- May 31, 2011
- 2,325
- 269
Why should they have used lethal force on someone who didnt pose a lethal threat to them? This is a great example when NOT to shoot someone. Just because youre getting your butt whooped doesnt mean your life is in danger.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would have shot him SO EARLY, then shot whoever was saying eff the police....then planted drugs on him.
VERY SERIOUS.
I would have shot him SO EARLY, then shot whoever was saying eff the police....then planted drugs on him.
VERY SERIOUS.
Link to the news article with another video
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...horne-fried-chicken-restaurant-286321441.html
nah...the first taser attempt failed because of the bulky clothing. The second taser took him down, because his shirt was off.Just watched the video again with volume. Looks like they did extract Taser... most likely this dude was on something.
View media item 418564
I would have shot him SO EARLY, then shot whoever was saying eff the police....then planted drugs on him.
VERY SERIOUS.
What's funny is that had there been no video, and all we had to go off of was the word of the cops, people would've said things like, "why would an unarmed dude attack two armed policemen?" We need body cams ASAP.
What's funny is that had there been no video, and all we had to go off of was the word of the cops, people would've said things like, "why would an unarmed dude attack two armed policemen?" We need body cams ASAP.
If the cops shot him, imo I think it would be justified. You don't need a weapon on you "VISIBLY" to be perceived as a threat. If I'm a cop I'm not taking chances, this guy was lucky enough to run into cops that took that chance. I'm not getting into a fist fight with a perp, I MAY try a taser, if it doesn't work I'm unloading.
But yes, I am 100 percent for cameras on the police.
But even with a video now they think its cool the guy got in a fight with themWhat's funny is that had there been no video, and all we had to go off of was the word of the cops, people would've said things like, "why would an unarmed dude attack two armed policemen?" We need body cams ASAP.
If the cops shot him, imo I think it would be justified. You don't need a weapon on you "VISIBLY" to be perceived as a threat. If I'm a cop I'm not taking chances, this guy was lucky enough to run into cops that took that chance. I'm not getting into a fist fight with a perp, I MAY try a taser, if it doesn't work I'm unloading.
But yes, I am 100 percent for cameras on the police.
I agree with you.
I was talking about the people who automatically discount any official statement from police. Like had deadly force been used, and there was no footage, so all we could go off of was the word of the police, there would be people that automatically dismiss what the police said and they would ask questions like, "why would an unarmed guy attack two armed policemen." Like in this thread:
http://niketalk.com/t/614444/philly...-finally-had-a-weapon-he-stood-no-chance/0_20
What's funny is that had there been no video, and all we had to go off of was the word of the cops, people would've said things like, "why would an unarmed dude attack two armed policemen?" We need body cams ASAP.
They did taser him, a few times actually. They looked pretty determined NOT to shoot him. If they shot him, YET it would've been excessive. Put if they beat him down, like they did after they got him to the ground, I can't say he didn't deserve that.So you either blow a dudes brains out or you decide to throw denm pawz?...
What kind of training are these cops getting?...where is the pepper spray, baton, taser?...you can put a dude down without killing him :tollin
What's funny is that had there been no video, and all we had to go off of was the word of the cops, people would've said things like, "why would an unarmed dude attack two armed policemen?" We need body cams ASAP.