Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Destroyer of illusions, Aug 8, 2020.
But you're not watching from the cover officers viewpoint, view it from him and him alone.
Only watch the cover officer's view.
That's how you interpret it. Alternatively the gunman is trying to sucker the contact officer in?
Obviously you haven't watched it because no one else can see what you IMAGINE is there.
Didn't you see the gun behind his back? Didn't you see him bring it around to his towards the contact officer.
No I didn't see that because it is NOT on the video!
The video shows him PUTTING the gun DOWN on the GROUND!
Everyone BUT you sees him putting the gun DOWN!
The still photos show the gun on the floor INSIDE the apartment.
The video of the MURDER shows that BOTH of the victim's hands are EMPTY!
Those are the FACTS in the video EVIDENCE.
No you don't, the cover officer does not see that, you must view it purely from his viewpoint. The position of the gun is irrelevant, the officers would have secured it and it could well have been moved whilst they attempted revive him. Those are the facts.
Now you are just FLAILING again!
No, you keep talking about what the contact officer sees, you must view it purely from the viewpoint of the cover officer. As for the gun, what is your problem?
100% WRONG as always!
I am looking at BOTH videos!
You should TRY doing that and maybe then YOU will realize WHY you are 100% wrong!
Don't, only watch the cover officer's, see things purely through his eyes,
Thank you for establishing that you are disingenuously EXCLUDING the relevant FACTS that establish that the KILLER cop MURDERED the victim.
No, if the contact officer had fired you might have a point but you must only look at this through the eyes of the cover officer. Do that and that alone.
I realize that you *always* side with the officers as you are doing in the thread about a teenage autistic boy was shot by officer; however, your position is difficult to accept because you openly instruct people to completely disregard the video showing this incident from the non-shooter cop's position. Why? It's relevant to the issue. It's disingenuous and dangerous to just ignore information you don't like to get to the conclusion you want.
Not at all, don't you realise why you should completely disregard the contact officers footage? Because the cover officer never saw things from that perspective. I just can't understand why you don't appreciate that?
This is a MURDER investigation!
ALL of the FACTS are RELEVANT when conducting a MURDER investigation.
CHERRY PICKING does NOT exonerate the KILLER cop!
He MURDERED the victim AFTER he dropped the gun.
That is HOW murder investigations are CONDUCTED by those tasked with UPHOLDING the Law of the Land.
No it's not, don't be silly, this was a police officer who killed a gunman who pulled a pistol on his oppo. I'm not cherry picking, the officer could only make his judgement on what HE could see, he didn't have the benefit of hindsight and couldn't see things from the contact officer's point of view. What don't you understand about that?
I (and several others) have already said over and over that the man posed NO risk to the officer because he IMMEDIATELY went to kneel down and lower his weapon as soon as he realized the knock came from cops. It's irrelevant why you think the shooter cop's perspective is all that matters. You are just ignoring the parts of this equation that don't fit with your conclusion.
It is both myopic and dangerous to ignore a HUGE part of information that could eliminate any doubts about a given incident. I love that cops are required to wear body cams now. At least, there is a fighting chance for families to sue now that cops can't just lie for each other and bury their crimes behind fake "investigations".
Not my problem that YOU cannot understand how MURDER investigations deal with ALL of the facts and do NOT try to COVER them up so that KILLER cops can get away with MURDER.
What are you talking about? The contact officer never fired. Only the cover officer's perspective matters and what he saw was a gunman pulling a pistol from concealment around his body towards the contact. You are ignoring the fact that the cover officer did not have access to the viewpoint you had. I love that police have bodycams because on viewing the cover officer's anyone would agree that he did the right thing. What 'fake' investigation? 2 cops go to investigate a noise complaint and some nutjob opens the door to them in his shorts toting a gun.
Wrong, because the cover officer could only see things from his viewpoint, not the contact officer's. What part of that do you not understand?
This issue is why so many people have come to distrust the police. They witness a murder like this one but their testimony is discounted in favor of a cover up for the cop. Justice must apply to everyone and when justice is denied it causes distrust of the entire system.
The video cams evidence are impartial witnessed to this crime and BOTH must be viewed in order that justice is served. Any less than that and it becomes a TRAVESTY of justice.
If there was any DOUBT in this instance I would lean towards giving it to the officer HOWEVER in this instance there is NO doubt whatsoever. He panicked and shot the victim in the back. Whether are any mitigating circumstances, such as lack of adequate training, is up to the court to take into consideration when it comes to sentencing but this does need to go to court IMO.
I understand how the Law of the Land applies EQUALLY to EVERYONE.
The KILLER cop MURDERED the victim and he can plead his case in the courtroom where ALL of the EVIDENCE will be PRESENTED to a JURY to decide.
I'm not sure if you are bothering to read anything that disagrees with your point, but, AGAIN, you cannot ignore or outright dismiss any information that doesn't support your conclusion.
And, AGAIN, the other cop's cam clearly shows the man was not a threat. Further, even if he was a threat to either officer, why didn't the shooter cop say something or do something to subdue the guy without using lethal force? He overreacted and a man is DEAD because of that overreaction.
I haven't kept tabs but there are MANY people that disagree with you so it's not realistic to say "anyone would agree..."
I believe anyone reading my post will understand that I'm speaking, in general, about police investigations in which supervising officers pretend to "investigate" reports of police brutality but end up ignoring the complaints and clearing the involved officer(s).
This is tiresome. The man went to kneel and lowered his gun as soon as he saw that it was cops that knocked on his door. That proves that he was well aware of the situation and was not a threat. Clearly, he wasn't a "nutjob".
Why didn't the cover officer use his taser?
Why didn't the cover officer shoot the guy in his arm?
Why didn't the cover officer fire a warning shot?
Why didn't the cover officer use his foot to push the guy to the ground?
Why didn't the cover officer yell a warning to his partner?
There are many ways the shooter cop could have took control of the situation without killing the man.
I honestly hope that you are never in the position to have to bury a loved one who was killed by overreacting cops. Funerals are hard enough without the grieving having to live with knowing their loved one was killed for no reason other than a trigger happy and/or untrained LEO shot them in the back several times.
This vid shows exactly why people should trust the police, that the officer acted honestly and his actions were reasonable. Only the cover officer's footage should be watched because he's the only one who fired and that was wholly justified from his perspective. A travesty of justice is judging a man in a split second, life or death decision with the benefit of hindsight, having information he did not have. You know the officer acted correctly, just admit you are wrong.
Separate names with a comma.