Video of Unarmed Black Man Lying on the Ground With His Hands Up and Shot By The Police

[DonFerrari]

CosmicSex said:

DonFerrari said:

Maybe because only after full investigation we'll know what happened and not only a short version of it? But if you preffer to be judge and condemn without due process it's on you.

Do you really need a juge or investigation to tell you that unarmed people laying on the ground should not be shot at?

I don't know who you are, but if you, Don, are laying on the ground, and a cop shoots you, thats not okay with me no matter what.  No charges were filed against either individual.  I know you want they to be seen as thugs for being black lol /jk... unless thats how you feel then screw you lol.  But seriously cops are not public executioners.  They are public servants and that means protecting people like that kid who have autism and his caretaker. 

Basically, I am saying that of course we want in investigation, but we need to at least be able to reconize that unarmed people sitting/laying on the ground should not be shot at by cops.  The first thing that pops into my head is what would have happened to that autistic boy if his caretaker wasn't there? I think the caretaker was very brave doing what he did (actually taking a bullet for his patient).  Obviously the cop didn't have the proper training.  If you don't feel at least a little sick when the cop said he was aiming for the autistic boy... check you pulse, you may be dead.

Yes I need investigation before forming opinion, I do believe in "inocent until proven contrary".

Yes officers aren't executioners, but they also aren't villain. So before considering then guilty or saying "it wasn't anything" I preffer to wait. And just so you see, there were an update on the case and the victm wasn't laying. So there may be a lot more information we don't know that can make it more towards an acceptable mistake (that needs retrain and sanctions) or imprudence or crime (and acting accordingly).

If the authistic boy would be presenting risk to others or himself it would be the duty of the officer to protect all (even if it means shooting someone). Authistic and psycopats are both mentally ill in some manner (I'm not comparing their diseases or intentions) so being ill shouldn't prevent an officer to act as needed.

Hiku said:

DonFerrari said:

So he thought the therapist was being held at gun point and shoot at the suspect (the patient).... a lot different than shooting someone lying in the ground with the arms up, right?

Wil everytime a new part of this story get released we see a whole different scenario will show and you would still be quick to judge everytime?

I haven't changed my view on this. It still screams reckless incompetence, whether you believe the cop's explanation or not. It's just looking worse. They handcuffed and then ignored the supposed rescuee's pleas for help and let him bleed on the sidewalk until the ambulance finally arrived around 30 mins later.  Is that how you're supposed to treat the person you were supposedly trying to save, and accidentally shot? I'd expect some form of help, i.e. something to press down on the wound that they unnecessarily and recklessly caused.
Surely they would have realized that the kid was holding a toy truck a lot sooner than that.

What makes this sound worse is that the cop supposedly almost hit an autistic patient. And instead hit the man he supposedly was trying to protect, who was lying still on the ground. If we also add in the fact that the therapist was shouting that he is holding a toy truck, the level of incopmpetence gets even more scary. I currently can't see any plausible scenario where that man should have been hit by a bullet and it's excusable.

Also, I'm not hating on police. I'm saying that just like in any other profession, there are incompetent people. But when you're allowed to handle a gun, incompetence can become deadly. And it sounds like the police need better training and recruitment standards.

You were already answered on the why the person was handcuffed (he could for example try to get vengeance due to heightned emotions), so while it isn't pleasant to handcuff an innocent person that is bleading because of a mistake you done, if that is the protocol you need to follow it.

How was the therapist protecting his patient while laying in the ground? I would wait more time before given certanty on facts that are already changing.

Anyone should or can handle a gun, that is a right unless you believe in the bullshit that guns are the cause of death and not criminals using gun (but who also use anything and everything they can get their hands on... and guess what, even if not allowed they still find guns to use).

Hiku said:

Raistline said:

It is standard procedure for the police to handcuff/subdue everyone involved in an incident where anyone is at risk.  This includes victims in a crime. This is done so that everyone can be held long enough to get a statement of what has occurred and for the officers and assailants protection. There is no way an officer can know if/and or when a victim in a crime may lash out at their assailant causing injury or other harm. Nor can they know whether or not the victim may try to flee the area due to heightened emotions or a misunderstanding causing them to believe they are in trouble themselves.

After the situation is sorted the person and/or it is determined that there is no longer a danger of flight, or retaliation the victims handcuffs will be removed.

Be that as it may, you'd think they would quickly realize that it wasn't a threatening situation and that handcuffs won't be neccesary when they see that the other person is holding a toy truck, and no one is armed. Especially when they accidentally shot the person they claimed they were trying to protect. At the very least they could arrange for something to press down on the wound, instead of ignoring his pleas for help until the ambulance arrived 30 mins later. That just doesn't sound right to me.

When you are in the same situation then you can say it's fast to realize. If the therapist was having problems to bring the boy back it was possible that the patient was disturbed, violent or any other situation that wouldn't be safe to just release.

CosmicSex said:

DonFerrari said:

Because people are ready to hate the police.

So he thought the therapist was being held at gun point and shoot at the suspect (the patient).... a lot different than shooting someone lying in the ground with the arms up, right?

Wil everytime a new part of this story get released we see a whole different scenario will show and you would still be quick to judge everytime?

The therapist said he was shouting at the cops not to shoot because he didn't have a gun.  You have already passed judgement on the man by ignoring what he said and siding with the man shooting unarmed people.  You had made up your mind that the cop was without fault before you even with the details.  They you tell us that we can't even actknowledged that cop is at fault, even though HE SHOT THE MAN!  Whose fault was it.  Lets try something basic.  Whose fault was it that the man was shot?  Can you acknowledge that the autistic boy didn't have a gun... this means in fact, in reality, that the cop was still wrong. 

I didn't side with anyone, I said I want to see more before deciding. So hold your judging horse to yourself.

The therapist can say anything (and most people when guilty will claim they are innocent and everything was a mistake of the other) so words hold very little value. Most criminals would claim they are unnarmed to them use a chance to shoot.

I made my mind? From where did you took it? Can only be from your own made up mind.

d21lewis said:

As always, when it comes to threads like this, I mention I was a cop for almost a decade. My expert opinion? The cop fucked up. I can usually defend an officer's actions but not this time.

 

Even the "I thought he was being held hostage" defense. We have training targets with hostage/offenders on them. In training, it was used to illustrate that, even with an AR-15, none of us were capable of taking an accurate shot that would neutralize the bad guy and save the hostage. I actually shot the hostage in the shoulder. That's just something the average officer isn't encouraged to do. 

Quite possibly a fuck up, waiting to see more thrustworthy information on the subject. And certainly if the supposed victm and abductor were close by that would be a risk shoot... but I would suppose that depending on the sittuation you would risk harming victm and suspect to prevent a bigger harm to any or both.