• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Cop Shoot Unarmed Man Crawling From Wreckage Of His Vehicle - No Charges

being startled may excuse one shot in a sensitive gun (which shouldn't be the case for police), but this guy shot twice.
 
It still won't save you from an accidental shot when startled.
Why in the hell was his gun drawn in the first place?!

Dude, the guy was crawling out of a crashed car. There were a lot of sharp pieces of metal and glass within easy arms' reach which he could have picked up and stabbed the cop with. It would have been suicide to go in without his gun drawn.
 
Why in the hell was his gun drawn in the first place?!

Dude, the guy was crawling out of a crashed car. There were a lot of sharp pieces of metal and glass within easy arms' reach which he could have picked up and stabbed the cop with. It would have been suicide to go in without his gun drawn.

Oh, I see! Thanks for splaining this to me!;)
 
I think the follow up "lay" report clears things up.

PDF

It explains everything.

Afraid not. When the guy was climbing out of the car, both of his hands were in plain sight and contained no guns or weapons. Agreed it was a felony drunk driving stop, but the guy exiting the vehicle was in no condition to attack anybody. I think there is something wrong with police procedures that say, whenever in doubt about anything point your gun at it. Even NRA training tells you to never point your loaded gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. The cop was trigger happy...one or two shots has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. As for the fact that the woman passenger was killed in the crash...yes the driver would have to face that in a court but it cannot be used as an excuse for a trigger happy cop delivering street justice. I disagree with the D.A.
 
Afraid not. {snip} I disagree with the D.A.

Did you read the "lay" report ?

My response was to the "lay" report. You have to respond to my response on that issue. I read the whole thing and just say a guy trying to let the cop off the hook and nothing much more. My response indicated the situation did not call for the cop even touching his gun. There have been other posters who said as much. Also regarding the second shot...ONE SHOT IS ENOUGH WHEN ATTACKING AN ALREADY SEVERELY INJURED PERSON. I am just amazed at how many shots cops feel they have the right to pump through a "suspect." You remember Bruce S's song...41shots? It has to stop before the first one.
 
being startled may excuse one shot in a sensitive gun (which shouldn't be the case for police), but this guy shot twice.

Huh? The report I read said once--and that the failure to shoot twice as their training dictated was suggestive of it being an accident.

- - - Updated - - -

It still won't save you from an accidental shot when startled.
Why in the hell was his gun drawn in the first place?!

Felony stop.
 
Look like Officer (uncle) Feaster may be in some hot water after all.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/man-shot-by-paradise-police-officer-dies/37050562

And so much for people only protest when black people are shot.

Do you have a problem with the fact that many protest the way African-Americans are treated by police?

What exactly is wrong with it?

- - - Updated - - -

Looking at the gun in the video I saw two discharges.

Optical illusion.

Yes. It was an optical illusion. It was actually twenty shots that were fired, but it only looked like two discharges because of the optical illusion. :p
 
Wait, so are they protesting that a white gud boi who dindu nuffin got killed by the police -OR- are they protesting police brutality, callousness and an attempted coverup?

Let me know, Derec.

Also, why is there not footage of these protests widely spread out there? Whites protesting en masse could really get the scales tipped against authoritarian cops and DAs in the whole country.
 
I think the follow up "lay" report clears things up.

PDF

It explains everything.

What a load of self-serving bullshit.

Agreed. Take this pile of bs for example:

the lay report said:
The investigators were clear in their collection of the evidence in this case that the officer did not purposely or intentionally fire his pistol. Some in the public will never accept that conclusion, but as explained in the legal research portion of the report –without being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conscious, intentional, willful pulling of the trigger – there are no criminal charges that can be filed under California law for the negligent discharge of a weapon resulting in injury, no matter how horrible, as long as there is not a death and in this case the driver was not killed by the gun shot

The jury is there exactly to determine whether reasonable doubt condition has been met. Besides, there are other crimes available even if "negligent homicide" doesn't apply, like "reckless endangerment." I understand that the local DA's don't want to press charges, but it sounds like the local people would like to a chance for all the evidence to be exposed to them in a court of law. As for whether the weapon was discharged with intention, the weapon was examined and it could only be fired when the trigger was pulled. At the very least, I expect some serious discipline to fall down on an officer that "can't explain" how their firearm discharged and then just mopes around

Also, I'm quite skeptical about the optical illusion excuse, It looks to me like his hands recoil twice in addition to the two puffs of smoke. And it doesn't explain why he just putters around the accident site not trying to help anyone for minutes.
 
I don't see the second shot on the video.
...
OK, I watched it frame by frame and there a flash which clearly is a first shot and then 5 frames (0.16 seconds) later something which looks like some kind of gas or something coming out, I mean there is no flash. I think it's not humanly possible to shoot at such rate - 6 shots per second.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom