Anger can play a large role in the human thought process. The men and women who serve to protect our streets are no different then the men and women who serve to protect our country, the United States. Really angers me when people are ignorant enough to make blunt, retarded insults to law enforcement.

Military and police are two different animals and should be discussed accordingly.

 

 

If you'd like to explain how my comment was a "blunt, retarded insult," PM me. Don't need someone derailing the thread as par for the course. 

Shooting was justified. The guy was going nuts, it's unlike a normal situation where once somebody's on the ground and they give up. The man was obviously not in the right state of mind and didn't care, hence why he was thrashing around so much, making it 10x more difficult for officers to subdue him. The moment that man made the decision to reach for the officers weapon, he fucked up, and the other officers will do anything in their power to protect themselves and everyone else. There was the chance that the man could have obtained the weapon and injured or killed one of the officers. I see nothing wrong here on the part of the police.

 

Also, did anyone else notice the fucktard who was jabbing one of the officers with a baton near the beginning of the video?

Military and police are two different animals and should be discussed accordingly.

If you'd like to explain how my comment was a "blunt, retarded insult," PM me. Don't need someone derailing the thread as par for the course.

Erm... I'm sure law enforcement and the military are human beings lol. Never heard that before, not sure if that was an analogy or what. Either way, I don't know a single officer or military service member that would be OK with being referred to as an animal.

I wasn't saying that your comment was retarded, I was making s general statement towards those who constantly insult law enforcement.

Erm... I'm sure law enforcement and the military are human beings lol. Never heard that before, not sure if that was an analogy or what. Either way, I don't know a single officer or military service member that would be OK with being referred to as an animal.

It's a figure of speech. I assumed it was common knowledge.

It's a figure of speech. I assumed it was common knowledge.

Assumptions can be deadly my friend.

Military and police are two different animals and should be discussed accordingly.

 

 

If you'd like to explain how my comment was a "blunt, retarded insult," PM me. Don't need someone derailing the thread as par for the course. 

 

Actually Military and police are very similar because they both instill order. While the military is sent to fight wars on foreign soil....Law enforcement fight's the "war" on crime in the homeland....so they really aren't much different.

 

Seriously though, the whole going lethal is soo american once again, they got like 6 cops on scene, and 2 suspects, they cannot put hand cuffs on a suspect without shooting him.

Also before the officer started to shoot you saw all the officers clear from the suspect and he just layed there otherwise he would have moved away.

 

This is exactly America, this shit doesn't happen in Europe and it's getting more often that police is shooting an un armed person.

 

Those LAPD officers might need some sort of re training cause 4 vs 1 and still lose a gun, not completely sure how that works.

How about you try taking a determined homeless man down with 3 of your buddies? It ain't all sunshine and rainbows, i'll tell you that. When someone is hopped up on adrenaline, they can do almost super human things. Theres a good example in Minnesota I believe. An officer shot a man 14 times, including in the chest, heart, diaphragm, kidneys, and eventually, 3 times in the head. Before being hit in the head, the man continued firing on the officer until being taken down. Even after he had 3 bullets in his brain, he STILL had vital signs. That is a man who was shot 14 times, let alone a homeless guy who had been shot 0 times. Anyway, the point is, once adrenaline (or other drugs) kick in, you need more than 4 guys.

Actually Military and police are very similar because they both instill order. While the military is sent to fight wars on foreign soil....Law enforcement fight's the "war" on crime in the homeland....so they really aren't much different.

 

I disagree but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

On topic, I just thought of a question I'd like to hear your guys' input on. What effect, if any, will this man's being homeless have on public reaction to the events? I could see it going either way. People will use it as a chance to discuss the criminalization of homeless. At the same time, he doesn't have the background story that got so many people wrapped up in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. 

Honestly, he was probably going for his gun. Also, unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous, officers are supposed to use enough force to OVERPOWER the threat, not match or equal. If you fight a cop, what do you expect?

I'm surprised that this hasn't been made a race thing already.

No, that actually says literally nothing which is in the slightest bit relevant to what c13 said. The quote was about shooting to wound. Your story is about shooting at all; it has nothing whatsoever with shooting to wound. I'm baffled how you can possibly think it says something that has to do with the quote.

Also: the huge majority of US police officers never fire their weapons except on the range; that's not somehow unique to Europe. US police use their weapons more often than European police, but it's still extremely rare in the US.

You can be baffled as much as you want, my point is still completely relevant, there are just two different cultures and ways to think.

You can be baffled as much as you want, my point is still completely relevant, there are just two different cultures and ways to think.

LMAO. Kudos to you for defending your point on such hostile terms. That's something that I can respect, even if I disagree. Seriously.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been made a race thing already.

I'm surprised as well. Me being a Black American myself, this hasn't really become a racial issue. Why? Because a lot of Blacks believe it was the Black officer that shot him. Now the Black officer is being seen as some sort of "racial traitor" within our community. This type of news is very commonly discussed amongst the Black community. More commonly than people think. I've witnessed it on numerous occasions at multiple locations, it's just blatant ignorance, blunt assumptions of racism, and simply incorrect facts being thrown together to cause a fuss.

If it was the Black officer that shot him, I can easily confirm that it will be a "Black on Black" issue, not an interracial issue.

Edited March 3, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

UPDATE: IMPERSONATION

 

The homeless man shot dead by LAPD last sunday during an altercation, and which video was publicly released on social networks, was impersonating a french citizen for years, said the Los Angeles Times this tuesday.

 

According to the newspaper, the man shot dead in the neighborhood sinisterly called Skid Row, where several homeless people live, was calling himself Charley Saturmin Robinet. He came to the United States more than 15 years ago.

 

However, according to Axel Cruau, French Consul in Los Angeles and contacted by the american newspaper, this homeless man stole the identity of a french citizen by using the passport of this person who came to the US at the end of the 90s.

 

The french authorities discovered the identity theft after the man who was calling himself Charley Robinet was condemned for a robbery in 2000 and the american authorities were preparing themselves to extradite him to France. The true Charley Saturmin Robinet "is alive and in France", explained the Consul.

 

The former lawyer of the homeless man, Steven Cron, had on his side precised that the fake Charley Robinet was condemned to 15 years behind bars for an armed robbery commited in 2000. "I remember this case quite well, it was rather clear: several guys robbed a bank and came out with a load of cash. They then got followed by the law enforcement, there was a pursuit and they threw nails on the highway", Steven Cron told.

 

Eventually, police caught the robbers and the fake Charley Robinet admitted his crime on a recording tape. "If I remember well, he said he needed money to pay himself theater courses", added the lawyer. "All the other robbers pleaded guilty, but him insisted to go to trial. I tried to change his mind, but he insisted. He strongly defended himself during the trial but we lost", Steven Cron told again. "I think he was condemned to 15 years of jail, and he got out in 2013", he said.

Edited March 6, 201511 yr by Hystery

HUH!^ that sure is something, I never heard a case of identity theft like that before

On my note, they used less than lethal 3 different times (Hands, Baton and Taser) when the suspect still resisted and actually grabbed onto the Officer's gun, I find it justified and nothing I bet will come out of it.

 

Lol ofcourse you do.

Over here police only shoots back when they get shot at, how it's supposed to be, or if there is any other reason of projectiles flying towords them, if somebody tries to take their gun they either bash your head in, or do a warning shot.

The shooting was justified.

 

Here is a different shooting.

It shows just how far going non-lethal/holding fire works.

How long is too long?

Cops need seconds to react.

http://youtu.be/23c7ovuSd2U

Edited March 6, 201511 yr by starcraftguy1

If someone gets a hold of my gun, I don't care whether he gets it or not. I'm killing him, and if I can't, I expect the people next to me to.

Name one first world police department that teaches shooting to wound.

To answer you question I'm able to provide you with multiple links to the news articles describing how Russian police force used weaponry to shoot a leg or arm to disable suspects. 

 

Another story whether they were armed or not, of course. But here they almost never shoot to kill (at least they used to). Right now I'm contacting officers I know, so soon I might be able to provide your with quotes from official documents regarding firearms usage.

 

And secondly, I'm somehow agree with Hystery. I'm in a way affiliated with the law enforcement, but I cannot say "I will kill anyone who tries to get my gun". (I don't have a gun, of course). 

It's difficult to explain, especially if you know English as bad as I do, but Hystery is right speaking about cultural differences. I remember my dialog with a BPD officer two years ago about the death of an unarmed civilian. He said something like "Well, it's sad, but it comes with the job". It's a different attitude towards human life, I guess. It neither good or bad, it's just how it is. 

 

Wow, I stranded so much away from the topic. Well, I think it was partially justified, at least a criminal with a cop's gun is a clear danger. Nothing compared with killing of unarmed people. 

Perhaps we need to implement some basic rules for Americans in order to avoid the "dangerous" police. 

 

1. If a cop tells you not to break the law, don't 

 

2. Don't point anything at a cop that might look like a weapon. 

 

3. Don't reach for an officers gun and you won't get shot. 

Edited March 6, 201511 yr by Chester199

1. If a cop gives you orders, do it. 

 

This is highly problematic. If a cop tells you to do something that is a clear violation of your rights, there is no reason you should do it. It happens all the time.

To answer you question I'm able to provide you with multiple links to the news articles describing how Russian police force used weaponry to shoot a leg or arm to disable suspects.

Another story whether they were armed or not, of course. But here they almost never shoot to kill (at least they used to). Right now I'm contacting officers I know, so soon I might be able to provide your with quotes from official documents regarding firearms usage.

And secondly, I'm somehow agree with Hystery. I'm in a way affiliated with the law enforcement, but I cannot say "I will kill anyone who tries to get my gun". (I don't have a gun, of course).

It's difficult to explain, especially if you know English as bad as I do, but Hystery is right speaking about cultural differences. I remember my dialog with a BPD officer two years ago about the death of an unarmed civilian. He said something like "Well, it's sad, but it comes with the job". It's a different attitude towards human life, I guess. It neither good or bad, it's just how it is.

Wow, I stranded so much away from the topic. Well, I think it was partially justified, at least a criminal with a cop's gun is a clear danger. Nothing compared with killing of unarmed people.

We do have different cultures though. While it may seem politically correct to shoot someone in an arm or a leg, the American culture is filled with lawsuits waiting to happen, and doing something like permanently disabling someone trying to kill or harm you will put you in a lot more trouble than killing him.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, although some of the details were wrong, that a bank robbery suspect got in a 3 minute long shootout with a cop who shot him 14 times in various vital areas across the torso, but still had the suspect shooting at him and had to put 3 shots into his head. Even after that the suspect took a relatively long time to succumb to his wounds.

There is the added of bullets simply going through fat or muscle that wouldn't slow the suspect down, or alternatively, it could hit a vein or an artery and be more fatal than some shots to the torso.

And like I've said before, unarmed doesn't mean anything if a suspect is actively trying to grab a weapon, or is using his body as a weapon.