But he wasn't running off. He slowly walked towards the police, and was shot at for it.

Well the way I took it, he wasn't "walking towards the police" He was trying to get away. I do believe he was "stunned". But, to a cop who was just chasing you, disobeying him and then turning to walk away from him (which the suspect did do) the cop took it as him "running away". 

My instructor for Criminal Justice has a grudge against the public when viewing and reviewing police actions. The public will always nit-pick, debate, condemn, and damn the officer. But until you get behind the wheel and chase a suspect doing 70 through city streets with a disregard for the lives of the other drivers, not knowing what is truly wrong with him, and then have him wreck out and immediately get out and walk away from you and disregard your directives only to have a split second to decide to take the shot or not, you should't be saying anything. 

 

"you" isn't directed towards you, c13. But towards the public in general.

1.) Correction. He opened the door, was shot at (notice at least 5 puffs of smoke on the car? Those are bullets), and briefly paused in between 5:21 and 5:22, but must have realized they were going to keep shooting at him, which is what caused him to move to the passenger side, behind cover (which you would've done too had you been shot while attempting to give up).

 

2.) He wasn't armed at the time of being shot. His weapon was the car. I didn't see him carrying it when they began shooting at him, so yes, he did give up his weapon. Clearly you are seeing things if you see a gun on him, despite watching it 10-15 times in HD.

 

3.) Why would he walk towards the police to get to the passenger side if he could have gone through the front to cut out his distance AND keep his cover?

 

4.) So if nothing I said was true, you are agreeing to the following: He didn't get out of the car, he didn't crash his car, and alcohol combined with violent car crashes does nothing to affect your state of mind.

 

But he wasn't running off. He slowly walked towards the police, and was shot at for it.

 

1.) The white smoke you see is left over from the front tires being stuck as he reversed the car towards officer's (in that along = lethal officer's lives in danger ) and the smoke clearing out from under neath the car 

 

2.) no1 know's where the actually gun is could be in his pocket, pant belt, etc your basing it off strickly assumption's  as to the gun was still in the car

 

3.) never ever tried to walk towards the cops at all went straight towards passenger door,  He a.) open's car door b.)  goes towards/ around back of the car car  c.) cont. towards passenger side despite officer's warning and direction's causing them to shoot at about the time he's close to the back passenger side and still manges to stumble towards the passenger front door

Edited December 17, 201312 yr by K-9 police 9

Just out of curiosity, but has it been reported that there was an actual gun belonging to the suspect?

Well the way I took it, he wasn't "walking towards the police" He was trying to get away. I do believe he was "stunned". But, to a cop who was just chasing you, disobeying him and then turning to walk away from him (which the suspect did do) the cop took it as him "running away". 

My instructor for Criminal Justice has a grudge against the public when viewing and reviewing police actions. The public will always nit-pick, debate, condemn, and damn the officer. But until you get behind the wheel and chase a suspect doing 70 through city streets with a disregard for the lives of the other drivers, not knowing what is truly wrong with him, and then have him wreck out and immediately get out and walk away from you and disregard your directives only to have a split second to decide to take the shot or not, you should't be saying anything. 

 

"you" isn't directed towards you, c13. But towards the public in general.

Again, the police began shooting at him as he was exiting the vehicle, not at the back of it and walking away. The police suspected him of being impaired (DUI initial reason for attempted pullover) and having just been in a car crash, common sense should say that he wouldn't be in the right state of mind at the moment, and any non-violent moves should be taken into account before deciding to shoot him, which is what happened before he got out of the car.

At the same time, Urbane: In many places in the US, it is perfectly normal to have guns. I first fired a rifle when I was 10, at a summer camp. It's not a rare thing almost anywhere in the US to go to a range; where I live, it is unusual to carry, but firearms are not considered mystical things. You could never make the US a gun-free zone, any more than you could make the UK a tea-free zone.

I like your last sentence there haha! This is just something that I struggle to grasp and find it extremely wrong. This is why I stick by my theory that less lethal methods could have been executed first. 

 

I have just noticed at the end that once the male is on the ground, the officers do not even care, they are making no attempt to keep him alive or even to resuscitate which is very grim. 

I like your last sentence there haha! This is just something that I struggle to grasp and find it extremely wrong. This is why I stick by my theory that less lethal methods could have been executed first. 

 

I have just noticed at the end that once the male is on the ground, the officers do not even care, they are making no attempt to keep him alive or even to resuscitate which is very grim. 

 

actually they did as stated by the people covering it  he was actually alive as they hand cuffed him and also stated by the people covering it an ambulance was kept a couple streets away as is procedure during a chase

Again, the police began shooting at him as he was exiting the vehicle, not at the back of it and walking away. The police suspected him of being impaired (DUI initial reason for attempted pullover) and having just been in a car crash, common sense should say that he wouldn't be in the right state of mind at the moment, and any non-violent moves should be taken into account before deciding to shoot him, which is what happened before he got out of the car.

Honestly, to me, it doesn't look they shot at his door before he exited. It look like smoke from his tires. To me, it just doesn't look like gun shots. 

 

And again, this is after we've watched the video 20 different times. But in those 10 seconds. You have a suspect who you don't know exactly what's wrong with him ( sure he was suspected of DUI, but that's just a suspicion) driving with disregard for public safety, he wrecks out, tries to drive away again, gets out of his vehicle, and disobeys the police's orders (Yes he probably was stunned, but again, think "heat of the moment"), turns to walk away from the police (fleeing), so the officer decided to open fire. 

 

I'd like to see a full write up of the event, after the facts and evidence is gathered. 

1.) The white smoke you see is left over from the front tires being stuck as he reversed the car towards officer's (in that along = lethal officer's lives in danger ) and the smoke clearing out from under neath the car 

 

2.) no1 know's where the actually gun is could be in his pocket, pant belt, etc your basing it off strickly assumption's  as to the gun was still in the car

 

3.) never ever tried to walk towards the cops at all went straight towards passenger door,  He a.) open's car door b.)  goes towards/ around back of the car car  c.) cont. towards passenger side despite officer's warning and direction's causing them to shoot at about the time he's close to the back passenger side and still manges to stumble towards the passenger front door

1.) Suspect was getting out of car. There was no longer a weapon in control of him. You can see individual puffs of smoke on the car, which wouldn't be caused by the continuous stream of smoke from under the car.

 

2.) Taken from here: "Police have acknowledged Beaird was not armed at the time of the shooting."

 

3.) A). Opens car door B)Gets shot at C)Slowly walks towards them. D)Realizes he is being shot at, tries to get to cover.

 

Also mentioned in the article is that it might be the result of officers not hearing others yelling that the beanbag shotgun was ready, and then firing when they heard gunshots.

I like your last sentence there haha! This is just something that I struggle to grasp and find it extremely wrong. This is why I stick by my theory that less lethal methods could have been executed first. 

 

I have just noticed at the end that once the male is on the ground, the officers do not even care, they are making no attempt to keep him alive or even to resuscitate which is very grim. 

 

Well, I was a Firefighter for 2 years and I've done EMS work as well, when you have a body that's been pumped full of bullets.....you can't and don't do anything. There's nothing you can do especially if you're only a police officer. resuscitation would do no good. It's a hard thing, but there's not much to do. (This is if he was shot)

The officers would only be justified in shooting him using his vehicle as a weapon IF and only if he was still actively using it as a weapon.

 

Once he drops the weapon, you lose your authority to use deadly force. 

 

Before we decide whos right and whos wrong we should wait to hear the other side of the story. A helicopter video is not significant proof it wasn't justified. 

 

Also unrelated to the shooting itself the vehicle that was hit by the Corvette actually ran that red light and caused the crash. You can see this from another news helicopters camera KNBC. So the accident wasn't caused by the Corvette driver so he didn't mean to use it as a deadly weapon in this case. 

I agree with the part about the camera angle. like ive said a thousand times before we don't know what the officers saw because they opened fire as the car was out of sight for a moment, maybe he flashed a gun or was trying to reach for one and refused commands. and about the deadly weapon I was talking about when he tried to backup and hit the pole.

Well, I was a Firefighter for 2 years and I've done EMS work as well, when you have a body that's been pumped full of bullets.....you can't and don't do anything. There's nothing you can do especially if you're only a police officer. resuscitation would do no good. It's a hard thing, but there's not much to do. (This is if he was shot)

Out of curiosity, at what point are onscene EMTs allowed to declare someone dead? I assume they can declare a death in cases of decapitation or the absence of some other life-critical organ, but is there a rule for when you have to keep trying to help them and when you can say "they're dead, nothing we can do"? (I mean outside mass casualty triage settings, where I'd assume it's easier to say "you're going to die anyway, we're allocating our limited resources to people who it'll actually help")

2 Sides To Every Story, this is the media's exaggerated perspective. In order to properly evaluate this you must get both sides. Until that can be done I will stay out of this. 

Can someone give an exact timestamp of these "bullet impacts" on the car, because I cannot see them in the video I'm watching.

 

Also, at no time does he "put his hands out of the window" or make any indication that he's surrendering. I don't know what the purpose of arguing these falsehoods is.

 

You know, I think this is the only response I'm going to give to police critics anymore:

"The only way to deal with these people is to give them a badge and a gun, and see how long it takes for them to either do the same thing they criticize, or die."

Edited December 17, 201312 yr by The Loot

Update:

Officers were trying to use non lethal beanbag rounds, but not all officers knew that and when they fired the beanbags. Some officers mistook it for shots and returned fire. 

 

So this was more or less an accidental shooting. 

Communication issue, I see. Seems to be too common a problem.

 

Also, it's "Less than Lethal," or LTL, not "non lethal." A beanbag can still kill you.

im not going to argue anymore with a couple of morons. I don't care what you say about this post im not responding anymore on this topic.

im not going to argue anymore with a couple of morons. I don't care what you say about this post im not responding anymore on this topic.

If you don't want to respond anymore, it's really easy: don't respond. Posting saying "I'm not responding anymore", with no other content, actually contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion while still taking up the space of a post. Furthermore, gratuitously calling opponents in a debate "morons" is not an argument.

A car is lethal. He was a threat to the welfare of the city's people therefor the cops had a reason to shoot. but no matter what you never want to see someone get shot to death. 

My issue is the line of thought you lot have about guns being normal, it is something I would never understand. 

Freedom isn't defined as having the right to own a firearm. 

 

I do accept responsibility for my own safety, I am sensible enough to go to rough areas and know to get myself out of a bad situation as quickly as possible. I have profound trust in the Scottish emergency services, who always act with extreme professionalism in their jobs and have the utmost respect for them and I have enough common sense to know what will bring harm to me and others and I avoid the situations. 

 

In my opinion, the American right to bear arms is the most stupid thing ever created.

 

One question for you, very seriously, are you the sort of person that, if stopped by the police on the street for carrying a gun, will disrupt their workings as they are enquiring about your gun?

 

EDIT: Sorry c13, didn't see what you said as I was writing my reply. Back on topic, I don't think that I could be convinced of this being justified.

 

My simple question to you is if you aren't American why comment on something that happened in America? Do you know anything about American police? If not why comment? "My issue is the line of thought you lot have guns being normal, it is something I would never understand." That's nice that you would never comprehend. Am I suppose to care? I've been reading most of your comments and they are obnoxious. 

My simple question to you is if you aren't American why comment on something that happened in America? Do you know anything about American police? If not why comment? "My issue is the line of thought you lot have guns being normal, it is something I would never understand." That's nice that you would never comprehend. Am I suppose to care? I've been reading most of your comments and they are obnoxious.

Because people with different assumptions bring something interesting to the conversation. If the only input we got was from the Eagleland brigade, it would make the discussion about the moral side worse. In the discussion about the legal side, no one here is qualified: that's a matter for lawyers (even police training on this isn't the last word, which is why police hire lawyers if they're being investigated or sued for it).

Furthermore, it is not your place to say that someone isn't contributing anything to a thread. So long as posts contain content, you can only talk about whether they contribute to *you*. Other people may disagree with your view of the posts. The standard for debate isn't "what John34 finds useful".