Support NeoGAF

[bigtroyjon]

In what way is he using the baby as a shield? HOW DARE THE GRANDFATHER HOLD HIS GRANDCHILD IN HIS ARM, CLEARLY HE MUST BE USING THE CHILD AS A SHIELD.

Caps, always a sign of someone who is able to make a rational argument. He's holding the baby in front of his face as he walks outside to check out the cops.

(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face.

There isn't even any information regarding if the officers attempted to speak with the man. The report simply shows that they were outside his house ~18 feet away and they shot him in/near his doorway.

Guy walks outside and sees a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him. Any rational person would put his hands up or attempt to communicate. They wouldn't hold a baby up to their face as a shield and then attempt to escape back into the house.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I'm often on the side of the Police.. but this thread is just.. disturbing.

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

So.. he went to his door.. turned around to go back inside (perhaps to put the baby down to go talk to the cops).. and the cop immediately shot him based on a report he had a gun?

Even if he DID have a gun in his hand... he's in his own home... and he could have been, I dunno.. putting the gun down?

I'll wait for final judgment, but the initial facts point to a disturbingly trigger happy officer who shot a man who wasn't committing any crime at the time, and who may or may not have committed a misdemeanor moments earlier.

Newsflash, but there is nothing illegal about holding a gun in your own home.. even with a baby in your arms.. nor is there anything illegal about going inside when Police approach your home.

 

[Maleficence]

Wow. Okay.

Because cops knock on doors and shoot you in the head immediately.

This guy was obviously in the wrong then, he forgot to knock!

 

[Derrick01]

This is why you need to make friends that are cops. They're not so eager to headshot a friend.

 

[SonnyBoy]

HOW DARE THE GRANDFATHER HOLD HIS GRANDCHILD IN HIS ARM, CLEARLY HE MUST BE USING THE CHILD AS A SHIELD.

After GRANDFATHER allegedly puled a gun out on his neighbor. And after GRANDFATHER turned his back to the cops. All of this with a child in his arms. Clearly he is NOT worried about that child's well being.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Guy walks outside and sees a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him. Any rational person would put his hands up or attempt to communicate. They wouldn't hold a baby up to their face as a shield and then attempt to escape back into the house.

Yeah, put your hands up.. with a baby in his hands....

Perhaps he.. I dunno.. was going to turn around to put the baby down?

And where does it say there were "a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him"?

 

[numble]

Caps, always a sign of someone who is able to make a rational argument. He's holding the baby in front of his face as he walks outside to check out the cops.


Guy walks outside and sees a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him. Any rational person would put his hands up or attempt to communicate. They wouldn't hold a baby up to their face as a shield and then attempt to escape back into the house.

Where does it say he walked outside or that the police had their guns drawn on him?

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

 

[radioheadrule83]

So glad I don't live in a country where people can shoot you while you're holding an infant just because you're trying to go into your house. Fucking ridiculous.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Wow. Okay.

Because cops knock on doors and shoot you in the head immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6B...l13l10l0l3l3l0l175l635l3.3l6l0&has_verified=1

EDIT: Wait, bad example, there was no door knocking.

 

[SonnyBoy]

I can only speak for myself but if I see a bunch of cops in a defensive position outside my house, I'd put the child down. But that's just me, maybe I'm crazy.

 

[DY_nasty]

Yeah, put your hands up.. with a baby in his hands....

Perhaps he.. I dunno.. was going to turn around to put the baby down?

And where does it say there were "a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him"?

Perhaps he came off like a lunatic too?

There isn't shit to go off in the article regarding what was said at the door. I just don't like the whole wait and see wait and see wait and see wait and see okay now its okay to make a decision mentality.

 

[numble]

I can only speak for myself but if I see a bunch of cops in a defensive position outside my house, I'd put the child down. But that's just me, maybe I'm crazy.

Where does it say they were in a defensive position?

 

[Keylime]

Wow. Okay.

Because cops knock on doors and shoot you in the head immediately.

This is what apparently happened:

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.​

*ding dong*
"Hello?" /holding baby in hands, turns to go back inside house
*dude standing 20 feet away greases him because he saw a black object on him and was reportedly told that he had threatened a neighbor with a gun*

End of story.

...you can't shoot someone for that.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Caps, always a sign of someone who is able to make a rational argument. He's holding the baby in front of his face as he walks outside to check out the cops.

Have you ever held a baby in one arm? You hold them near your upper chest/shoulder region. Where else would you suggest holding a child with one arm? Seriously, how else do you hold a baby besides cradling him/her near your upper torso?

After GRANDFATHER allegedly puled a gun out on his neighbor. And after GRANDFATHER turned his back to the cops. All of this with a child in his arms. Clearly he is NOT worried about that child's well being.

Key word. We don't always have to live by the "shoot first, ask questions later" belief.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I can only speak for myself but if I see a bunch of cops in a defensive position outside my house, I'd put the child down. But that's just me, maybe I'm crazy.

Yeah.. like.. maybe you'll go to put the child back in his stroller.. where is the stroller?

Oh, right behind me..

BOOM, headshot.

Or would you put the baby on the flloor? On the cement outside your house?

And where are you inventing "a bunch of cops"... this was 2 cops.. who don't even say they are in any sort of "defensive position".. they were outside his house.. he walked to the door with a baby in his arms, turned around.. and was shot.

What crime was he commiting?

 

[Miggytronz]

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.

"(Loxas) was holding the baby in his left arm in front of his upper body and face. Moments later, he reached down to his right, lowering the baby, clearly exposing his head and upper body. Officer Peters responded to the movement with a single shot (to) the suspect's head. The suspect fell to the ground and the baby was rescued by officers. The suspect died instantly," Clark said.

Peters "felt he had to prevent him from re-entering the house," Clark said. "The intent was to rescue the baby."

The guy obviously wasnt complying with the police. And he REACHED for something................probable cause to get shot. Stop defending people who cant even listen to a cop Gaf. Geez. Its really simple.

 

[Maleficence]

Perhaps he came off like a lunatic too?

There isn't shit to go off in the article regarding what was said at the door. I just don't like the whole wait and see wait and see wait and see wait and see okay now its okay to make a decision mentality.

Even the officer himself never suggested that the suspect was threatening him or the baby and he wasn't even convinced it was a gun he was holding, which it wasn't.

He had no reason at all to shoot the guy. The decision to fatally shoot someone is not one that should be taken as lightly as this officer seems to have done.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Perhaps he came off like a lunatic too?

There isn't shit to go off in the article regarding what was said at the door. I just don't like the whole wait and see wait and see wait and see wait and see okay now its okay to make a decision mentality.

They make no claim that he was committing any crime, threatening any officer, or even threatening the baby.

By the way the report is read? He also probably didn't have a gun in his hand.. because they would have said he was found with a gun in his hand or near his person.

So even with the facts presented by the police, they killed a man who was not in the commission of a crime, and wasn't pointing a weapon at any of them.

 

[DY_nasty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6B...l13l10l0l3l3l0l175l635l3.3l6l0&has_verified=1

EDIT: Wait, bad example, there was no door knocking.

Yes.

Because when cops do routine domestic stops like that they all play out like that. Let me just link to all of the worst case scenarios of everything in the world ever because that is how points are made.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Wow. Okay.

Because cops knock on doors and shoot you in the head immediately.

No they wait till you lower the baby and turn around first.

Can't risk to shoot the knees as well since the baby could get hurt, but I heard that hitboxes on heads are bigger than those on knees, so the baby was in no danger at all getting hit, since cops have no problems landing perfect headshots but can't for their life shoot at other areas with any precision at all.

 

[dave is ok]

If the same cop shot 6 people he's probably a bad cop.

 

[danwarb]

I can only speak for myself but if I see a bunch of cops in a defensive position outside my house, I'd put the child down. But that's just me, maybe I'm crazy.

I'd have tried to take the baby back inside, rather than drop or hand the baby over to a stranger.

 

[Alucrid]

Probably like every other person in this thread that says the victim deserved it.

I would say 99% of the people aren't saying he deserved it, so much as it was an unfortunate string of events that led to an unforunate, but not entirely irrational outcome.

Why is there any concern for this being a hostage situation? I've seen parents get in fights with other people then go about their day with their kid in-tow; is that parent planning on holding their own child/grandchild hostage just because they were threatening or violent earlier in the day?

I literally see no reason for anyone to consider this a hostage situation given the details. Where is this argument even coming from, the "rescue the baby" comment in the article?

I'm often on the side of the Police.. but this thread is just.. disturbing.



So.. he went to his door.. turned around to go back inside (perhaps to put the baby down to go talk to the cops).. and the cop immediately shot him based on a report he had a gun?

Even if he DID have a gun in his hand... he's in his own home... and he could have been, I dunno.. putting the gun down?

I'll wait for final judgment, but the initial facts point to a disturbingly trigger happy officer who shot a man who wasn't committing any crime at the time, and who may or may not have committed a misdemeanor moments earlier.

Newsflash, but there is nothing illegal about holding a gun in your own home.. even with a baby in your arms.. nor is there anything illegal about going inside when Police approach your home.

Yeah, put your hands up.. with a baby in his hands....

Perhaps he.. I dunno.. was going to turn around to put the baby down?

And where does it say there were "a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him"?

When you turn away from six cops outside your house to go back inside? Yeah, that tells you something. There were six officers on the scene per the article. Likely they were situated behind their cars with their weapons drawn since they were dealing with a possibly armed suspect in his house where they had no idea what he was doing.


Whatever though, we're just going to get wrapped up in police-thread-gaf's favorite game, S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N!

 

[Effect]

If he wanted to prevent him to re-enter the house, wouldn't it be better to just shot him in a knee?

I really don't understand this things..

This. A rifle headshot tells me the guy had time to aim. He went for the kill when it seems there was no hostile action from the guy to the police. Why not the supposed gun arm? Side of the body? Leg? No as soon as the baby was out of the way he went for the kill. The baby could have been moved right back into the same position and been the one killed. Trigger happy. This is part of why many people don't trust the police. Or in some cases fear them.

 

[bigtroyjon]

I'm often on the side of the Police.. but this thread is just.. disturbing.



So.. he went to his door.. turned around to go back inside (perhaps to put the baby down to go talk to the cops).. and the cop immediately shot him based on a report he had a gun?

Even if he DID have a gun in his hand... he's in his own home... and he could have been, I dunno.. putting the gun down?

I'll wait for final judgment, but the initial facts point to a disturbingly trigger happy officer who shot a man who wasn't committing any crime at the time, and who may or may not have committed a misdemeanor moments earlier.

Newsflash, but there is nothing illegal about holding a gun in your own home.. even with a baby in your arms.. nor is there anything illegal about going inside when Police approach your home.

Cocking a gun in someone's face isn't a misdemeanor, it's aggravated assault in Arizona and a class 3 felony.

And where does it say there were "a bunch of cops having their guns drawn at him"?

So basically you don't know the laws and you can't read the article. Smart guy.

 

[Keylime]

Yes.

Because when cops do routine domestic stops like that they all play out like that. Let me just link to all of the worst case scenarios of everything in the world ever because that is how points are made.

I get where you're coming from man...but you can't shoot people because someone told you someone did something and now you're suspecting that anything they do could be justifiable cause to shoot them dead.

If it was confirmed the guy had a gun then you yell at him to stand down and drop the gun on the ground.

If it wasn't confirmed that the guy had a gun, you can't just shoot the guy because you think he might, and he might be trying to hurt someone. Your gut isn't a good enough reason to kill someone. It just isn't. And it can't be.

 

[marrec]

After GRANDFATHER allegedly puled a gun out on his neighbor. And after GRANDFATHER turned his back to the cops. All of this with a child in his arms. Clearly he is NOT worried about that child's well being.

There we go.

Important word that.

People usually don't get shot for allegedly doing things.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

When you turn away from six cops outside your house to go back inside? Yeah, that tells you something. There were six officers on the scene per the article. Likely they were situated behind their cars with their weapons drawn since they were dealing with a possibly armed suspect in his house where they had no idea what he was doing.

He had a baby in his arms..

What is he supposed to do? Approach six cops with a baby in his arms?

What crime was he committing?

I'm not saying he's rational, or even DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS.. he sounds like an idiotic lunatic.. but he is also an American Citizen, who didn't appear to be committing any crime or threatening anyone when he was shot in the head.

 

[DY_nasty]

This is what apparently happened:

When officers arrived, Loxas had returned to his house, but came to the door with the baby in his arms, police said. Peters and another officer told investigators that they saw a black object in Loxas' hand. Loxas turned to go back inside when Peters, who was standing 18 feet away at the edge of the driveway, shot him in the head with his patrol rifle, police said.​

*ding dong*
"Hello?" /holding baby in hands, turns to go back inside house
*dude standing 20 feet away greases him because he saw a black object on him and was reportedly told that he had threatened a neighbor with a gun*

End of story.

...you can't shoot someone for that.

If thats all there was to it - sure, its very, very fucked up. But that splurge hardly sums up everything that went around that situation. I know when I fire a round, the paperwork I end up filling out is 3 pages long. You can't sum up an entire confrontation in less than a paragraph like that. Nothing is that black and white.

 

[VanillaCakeIsBurning]

The guy obviously wasnt complying with the police. And he REACHED for something................probable cause to get shot. Stop defending people who cant even listen to a cop Gaf. Geez. Its really simple.

Where in that quote does it say that they spoke to him?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Cocking a gun in someone's face isn't a misdemeanor, it's aggravated assault in Arizona and a class 3 felony.

Thanks for the correction.

So the crime he allegedly committed was a felony.

Doesn't change the fact the cops shot him while not committing any crime, or threatening anyone.. and he hadn't shoot anyone, fire his weapon, hurt anyone, etc.

He'd allegedly cocked his gun and pointed it at his neighbor... and was then shot inside his own home unarmed, with his grandson in his arms.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

If thats all there was to it - sure, its very, very fucked up. But that splurge hardly sums up everything that went around that situation. I know when I fire a round, the paperwork I end up filling out is 3 pages long. You can't sum up an entire confrontation in less than a paragraph like that. Nothing is that black and white.

So you are told to shoot people in the back of the head who are holding babies on the assumption that they might have a weapon that you maybe saw from 18 feet away?

You HONESTLY telling me that is proper police procedure?

A man threatens his neighbor with a gun, and so he gets shot for turning his back to Police?

 

[speedline]

Shouldn't the officer say something before shooting you in the back of the head like "stop or I'll shoot" or some shit. This coward fucking pig needs to spend the rest of his dickless life in prison.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Thanks for the correction.

So the crime he allegedly committed was a felony.

Doesn't change the fact the cops shot him while not committing any crime, or threatening anyone.. and he hadn't shot anyone, fired his weapon, hurt anyone, etc.

He'd allegedly cocked his gun and pointed it at his neighbor... and was then shot inside his own home unarmed, with his grandson in his arms.

We've already established this is a hostage situation 2 pages ago.

 

[Apoc87]

when he was shot dead, he could have dropped the baby on its head and killed it.

1 sensless death already (the guy didnt have a fucking gun), but there could have been 2 senseless deaths because of some SWAT team members ego.

 

[andycapps]

I would say 99% of the people aren't saying he deserved it, so much as it was an unfortunate string of events that led to an unforunate, but not entirely irrational outcome.

That's a pretty good summary.

When you turn away from six cops outside your house to go back inside? Yeah, that tells you something. There were six officers on the scene per the article. Likely they were situated behind their cars with their weapons drawn since they were dealing with a possibly armed suspect in his house where they had no idea what he was doing.

Whatever though, we're just going to get wrapped up in police-thread-gaf's favorite game, S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N!

Yeah, you don't walk away from 6 cops. You stop whatever you're doing, and do whatever they tell you to do. You deviate from that, and when they've been told you have a gun, if they see something that looks like one, this is what happens.

 

[Alucrid]

There we go.

Important word that.

People usually don't get shot for allegedly doing things.

It's a he-said-she-said thing. Are you going to ignore the fact that he might have a gun or are you going to deal with the situation assuming that he does have a gun?

He had a baby in his arms..

What is he supposed to do? Approach six cops with a baby in his arms?

What crime was he committing?

I'm not saying he's rational, or even DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS.. he sounds like an idiotic lunatic.. but he is also an American Citizen, who didn't appear to be committing any crime or threatening anyone when he was shot in the head.

I would assume that they told him to, you know, freeze.

 

[DY_nasty]

So you are told to shoot people in the back of the head who are holding babies on the assumption that they might have a weapon that you maybe saw from 18 feet away?

You HONESTLY telling me that is proper police procedure?

A man threatens his neighbor with a gun, and so he gets shot for turning his back to Police?

Is that what I said?

That's nowhere remotely close to what I said.

What is wrong with you? lol

 

[Keylime]

If thats all there was to it - sure, its very, very fucked up. But that splurge hardly sums up everything that went around that situation. I know when I fire a round, the paperwork I end up filling out is 3 pages long. You can't sum up an entire confrontation in less than a paragraph like that. Nothing is that black and white.

Agreed, nothing is black and white...but with the information we have you can't go filling in the blanks and assume that somehow this guy made any kind of threat and was justifiably shot.

The dude seems sketchy as hell, sure. It sounds like he probably had a bunch of guns pointed at him, sure. But how is it ever OK to kill someone because someone on the phone told you they threatened them with a gun? Until you see that gun and the person isn't complying with your commands, there is no way you can just up and shoot him.

Yeah, you don't walk away from 6 cops. You stop whatever you're doing, and do whatever they tell you to do. You deviate from that, and when they've been told you have a gun, if they see something that looks like one, this is what happens.

Agreed as well...but regardless that doesn't justify this guy getting shot. The world isn't perfect and I get that...but there is a right and a wrong way to get things done and this was done the wrong way. Whether or not it was right after the fact still makes it wrong in the moment.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Thanks for the correction.

So the crime he allegedly committed was a felony.

Doesn't change the fact the cops shot him while not committing any crime, or threatening anyone.. and he hadn't shot anyone, fired his weapon, hurt anyone, etc.

He'd allegedly cocked his gun and pointed it at his neighbor... and was then shot inside his own home unarmed, with his grandson in his arms.

But see that's ok, the officers were obviously scared shitless and there was no other option than to take him out. I mean how could you expect police to act like a police force rather than some paramilitary hit squad?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Is that what I said?

That's nowhere remotely close to what I said.

What is wrong with you? lol

I didn't say it's what you said. I asked you a question which was based on the facts presented.

So I assume the answer is no?

Then why are you defending the cops here? They quite literally said it's what happened here.

He came to the door, turned around... and was shot in the back of the head with a baby in his arms on the incorrect assumption he had a gun in his hand.

 

[Miggytronz]

Where in that quote does it say that they spoke to him?

I guess you dont know Police procedure.

im 100% sure they gave that guy a warning.

Also having 6 officers show up on your property should tell you something is up and i should comply but this is GAF, everyone is above the law here.

 

[dave is ok]

Lets look at it this way. Most cops go their entire careers without killing someone. This guy is averaging killing one person every year in a part of the country that doesn't have a particularly high crime rate.

He's obviously a bad cop and should be fired. No one should be that quick to shoot.

 

[Miggytronz]

The dude seems sketchy as hell, sure. It sounds like he probably had a bunch of guns pointed at him, sure. But how is it ever OK to kill someone because someone on the phone told you they threatened them with a gun? Until you see that gun and the person isn't complying with your commands, there is no way you can just up and shoot him.


Agreed as well...but regardless that doesn't justify this guy getting shot. The world isn't perfect and I get that...but there is a right and a wrong way to get things done and this was done the wrong way. Whether or not it was right after the fact still makes it wrong in the moment.

If he did REACH for something, after being told to comply.........its open season man. Cops have to defend the baby and themselves. The guy has to go down.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Agreed, nothing is black and white...but with the information we have you can't go filling in the blanks and assume that somehow this guy made any kind of threat and was justifiably shot.

The dude seems sketchy as hell, sure. It sounds like he probably had a bunch of guns pointed at him, sure. But how is it ever OK to kill someone because someone on the phone told you they threatened them with a gun? Until you see that gun and the person isn't complying with your commands, there is no way you can just up and shoot him.


Agreed as well...but regardless that doesn't justify this guy getting shot. The world isn't perfect and I get that...but there is a right and a wrong way to get things done and this was done the wrong way. Whether or not it was right after the fact still makes it wrong in the moment.

So it's all right for you to fill in the blanks and assume he wasn't ignoring their commands or acting suspiciously?

 

[SonnyBoy]

I'd have tried to take the baby back inside, rather than drop or hand the baby over to a stranger.

How about not bringing the baby to the door with cops outside in the first place? I don't know about you all but I look through the peep hole before opening the door.

Where does it say they were in a defensive position?

I'm sure that when cops get a call that you have a gun, they aren't readily exposing their bodies....but that could just be the common sense in me talking.

 

[fabricated backlash]

when he was shot dead, he could have dropped the baby on its head and killed it.

1 sensless death already (the guy didnt have a fucking gun), but there could have been 2 senseless deaths because of some SWAT team members ego.

The officer allready risked killing the baby by shooting at the man anyway, so he fully risked killing both of them anyway.

The way people on GAF always tell me how no one is able to shoot precisely at such a distance in real world situations, gets me to the only conclusion that the shooter was indeed willing to kill the baby as well, otherwise this irresponsible sack of shit would have done the reasonable and responsible thing and trying to get the baby to safety first.

If he did REACH for something, after being told to comply.........its open season man. Cops have to defend the baby and themselves. The guy has to go down.

By shooting at the guy holding the baby... yeah, the baby was perfectly fine until this lunatic tried to find out if he's a class a marksman shooting in close proximity of the baby.

 

[danwarb]

He probably didn't think they'd shoot him because he didn't have a gun and he did have a baby.

Police got it wrong here it seems.

 

[andycapps]

Agreed as well...but regardless that doesn't justify this guy getting shot. The world isn't perfect and I get that...but there is a right and a wrong way to get things done and this was done the wrong way. Whether or not it was right after the fact still makes it wrong in the moment.

It's a shitty situation, for sure. I'm just saying that everyone knows that if you get pulled over by a cop, you keep your hands on the steering wheel like they tell you to. And when 6 cops show up at your house, you do whatever they tell you to. They're obviously there for a very important reason if there's 6 of them, you have to take them seriously.

 

[Alucrid]

Agreed, nothing is black and white...but with the information we have you can't go filling in the blanks and assume that somehow this guy made any kind of threat and was justifiably shot.

The dude seems sketchy as hell, sure. It sounds like he probably had a bunch of guns pointed at him, sure. But how is it ever OK to kill someone because someone on the phone told you they threatened them with a gun? Until you see that gun and the person isn't complying with your commands, there is no way you can just up and shoot him.


Agreed as well...but regardless that doesn't justify this guy getting shot. The world isn't perfect and I get that...but there is a right and a wrong way to get things done and this was done the wrong way. Whether or not it was right after the fact still makes it wrong in the moment.

Err...likewise you can't assume the article covers everything and that the guy didn't do something that led to his death, which is why I always find these threads stupid because it's just both sides filling in missing pieces with scenarios that justify their side of the argument.