth Harding’s right hand. They say the results support eyewitness accounts that the 19-year-old was firing a gun at officers when he was shot Saturday.

Police Chief Greg Suhr said Harding fired the first shot at the officers, who shot back about nine times. Harding was pronounced dead after the chase in the Bayview neighborhood that began when officers approached him for not paying his fare on a light-rail train.

Hummm nine times. I wonder did all 9 bullets hit at once. Or was it

pew pew
*the suspect is down on the ground*
pew pew
Officer: Is he dead yet?
Officer #2: Hes still rolling around.
pew pew
Officer: weEe!
pew pew
pew


Source

Yes, I care more about my paycheck and personal possessions more than I do for the life OF THIS COMPLETE SCUM AND WASTE OF HUMAN FLESH. How someone could be so ignorant as to defend this criminal is beyond me. I guess your basing your idiotic opinion on just what you read in this thread (even so, you should agree with me, lol..)

You got problems man,seriously...

I dont know the full facts to the story,so i dont know if there was a valid reason to shoot him or not,so whats my idiotic opinion again?

Secondly,not from what ive seen from posts on this thread,but from seeing how they let him lay there and bleed out shows me more about what happened than you can ever tell me.

Your a waste of human flesh,you obviously see wealth as more important than life,but i dont.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by DJLateralus

Originally posted by buster2010
The title of the article is a lie. He was shot because of the gun not the bus fare.

But had the incident in question of the bus fare not occurred, the man would not have been shot.

That was his choice not the cops. But by all means blame the people who are just doing there jobs. He made a choice and paid for it.

No it is the Cop's fault! If the police officers in question need a fall back excuse then they did something they shouldn't of done in the first place!

America needs to eliminate 3/4ths of the police officers. Too many cop's with too much military grade hardware. Cop's/Officer's of the Peace should only be allowed munitions that are inferior in quality and performance to what citizens can acquire.

And frankly spoken every Police officer should be made to register for an online ID so everyone knows when they are dealing with an oinking bully no different then the average serial killer.

reply to post by korathin


Not quite sure how you get the argument the police need to be downsized based off this thread. Even more so being its been confirmed the kid had a gun, that he did shoot at the cops, and the fact that the cops were a better shot than he was.

@ the other poster talking about using deadly force agains tthe police.

While they have, look up the case law on how that use of force works. Secondly, look up State law on how a civilians use of force works. The Supreme Court case only settled the question of whether or not a civilian can use deadly force on an officer and nothing more.

You are still bound by State law when it comes to that use of force. People neeed to understand how a Supreme Court decision works. A lot of the times, they are answering a question / issue thats been raised in earlier court proceeedings.

For example Tennesse Bs. Gardner, a Supreme Court ruling form the 60s, states an officer cannot shoot a fleeing felon in the back. A lot of people throw this cout case into their arguments when they see articles talking about police shooting someone in the back. That case defined deadly use of force, and created exceptions to its use, from banning it up to allowing an exception to being justified in killing a person by shooting them in the back if they are viewed as an imminent threat to the public as a whole.

Just because they ruled force can be used against the police, it does not say you can do that anytime youhave an encounter with them.

Originally posted by XcathdraEven more so being its been confirmed the kid had a gun, that he did shoot at the cops, and the fact that the cops were a better shot than he was.

I'm falling a little behind on the thread. Can you direct me to the confirmation of the first 2.

Thanks