Chicago releases dash-cam video of fatal shooting after cop charged with murder

Completely understandable when they are fighting a never ending battle, expected to maintain some sense of order and security, at the same time they are expected to be mind readers who are required to coddle criminals and thugs who would just as soon kill you and (*)(*)(*)(*) you in the ass while you are dying.

 

Yet my assumption that he was given commands by the officers on the scene, is much more logical, therefore rational/legitimate, than the asinine assumption that they didn't.

 

Not sure, you are the one who keeps bringing race into the discussion.

Wouldn't it be nice if every situation was the same. I guess they could have just hit him with a car and then disarmed him. Taser probably wouldn't have fazed him anyway in his condition and like has already been put out there, 9mm suck and unless you are lucky enough to get a good shot all police procedures require the officer to empty the gun. (I don't necessarily agree with that but that is their training)

“We here in Colorado do know the circumstances at the conclusion of the incident in Colorado Springs,” the statement said. “In yesterday’s heroic police action the shooter was given the opportunity to surrender. The choice to live or die was his. He chose to live, laid down his weapon, complied with all commands and peacefully surrendered.”

Maybe the drugged out thug with the knife should have followed the police commands/instructions, and he would still be alive. In any case the majority of blame falls on the thug. The thug in Colorado is still alive only because he followed the police commands/instructions.

...and if that is determined to be the case in a court of law, manslaughter will be the appropriate charge.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

If that's your stance, then you cleartly have no sympathy for any of the officers who summarily executed a civilian of the union, who I might add, have constitutional rights, which cannot simply be forfeited because YOU disagree with the nature of their character.

Moreover, it's quite clear the PCP implication isn't going away for any of those who want to support this child killing cop - so I'll pose you this one.

Why is it that the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, but the outlawing and prohibition of any other consumable drug is not treated the exact same way?

This is arbitrary nonsense, a way for the state to CREATE criminals, specifically, the kind you reference. These are creations of the state. Without the prohibition, the criminal portion of the PCP debate doesn't exist - so, if that's the case, is it a criminal act to be high on PCP?

Well, if you go by the SCOTUS, and the history of the constituionality of denying consumables to the people, no, it isn't a criminal act.

The constitution exists to protect the rights of the people. Any statute or law that abridges these rights are to be outright ignored, by we the people. So him doing PCP is not a criminal act because no one here can prove that the outlawing of consumables without a constitutional amendment is legal in any way shape or form.

Then do us all a favor and move to North Korea as I suggested. We don't need this poisonous, cancerous and idiotic stance afflicting us through the political process by voting.

 

Blah blah, a bunch of nonanswers, non arguments and bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Give it a rest.

You've not addressed the constitutionality of the summary execution without due process.


You've not even supported the notion that he made a SINGLE aggressive movement in the six seconds it took for this vicious baby killing sociopath to execute a civilian of the union.

You've not bothered to address the issue of force equal to threat, which is quite clearly way out of line.

Why excuse a summary execution of a civilian of the union by an agent of the state?

Why not go put the police union on blast like you and every other radical right wing fascist on this board does to all other unions?


Because you're all hypocrites, one and all.

 

Which can kill or seriously injure someone.

The guy gave up and submitted to the arrest after about 4 hours of the police trying to kill him.

They pulled their weapons on him and told him to get on the ground, that's pretty serious. Of course he refused and made the aggressive move. Guess what, that will get you killed in a heartbeat.

 

Lack or rebuttal noted

False statement and yes I did, it was not a summary execution and you have to submit to the arrest in order for due process to start.

The video supports it.

It was equal, the officers do not have to wait until he throws the knife.

Hyperbole does not substitute of intellectual rebuttal.

Got anything of substance to add or just sophomoric rants?
Because you're all hypocrites, one and all.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Yeah yeah, typical BS.

Force equal to threat. Is a gun a knife is a gun now? If so then every single citizen of the union is an armed thug, because everyone has knives at their homes.

Moreover, the video does not, absolutely does not, validate any type of argument that the suspect was advancing on the police.

The shot turned him.

In addition, turning around does not constitute the typical "reaching for his waistband" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) these cops sling around.

You have nothing, man. You can't even address the constitutional issue of prohibition. You just blindly accept the cop as being right, no ifs ands or buts, you did the same thing with Garner and every other case of a civilian being executed by an agent of the state.

Your bias is clear, and with it, your arguments; paper thin nonsense, apologist bull(*)(*)(*)(*) designed only to fit the stigma of the partisan line you're choosing to toe.

Let me put it to you this way - you have a large group of government employees, paid large salaries, with hefty pensions. These people are guaranteed their position by a union that is almost unbreakable. These employees are almost never, ever held accountable by any agency for breaking the law or performing poorly, even when that means life or death.

If these were teachers, you'd be calling for mass prison camps for all of them.

But since they're cops, you have to toe the line, no matter how ridiculous and absurd that position is, just because... why? It doesn't even make sense.

The constitution gives us all rights. He had a right to a fair trial, and refusing arrest does not excuse that right, no matter how much bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spin you want to put on it. They could have tried any other manner to effect an arrest - something the tax payers EXPECT Them to do - but instead they killed him.

Now, in addition to defending this scumdog cop and his union, you're willing to excuse the fact that not only do the tax payers have to pay his salary despite his possible previous civil rights violations, we have to foot the bill for the lawsuit.

In any, ANY other case of a government employee acting and being treated as such, you and any other republican or conservative would be throwing fits of rage.

But as long as it's a cop killing a "thug", you're there to defend them.

Hypocritical to the end, with your non answers and spin.

 

LMAO. but on that we can agree the body can turn and spin, now address what I said and not what you can reduce it to so that you may lie by omission

 

yes it is, bummer it's still first degree murder

 

I guess it's because police policy and training doesn't overrule actual legislation.

 

Nothing else needs to be further addressed, be made a sudden move and shots were fired. The problem is with the shots after the suspect fell.

- - - Updated - - -

Or excessive use of force. Show me the premeditation.

 

Show me where the police are required to pull knives of that is what the dangerous suspect is threatening with.

Doesn't have to but it shows a threatening move by the suspect.

That is not definitive in the video which more appears to show he turned first shots don't make you spin, he dropped immediately when he was hit in the back.

He already had the weapon in his hand which he was brandishing and any sudden motion at that point after being told to drop it and get on the ground could be interpreted as threatening. They don't have to wait forbhom to throwbit.

Got the video, man. Got got bias, man.

You got the bias, man and lack of understanding of the Constitution and scroll back where I clearly said the additional shots while the suspect is on the ground present the problem, man.

I got the unbiased view of what occourred.

Lets just deal with reality, nnot you emotion based bias.

Tell you what try speaking for yourself, when you try to do it for me you look foolish

Yes it does. In order to get your fair trial you have to submit to the process. Did you watch the shootings in CA? Did those shooters have a right to a fair trail? Yes. Are they going to get one? No, why not? They would not submit to an arrest.

You really need to get you emotions in check and stop with the hyperbole. Is it possible for yohbto have a civil rational conversation?

You are the only displaying unchecked rage here.

And try reading more slowly, the officer is most likely going to jail for the shots after the suspect was on the ground.

Ad hominem do not constitute rational discussions you know, man.

 

It isn't. They are overcharging to see what will stick. There is absolutely zero chance of proving that the officer went to that scene for the express purpose of killing that suspect on that day. Manslaughter might be proven but that will be a stretch too, unless a bias out of touch jury goes on a witch hunt.

- - - Updated - - -

True, and if they can prove malicious intent then they might have a case. So far no evidence that reaches that level has been presented.

 

With white people today who knows.....

 

six seconds from exiting to pulling the trigger is five and a half seconds more than required for premeditation. fourteen additional shots cement his fat.

I have proven your spinning move theory WRONG using all the evidence. what do you have to refute this without omitting major elements of spin. answer n

, nothing

 

So now you are claiming he exited the vehicle with the intention of murdering the suspect? And the premise of this supposition is what exactly?

Your fallacious assertion that one must raise both arms in order to spin around refutes nothing.

 

yes and the whole of his actions say first degree murder.


a backhanded motion that has a range of any degree is a concert of the body that requires no human thought, it is very different than what we see. no wiggle room for your tired BS

 

No and unnecessary use of force, the initial shooting was a lawful shooting, the shot on the ground is where the officer faces legal sanction. And the spin looks purposeful, it's after he gets shot we see the involuntary jerking motion and sudden drop to the ground.

 

chuckle, its so cute the way you see an aggressive backhanded spin, even when he is flat footed with the balance arm flat to his side maybe even in his pocket. now show me one example of an aggressive backhanded spinning move to cover over 180 degree of rotation { close to 300 degree were needed, to be apples to apples,but I'm cool } that takes place flat footed with the balance arm remaining unmoved from the hip. i have spent thirty years in a trade that makes me an expert in the body's movements as affected by gravity, if I'm wrong I die, if I train others poorly they die and again I am a highly respected for this reason how about you?

 

You're right. It was a legal shooting. Not a justified, or moral, or ethical, or intelligent, or logical, shooting. It was a legal shooting.

Because the SCOTUS, while ruling force must be like and kind to threat, has also failed to define the term reasonable, especially when linked to "reasonable" fear exhibited in so many of these absurd, preposterous shootings.

Does that exculpate this officer? No, he reacted to a diffusable situation with a final solution, and thereby, ignored the constitutional rights of the person he was shooting.

Was this person a criminal? Perhaps, but we'll never know, because he had no trial.

Did he break the "law" by taking PCP? Perhaps, but only if you agree that statutes and ordinances can override the supreme law of the land. Secondary to that you also then agree that the state can create criminals by arbitrarily removing our rights, and are OK with it.

Premeditated? Possibly. But then again, the courts and police unions have created an impossible situation. A cop simply has to claim fear for his life; there is no, absolutely no way to prove it, which in and of itself is entirely absurd in a nation of laws. Whereas the state has to prove a perpetrator is guilty through evidence, there is absolutely no way to substantiate the claims of a single officer when they claim reasonable fear, especially with the vague rulings of the SCOTUS on the matter.

So while you may be right, it may have been "legal" to shoot this person, it was certainly not constitutional, it was certainly not ethical, and it is certainly not an equal playing field in the legal system which demands such.

As for the spin, right - I guess you're an expert now. Which is absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because you defended the gestapo when we saw the Garner killing in NY.

 

I just did it in my living room and I have bad knees. I can do it with my left arm wrapped around my waist
And gravity has nothing to do with it, inertia maybe but not enough to prevent it.

 

I took out OBL

 

Where does the Constitution say you have a right to use deadly force against a police officer who is attempting to lawfully arrest you? Use any force? Make moves which appear to be threatening moves. Where has the SCOTUS ruled that if the threatening suspect is using a knife then the police may not use guns they must use knives?

I have little doubt the officers saw the knife in his hand, which could also appear as the barrel of a gun under the circumstances. The suspect was acting erractically and the the sudden turn. Guess what, they are going to fire to protect themsleves. They don't have to take a bullet or have a knife thrown at them first.

We have no audio to determine exactly when the first shot is fired. So far no testimony from the other officers as to when exactly it was fired. We do see a purposeful turn in the suspects part and the the jerking reaction as be is hot and then drops.

THEN comes the problematic shots after the suspect is on the ground.

And yes we know he was a criminal and even more so when he failed to drop the deadly weapon and submit to the arrest.

 

nope the body tells the story no audio is required, the left arm and right foot are very telling.
inertia is a property of matter in this case the left arm, irrefutable proof that no aggressive spin was made. it's a fact that no matter who you are, you can not change, if you tried, and in an aggressive spinning motion on drugs in an wacked out mind surrounded by cops. no just no but (*)(*)(*)(*) no. what have you to refute this?