San Francisco police shoot handcuffed man?

reply to post by The Vagabond

The official story says they cuffed him not knowing he was shot, because he fell on his face when he was shot. This would suggest that he was shot, not immediately cuffed, then somebody new on the scene cuffed him, otherwise there would be no question they knew he was shot.

This goes against what one of the purported witnesses in the video says.

He said the guy was lying there bleeding out while they had him cuffed.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Milkflavour

 

Go for their gun while cuffed? What, he tried to take the gun with his teeth?

Haha.... Well, no.... I wasn't meaning that....

Have you ever been cuffed? I have, and I could have still easily gone for the copper, or a knife or anything.... You ever seen Jackie Chan kicking the isht out of a group of guys whilst handcuffed? You have to admit, it's possible, they never said what type of restraint was being used other than "handcuffs" and, even with the solid, all-in-one frame there is still sufficient room for movement to grab something....

Still though, I realise it's unlikely, it's just that people often do very stupid and very dangerous things when backed into a corner.... What if it was the difference between maybe getting away and life in prison (thanks to the insane 3 strikes policy... (Life in prison for stealing a car on two occasions and then slashing someone with a box cutter when they were #ing with you anyone?)

Just a thought.... Like I said, I'm not making excuses for anyone. If the officer shot the guy, whilst cuffed, for no particular reason, then of course they should be charged with murder. Thing is, that version (I.e. cop handcuffs guy, takes a couple of steps back and shoots him dead for no reason at all, in front of multiple witnesses) makes no sense at all.... It certainly rings less true than "guy is desperate, tries to grab gun/officer cop shoots".... Like I said, I'm not making excuses, just trying to be objective and consider all sides/the most likely occurrence...

Ahhh... Just read Vagabond's post, I'm leaning towards something like that happening, he was shot, some bright spark thought he needed cuffing to protect paramedics or other cops or whatever as he was violent/had already gone for the copper, then someone with half a brain pointed out that he wasn't doing much in the way of moving about and the paramedics probably couldn't work on him all cuffed up and so, they un-cuffed him... Sadly... Too late because witnesses had seen him "lying there bleeding out, handcuffed"....

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
reply to post by mee30

 

the cops have more sense than to start discussing the incident with some whack job who turns up with a camera and starts accusing them of killing a cuffed man.

this irresponsible behaviour by the film maker is the kind of thing that starts riots.

the guy turns up at a scene is told by a guy that the cops shot a cuffed guy and he immediately goes over and starts shouting and accusing the cops without any proof ?

whack job.

He is questioning them, (disbelief) "You shot a guy in handcuffs"? (exasperated) you SHOT a GUY in HANDCUFFS?
"Was he wearing handcuffs", no answer but does get a #ty smirk from the police and at that point, i would have become angry too.
That is questioning, not accusing.
A whack job for feeling angry and asking them if the eyewitness testimony he just heard was correct?.
A whack job for feeling indignant at the maltreatment of another civilian soul.
What starts riots is the blatant abuse of civilians by those who think they have the right to treat you anyway they like.
To label somebody a "Whackjob" for being an angry citizen journalist, is absolutely the territory of real whackjobs.

reply to post by The X


why are you misquoting the video?

he is saying to the cops ' you shot a man dead in cuffs "

why are you misquoting that?

he asked the witness what did the man do to get shot. the witness tells him he did nothing, because the witness did not see what led to the shooting he is stupid enough to think the guy who was shot was innocent. thats a pretty dumb assumption to make.
the guy slashed a co-worker and tried to slash a female officer.

none of the cops are smirking,

you are as delusional as the guy who made the video if you think the cops are smirking.

reply to post by lacrimaererum
Earlier in the thread, you posted this...

he then goes on to film a person being loaded into an ambulance who clealy is receiving treatment and is not dead, even though he just accused some cops of shoting him dead.

What leads you to believe that he is not dead? Did you see him moving?

What I noticed was a man strapped to a gurney, no movements that I could see and he was bagged... but I never saw the EMT/paramedic squeezing that bag, If he isn't squeezing it, the man isn't getting oxygen. The ambulance was in no hurry to leave, and when they did leave, they didn't go 'hot'. The lights were turned on, but no siren.... and they didn't drive away fast.
Imagine my lack of surprise that the man turns up dead at the hospital.


ETA: I saw an officer smirk, but that is subjective.

Originally posted by ANOK
I guess we'll never know what really happened. I suppose in the heat of the moment it could have happened as they say.

All true, unless some witnesses come forward to confirm or otherwise, that the man was handcuffed prior to being shot. It's all down to the cuffs, if your hands are behind your back with the palms out as is the standard, you would need some fancy footwork to make a boxcutter in any way effective. Anyway, she shot him in the chest we are told, at what we have to presume is fairly close range, so if he was cuffed a boxcutter would be in the opposite direction.

reply to post by butcherguy


Exactly right, the ambulance was not on a mission of mercy. You have to wonder when they said he died of his wounds at the hospital, I presume that it means you can't die of your wounds UNTIL you get to the hospital, (sarcasm)

reply to post by lacrimaererum


If he did nothing at the time he was shot, then the police were in the wrong. It doesn't matter what he did to get arrested, cops cannot shoot someone that is not a threat. If you are cuffed, you are not a threat.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Exactly right, the ambulance was not on a mission of mercy. You have to wonder when they said he died of his wounds at the hospital, I presume that it means you can't die of your wounds UNTIL you get to the hospital, (sarcasm)

Autopsy results should be somewhat enlightening.
If he took one through the heart, I'm guessing that would be why the ambulance wasn't in a rush to get to the hospital. He was most likely dead when the video was made.

Here is the story in from a San Jose newspaper. San Jose is about 40 miles from SF

www.mercurynews.com... aking-news/ci_21102874/san-francisco-police-respond-officer-involved-shooting

This story says the man was cuffed after he was shot.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Exactly right, the ambulance was not on a mission of mercy. You have to wonder when they said he died of his wounds at the hospital, I presume that it means you can't die of your wounds UNTIL you get to the hospital, (sarcasm)

Autopsy results should be somewhat enlightening.
If he took one through the heart, I'm guessing that would be why the ambulance wasn't in a rush to get to the hospital. He was most likely dead when the video was made.

Yes, and what is the distance for powder burns and soot etc, three or four feet. Should he have burns or soot, you might expect the arms could be affected too if they were frontal, less so if they were behind, a bit like throwing paint at a canvas.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by lacrimaererum

 

If he did nothing at the time he was shot, then the police were in the wrong. It doesn't matter what he did to get arrested, cops cannot shoot someone that is not a threat. If you are cuffed, you are not a threat.

did u even read the story. he was trying to slash an officer when he was shot

If you are a civilian facing a person wielding a knife, the person better be within arms reach of you if you shoot them and want to claim self defense. Cops don't always have this problem.

There was a local cop that shot a person that was waving a knife at him. The guy was thirty feet away from the cop when the cop put a bullet through his heart. No charges were filed.

Originally posted by butcherguy
If you are a civilian facing a person wielding a knife, the person better be within arms reach of you if you shoot them and want to claim self defense. Cops don't always have this problem.

There was a local cop that shot a person that was waving a knife at him. The guy was thirty feet away from the cop when the cop put a bullet through his heart. No charges were filed.

Exact same scenario happened outside of my house about a month and a half ago. Cop shot an 18 year old kid who had a knife. It was stated that the kid made a "threatening gesture" from 30ft away, and was caught twice. He was wielding the equivalent of a swiss-army knife.

The kid didn't die, but I see a definite problem with rationalizations like this.

reply to post by johnnysixguns


At 30 feet away you don't have a cop in my opinion. You have a wimpy little man with a badge and a big gun who missed his true calling as a security guard at Victoria's secret or some equally dangerous place.

This incident sounded a whole lot closer and with a suspect already well proven to be capable of seriously injuring people. I'll just wait patiently for the review this will no doubt have in time.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yeah.. and the cop who did this in my town had shot someone else less than a year and a half earlier (which was justified, in my opinion, since he was fired on). But at the same time, I don't live in a violent town, and it only has 3 cops.

Also, the cop who did this in my town had "resigned" for "personal reasons" from several other departments in other states before coming here.

He is an all-around shady cop, in my opinion, and my town council voted to keep him on.

reply to post by johnnysixguns

Horrible in general terms, isn't it? These days it would seem for every good cop actually helping people and doing what we like to think cops are out there doing...there is 1 or even 2 bad ones. Something is real wrong with how things are when the cops themselves cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. At one time, I could...now? I feel like a sucker to try.

Maybe we just need to outright demand Police Departments have a citizen review aspect to every misconduct and shooting incident that gets investigated. Heck, draw people random off the voter records just like Jury duty, for sitting on that review board. I'd love to think average citizens would see the raw evidence in this shooting to give a lay opinion.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It is horrible. My town had a meeting, and a lot of citizens were up in arms about keeping the cop on board, because they didn't want him shooting anyone else. Not to mention the fact that, for whatever reason, the cops here don't carry any sort of non-lethal line of defense (taser, pepper spray). The cop in this incident is actually the CHIEF OF POLICE, who has had other meeting about his conduct in the past (he has a drug dog in our town, and uses it on every traffic stop, and takes it into stores with him). We are little a no-stop light town with a population of 2500 people, but this guy is like the gestapo. But nonetheless, he is still Chief of Police and on-duty. I would like to think I would be a little more benign with power like that.

But I am in a mixed place when it comes to views of law and such. My father is a nurse for the DoC in another state, and my brother in-law is a trooper for the DNR (State Trooper nonethless, but I also know he doesn't care about people and their misdemeanor amount of pot, and is much more concerned with folks throwing trash in the river and wanton waste when hunting).

The system nationwide needs a makeover.