c13

As I have pointed out on every page, when he left his car, he willingly gave up his weapon. The police knew he was drunk, because suspicion of DUI was what the initial traffic stop was for. Having just crashed into a vehicle at a high rate of speed, he would've been thinking less straight. In his mind, he probably thought he was giving up by slowly walking towards police with both hands visible. Despite the police not knowing his intentions, no danger was posed at the time of the shooting that warranted lethal force.

MODERATOR NOTICE This forum is for showcasing models you created. Moving to Support Requests

If you look closely when he exits the car, you can see impacts on the door and on the hood of the car. This is often seen in many other chases that end in gunfire. No, it hasn't been established. That's what you're claiming, despite failing to show any sort of proof. I like how you all keep repeating the same lie. "He ran away from the police immediately after exiting his car," despite slowly walking towards the police at the back of his car, the exact opposite direction he would go if he attempted to run. Anyways, regarding what you are claiming 1)Both hands were stuck out just before getting out of car. 2)This is when you can see bullet impacts on the door and the hood of the car. And really? You're telling me that the police are going to investigate themselves and clear themselves of any wrongdoing, completely because what they say is the absolute truth and they would never lie to make themselves look better? Say it ain't so!

And for the tenth time this thread, they began shooting at him before he exited the car. When he exited the car, he no longer had a weapon visible and made no indication he had one, removing justification to shoot him. The police knew he was drunk, and common sense says he wouldn't think straight having just crashed while being drunk. He was most likely giving up being that he was slowly walking towards the police, not running, and his hands were visible, leaving your argument that he was still attempting to escape inaccurate. The police started shooting at him before he even got out of the car, but after it was parked. There was a traffic light blocking the car from the cops, leaving your argument that it was because he backed towards them inaccurate. The police continued shooting at him as he was clearly unarmed and not making sudden movements with both hands visible, therefore posing little threat, leaving your argument that he might have reached for his wasteband inaccurate. The suspect didn't notice he'd been shot, or quite likely based on past LAPD shootings, didn't get hit but didn't realize they were shooting at him until he got to the trunk. He turned, probably to shield his body from the bullets, before trying to get to cover behind the vehicle. This was about 4 seconds after the shooting began, leaving your argument that he was shot because he was going to the trunk/passenger side inaccurate.

I'm not sure what those are, but they're not beanbag rounds. I have some in my room and they are about 2.5" x 1" x 1".

Read post 102. What is so hard to understand? He was shot at before exiting the car, and he was continually shot while not indicating he would assault them. EDIT: primary reason for pursuit- possible DUI. Typically, the danger with them comes from vehicle accidents, not shootings. And once again, he had willingly forsaken control of his weapon before being shot.http://ktla.com/2013/12/14/lapd-investigating-pursuit-that-ended-with-man-shot-and-killed/#axzz2nbqeVY8o

He left his weapon, his vehicle, and was in the process of surrendering(hands out window) when the police opened fire. But despite being shot, he continued slowly walking, not running, towards cops with his hands visible. And please show where I have ever been anti-gun on this forum.

I hope to god you don't become a cop, since you see someone walking towards you as a threat you can justifiably shoot. And care to explain your argument? So far, the furthest you've expanded on it is "justified given facts and events." Do you care to explain what those facts and events are?

This is what happens when people don't read previous pages, because I already covered everything. I forgot to add that he was a threat, though not worthy of being shot, because I had already argued that every page of this thread. Yes, he was still a threat, but not enough to be shot upon leaving the vehicle. Next, pay careful attention to when right before he exits the car. His hands leave the window, and you can see bullets strike the vehicle. He was shot at before he even exited the car. He slowly walked, didn't run, towards officers that were still firing at him. Probably upon realizing that he was being hit, he stumbled and tried to get behind cover, which is a perfectly rational reaction when you have been hit multiple times by gunshots and there are still people shooting at you. And there was never a time in this video when the suspect could be seen with a gun.

I didn't really specify, but both really. My comment about morality was mainly in response to him saying the law justified it. And when was he a threat upon leaving the vehicle? Had he left it and ran at the officers, let alone with a weapon, a shooting being justified could be argued and I would support it. Sticking his hands out the window, then slowly walking towards officers shouldn't be considered a threat. But then again, being that this is the same department who fired 114 rounds at a 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color pickup truck during the Chris Dorner manhunt, I'm really not surprised if they did consider it a threat.

The law has permitted many atrocious things over the course of human history. Simply being law does not make something justified.

Again, he didn't try to escape after exiting the vehicle. If he would've done that, he would've gone away from the police as fast as he could, not slowly walk towards them. And does he teach the officers he instructs to keep shooting after the suspect drops the gun? With the analogy I've used many times over the past 5 pages, when the suspect exited his weapon, the vehicle, he dropped his "gun," so to say, therefore lethal force based on his use of that weapon is no longer justified. The suspect was slowly walking towards the cops, while most likely non-coherent after the crash he was just involved in. His hands were visible the entire time too, making the argument that he might have had something in his waistband mute.

The suspect in the video crashed into a vehicle. James Holmes shot up a theater and gave up with a gun at his feet, and was then arrested. As Ridgerunner pointed out a few days ago, cops need to be able to go from "safeties off" in their mind to "safeties on" in a rapid pace as a situation develops. This means discerning the difference between someone pointing a gun at you and putting his or her hands out a window, realizing that your fellow officers shouldn't have shot and not join them or perhaps telling them to cease fire, and being able to recognize when a threat that might have required lethal force seconds ago no longer requires it.

Taking someone's life shouldn't be a matter of "what if's," it should be discernible facts. What is proved in the video: -Suspect ran from police -Suspect slammed into vehicle, probably severely impairing judgement -Suspect attempted to escape -Suspect realized he couldn't drive away -Suspect puts hands out of window, possibly to surrender, but no object in his hand -Shots fired at suspect -Suspect exits car, slowly walking towards police. Possibly suicide by cop or attempting to show he meant no harm. -Suspect walks towards police at the back of his car, instead of running out in front of his car and away from police, leaving all arguments that he was trying to flee at that point in time null and void -Police continue shooting, suspect goes down How is someone slowly walking a threat to public safety, and how does cutting him down in a hail of gunfire improve public safety?

I said claim because there is no proof on here, and you shouldn't provide proof for your own safety. This is the internet after all, and it's full of people being things that they aren't. On this site, it's police officers and the occasional FBI agent who doesn't know his command structure. It is for that reasoning that I take whatever people say about their careers on here with a heavy grain of salt. And those secondary agencies don't remain unassisted, therefore having a bias towards clearing the other agency. A cop I know in my area was talking about how he received a "warning ticket" from a Kansas Trooper. The cop who received the ticket called the trooper's sergeant, who the ticketed cop was good friends with, to tell him about it. This resulted in the rookie trooper being read the riot act on how you don't do that to other LE officers because they respond to help your ass. Two months later, the cop who was ticketed was first on scene to that rookie Trooper getting his ass beat. And a cop, who willingly signs up for a job they know is dangerous, being killed is a bigger tragedy than someone being wrongfully killed by the cop? Any unnecessary death is a tragedy. This entire "us vs. them" and "come home at all costs" attitude is what is ruining law enforcement today, and what is ultimately making it more dangerous for you. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but there should be limits, like not shooting at an unarmed person who is slowly walking towards you.

All my scenarios represented were nearly the same as the video that played out. There was no active threat to the LE that warranted a shooting. Again, slowly walking towards cops while unarmed isn't justifiable for lethal force, regardless of what crime was just committed. So you're telling me the LAPD will let themselves off? Have I argued that they wouldn't? Being that they are investigating it, it makes perfect sense to let themselves off. Being that you claim to be a police officer, you should know that backup is important. Would you want to be labeled a snitch by your fellow officers? Would you want to be known as that guy who got the most popular officer fired because of a mistake he made? How would those labels affect your fellow officers assisting you should you ever need help? That is precisely why little ever comes of law enforcement abuse cases. About Rodney King, I misread your post and didn't see the "federal" part of it. I misread something on the internet. Burn me at the stake now. But they were found innocent in a state court, leaving my response to what I assumed you said as correct. My opinion is based on common sense and morality. Someone walking slowly towards me after just being involved in a violent car crash isn't worthy of my ammo.

So if someone doesn't surrender, but makes no move at present time to endanger others, police are legally allowed to shoot them? Do you realize it's classified as resistance to curl up into a fetal position? Should those people be shot too? And expanding on what cp702 said, when police officers get the opinion that their word is the word of God when it comes to their actions, it endangers and enrages the general public, and ultimately, endangers the officers themselves.

They were convicted in federal court. The case in here probably won't even make it to state court. The only reason why there was a public statement that the officers were wrong, let alone a trial, is because of how publicized it was. And again, since you failed to answer this before, how is someone walking slowly towards officers fleeing from them?

Yes, they were charged. They weren't convicted. Therefore, they did get off. And you didn't answer my question. Why would an agency tarnish its PR by agreeing that multiple officers acted badly at the same incident?

Considering the outcome of the Rodney King trial, I'm not going to be surprised when they get off. Think for just a second. Why would an agency agree that they acted badly?

Instead of running out by the front of his vehicle, he slowly walked towards officers. That must have been the worst police escape attempt in history if what you are claiming is true. As I just said, he probably wasn't fully coherent after just crashing his car. That should have been taken into account, because in his non-coherent mind, he probably thought he was giving up.

Yes, my analogy had everything to do with the video. Except it wasn't as severe. The suspect wielding the knife, having just committed a felonious assault, was still fully coherent. Someone who had just got in a crash like that probably isn't thinking straight directly afterwards (not that he was thinking straight running from the cops to begin with). The knife wielding suspect just dropped the weapon, much like the suspect in the video left the car. The suspect that wielding the knife, now unarmed, is slowly walking towards you. You have at least a dozen officers behind you providing backup. Do you shoot? Your acting like the suspect sprinted towards the back of the car. Look again. He walked towards it. That is in no way a threatening manner (except maybe in the "great battlefield of america" so many adrenaline junkie cops look for). Had he tried to pop open the trunk, a shooting would've been justified because of the heavy suspicion I just talked about in my previous post. But until there is confirmation that a suspect is still armed or about to be armed, a shooting isn't justified.

Like I was saying earlier, as soon as someone willingly removes his or her control of a weapon, shooting that person is no longer justified, regardless of what they just did. And until there is confirmation that there is a weapon or heavy reason to suspect that there is a weapon (ie: Plastic knife, BB gun made to look real or airsoft without orange flash hider) still in control of the suspect, lethal force isn't justfied.