Unlike in Ferguson and Staten Island, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy may go on trial for killing an unarmed man. Do you think they should be charged?

 

 

View the story here.

I hope they're charged and convicted. This was cold blooded murder. Also shows what kind of use the police are putting their military grade toys to. Can someone tell me why they need an assault rifle with a silencer and advanced optics to deal with an illegally camping homeless man? 

- helmetcam (NSFW)  without the idiotic commentary

 

All I can say is WTF?  Why didn't they use beanbag beforehand?  The old geezer's mentality seemed a bit crazy but I don't think any of them were in immediate danger.  He also did have two knives in his hands -not unarmed.

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by HOLLISTUPID

Should be charged. Guy was unarmed and was no threat. Seriously though? With these guns they gone kill him?

 

Ridiculous. 

Cold blooded murder by over-militarized police.

 

We get it, cops. You have a very tough and dangerous job. But its not actually that dangerous when you kill anyone who could possibly pose a threat at any distance.

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by RyanHunter24

i agree with everyone. this was one of those cases where charges are warranted.

Should be charged. Guy was unarmed and was no threat. Seriously though? With these guns they gone kill him?

 

Ridiculous. 

Now..

I Do not agree with this shooting what so ever, But he did have a knife. I Think two.

I hope they're charged and convicted. This was cold blooded murder. Also shows what kind of use the police are putting their military grade toys to. Can someone tell me why they need an assault rifle with a silencer and advanced optics to deal with an illegally camping homeless man?

Their equipment means nothing. Charlie Hebdo is the reason were armed. The LA bank robbery is why. When the bad guys use AKs and body armor, the cops need that too. The call they got was some crazy guy camping on in the desert.

The shooting was horrible and wrong. Their equipment means nothing.

Their equipment means nothing. Charlie Hebdo is the reason were armed. The LA bank robbery is why. When the bad guys use AKs and body armor, the cops need that too. The call they got was some crazy guy camping on in the desert.

The shooting was horrible and wrong. Their equipment means nothing.

The equipment is completely relevant. If cops want to parade around like soldiers with guns like these. they should join the army. Dealing with a homeless man illegally camping does not warrant the use of weapons like these. Just because you have access to the weapon does not warrant its use in every situation. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the 1997 Bank of America robbery, and similar incidents warrant the use of such weaponry. Not a homeless man camping in the woods. 

The equipment is completely relevant. If cops want to parade around like soldiers with guns like these. they should join the army. Dealing with a homeless man illegally camping does not warrant the use of weapons like these. Just because you have access to the weapon does not warrant its use in every situation. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the 1997 Bank of America robbery, and similar incidents warrant the use of such weaponry. Not a homeless man camping in the woods.

It's not. Would you rather than show up in just their uniform to maybe a homeless vet with PTSD who has a shotgun, and starts shooting at them as they approach? Then you have may have 3 dead cops and crazy vet on the run.

The only reason their equipment bothers people who think like you, is because he was shot with it. Getting shot with an M4, is the same thing as getting shot with glock; You got shot with a bullet.

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by Pavelow

It's not. Would you rather than show up in just their uniform to maybe a homeless vet with PTSD who has a shotgun, and starts shooting at them as they approach? Then you have may have 3 dead cops and crazy vet on the run.

The only reason their equipment bothers people who think like you, is because he was shot with it. Getting shot with an M4, is the same thing as getting shot with glock; You got shot with a bullet.

It bothers me because militarizing law enforcement makes it that much easier for them to trample people's rights. The war on drugs and terrorism have become the "think of the children" for law enforcement. 

The equipment is completely relevant. If cops want to parade around like soldiers with guns like these. they should join the army. Dealing with a homeless man illegally camping does not warrant the use of weapons like these. Just because you have access to the weapon does not warrant its use in every situation. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the 1997 Bank of America robbery, and similar incidents warrant the use of such weaponry. Not a homeless man camping in the woods. 

You don't see cops everywhere "parading" around with an AR-15. Not unless there is an active shooter, lockdown, or any other high alert/threat situation. The equipment is not really relevant imo. It's like saying this would be "ok" if they cop shot him with a his handgun.

 

There should have more communication between the officers, and troopers, because the trooper had the right idea with the non lethal. The threat was not imminent, even though he was still holding the 2 knives(I think) when he "surrender". At the end of the say they were doing their jobs, so I don't think they should be charged with murder, definitely manslaughter though.

It bothers me because militarizing law enforcement makes it that much easier for them to trample people's rights. The war on drugs and terrorism have become the "think of the children" for law enforcement. 

The Police are the American people. I doubt they'd trample the rights of the people, because they'd be trampling their own rights in the process.

It bothers me because militarizing law enforcement makes it that much easier for them to trample people's rights. The war on drugs and terrorism have become the "think of the children" for law enforcement.

Give me a specific example of how a cop is trampling people's rights by wielding an m4.

You don't see cops everywhere "parading" around with an AR-15. Not unless there is an active shooter, lockdown, or any other high alert/threat situation. The equipment is not really relevant imo. It's like saying this would be "ok" if they cop shot him with a his handgun.

There should have more communication between the officers, and troopers, because the trooper had the right idea with the non lethal. The threat was not imminent, even though he was still holding the 2 knives(I think) when he "surrender". At the end of the say they were doing their jobs, so I don't think they should be charged with murder, definitely manslaughter though.

On the video it looks like to me he is about to run away. I didn't know he was supposedly holding knives.. That most definitely changes things.

The Police are the American people. I doubt they'd trample the rights of the people, because they'd be trampling their own rights in the process.

Stop and frisk. Low level drug offense arrests. Breaking up largely peaceful protests. 

 

Give me a specific example of how a cop is trampling people's rights by wielding an m4.

 

I'll use the Ferguson case an example. On the first day or two of the protest (I know things went to shit later, I'm not referring to the looting and arson following Wilson's not being charged) things were peaceful. The crowds were large and vocal but there were no problems otherwise. Local law enforcement responds like this and dramatically escalates the situation. While these weapons were not actually used (tear gas, etc.. was) there is certainly an intimidation and fear factor associated with a response like this. Heavily armed and aggressive police escalated a situation that didn't call for it. 

 

Days later, the State Police captain (Johnson?) took over. Sights like the one above disappeared and officers were instead in standard uniform, even mingling with the crowd in some instances. The situation was drastically deescalated and the protests were able to peacefully continue. 

Stop and frisk. Low level drug offense arrests. Breaking up largely peaceful protests.

I'll use the Ferguson case an example. On the first day or two of the protest (I know things went to shit later, I'm not referring to the looting and arson following Wilson's not being charged) things were peaceful. The crowds were large and vocal but there were no problems otherwise. Local law enforcement responds like this and dramatically escalates the situation. While these weapons were not actually used (tear gas, etc.. was) there is certainly an intimidation and fear factor associated with a response like this. Heavily armed and aggressive police escalated a situation that didn't call for it.

Days later, the State Police captain (Johnson?) took over. Sights like the one above disappeared and officers were instead in standard uniform, even mingling with the crowd in some instances. The situation was drastically deescalated and the protests were able to peacefully continue.

So because the police showed up in riot gear, that made it justifiable to start throwing stuff at the police? It's the police's fault things escalated?

And there was no trampling of rights in that situation as you claim.

It's not. Would you rather than show up in just their uniform to maybe a homeless vet with PTSD who has a shotgun, and starts shooting at them as they approach? Then you have may have 3 dead cops and crazy vet on the run.

The only reason their equipment bothers people who think like you, is because he was shot with it. Getting shot with an M4, is the same thing as getting shot with glock; You got shot with a bullet.

But he didn't have a shotgun...he had knives. And he was a good distance away from the heavily armed officers in rocky terrain.

 

In fact, the cops joked about shooting this innocent pan in the penis WITH a shotgun. 

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3573906.shtml#.VLXd0ivF98E

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/james-boyd-lunatic-penis_n_5907696.html

 

Tell me again how these cops are not first of all horrible police officers and second of all murderers.

 

The problem with cops having weapons and gear like this is that they break it out every time they can, and apparently they can't wait to use it.

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by RyanHunter24

So because the police showed up in riot gear, that made it justifiable to start throwing stuff at the police? It's the police's fault things escalated?

And there was no trampling of rights in that situation as you claim.

In the time period I'm referring to, this kind of activity was kept to a minimum. Nothing that should have been concerning. As I said before, things were largely peaceful. Why would law enforcement show up in full riot gear, set up very close to the protests, and then move in and break them up?

 

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Law enforcement moved in and unnecessarily broke up peacefully assembled people. When people started looting and starting fires after Wilson was not indicted, then yes, an active law enforcement response would be warranted. But if the assembly was still peaceful, like at the time I'm referring to, then I would say that the First Amendment rights of the protesters were violated. 

So because the police showed up in riot gear, that made it justifiable to start throwing stuff at the police? It's the police's fault things escalated?

And there was no trampling of rights in that situation as you claim.

It's the job of the police to de-escalate.

In the time period I'm referring to, this kind of activity was kept to a minimum. Nothing that should have been concerning. As I said before, things were largely peaceful. Why would law enforcement show up in full riot gear, set up very close to the protests, and then move in and break them up?

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Law enforcement moved in and unnecessarily broke up peacefully assembled people. When people started looting and starting fires after Wilson was not indicted, then yes, an active law enforcement response would be warranted. But if the assembly was still peaceful, like at the time I'm referring to, then I would say that the First Amendment rights of the protesters were violated.

They moved in to break it up only after there had been reports of violence breaking out. They let them assemble, but they didn't know how to do it peacefully.

But he didn't have a shotgun...he had knives. And he was a good distance away from the heavily armed officers in rocky terrain.

In fact, the cops joked about shooting this innocent pan in the penis WITH a shotgun.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3573906.shtml#.VLXd0ivF98E

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/james-boyd-lunatic-penis_n_5907696.html

Tell me again how these cops are not first of all horrible police officers and second of all murderers.

The problem with cops having weapons and gear like this is that they break it out every time they can, and apparently they can't wait to use it.

Read my post. I never once defended their actions.

If a cop wants to indescrimanetly shoot somebody, he'll do it regardless of the weapon.

So tell me specifically, why they shouldn't have that gear.