-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Police Kill Woman, Charge Man They Were Trying To Shoot With Murder
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
How could the cops know it was empty?
Zoe
Member
Not to mention there are laws regarding guns in bars and use while inebriated. I can't find specific information on the level of offense though.
Shocking.
So you think that the charges are justified considering his crime? Oh wait, ALLEGED crime? And that emptying a clip was the best way to resolve the conflict?
Carrying a concealed weapon. He's likely (can't confirm) also charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and improper exhibition of a firearm.
Aeriscloud
Banned
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Some additional information in that second news article:
It also says 7 of the 9 shots hit the suspect versus 5 in the original article.
It also says 7 of the 9 shots hit the suspect versus 5 in the original article.
The Faceless Master
Member
wait... so the triggerhappy cops kill an innocent bystander because of a guy that they couldn't even confirm had a gun until *after* the shooting and it's unloaded and they claim he was drawing for it so it's his fault they killed a woman?
#YesAllPigs
#YesAllPigs
See, I don't get this.
Someone is moving his hand, so the right reaction is opening fire, disregarding casualties (which is okay, there's even a law for it!) trying to protect random bystanders from being shot, but at the same time posing the only risk for said bystanders.
I understand, that this is very "hindsight is 20/20", but I don't get these aggressive reactions.
I guess it's a lot different in the US since like everyone could have a gun (and could yank it out at any second, opening fire). I'm living in Germany where ~nobody owns a gun and carries it around in public, so police officers don't just open fire when they see somebody moving his hand.
It just seems so alien and wrong to me that an innocent bystander has to die because somebody moved his hand so he had to be shot down at all costs because he COULD have reached for a gun which COULD have been loaded and he COULD have used it to shoot down bystanders.
Your "anti-police at all costs no matter the facts" is clouding your ability to read, comprehend and reason. He's charged with multiple crimes and shooting him was completely justified judging by the information we have. He was waiving the gun, taping on the door of the bar trying to get back in after being tossed, was confronted by police, got tased and then reached for and grabbed the gun in his waistband.
SneakyStephan
Banned
I didn't know it was possible to pack so much irony into a single sentence ,just wow.
OT
eople already defending this, ugh
Velcro Fly
Member
Knew this was going to be about felony murder before I came in here. Not at all surprised by the reaction. If he had fired at the cops would this have even been an issue? This sort of thing is 100% preventable. I don't think it's an unfair request for you to put a gun down and listen to a cop when you have a gun where you obviously shouldn't have one.
Er, if you read the article, several people called in about a gun waving maniac.. so yes, there was a highly reasonable suspicion he had a gun on his person. Neither the cops nor bystanders knew whether it was loaded or not, just that he was waving it at people trying to get into the bar.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I feel like police were justified for shooting him, but police really need better training, they shot way too many rounds off.
The gun was in his hand when he was shot.
Zoe
Member
"Once or twice and see what happens" is plenty of time for the person hopped up on adrenaline (who may not have even been hit) to return fire.
The story only makes sense if he wasn't holding a gun at the moment the police arrived.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I'm still trying to sus out the whole the suspect having an unloaded gun which he reached for. Something seems off about this whole story.
Zoe
Member
They tried to tase him first.
False.
I don't understand some of you. Do you not think waiving a gun around, attempting to re-enter a business you were thrown out of and grabbing a gun when confronted by police includes any crimes?
Clouded by anti-cop rage and/or not reading the linked articles.
The Faceless Master
Member
casualties are a good thing really. more charges to file against the perp. it's a win/win for the cops.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
This is how the felony-murder rule works.
crazepharmacist
Member
Felony murder rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
Guy lent his car to friends while he passed out at a party. Charged with first degree murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
Guy lent his car to friends while he passed out at a party. Charged with first degree murder.
you seem to be reading into my post a bit. he has two charges against him right now, resisting arrest and 2nd degree murder, yes?
-
anyway the 9/11 call is here if anyone is curious:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-murder-charge-vixen-20140826,0,4849648.story
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Resisting arrest with violence is a felony. Not 1:1 with our laws.
Good thing they accused him of murder so this dangerous guy can be put behind bars where he can't shoot innocent bystanders.
Cops need more training in general, it seems, despite the circumstances.
SlackAdjuster
Member
^ or it's that police have been overreacting to minorities who commit crimes and have straight up been murdering/not investigating cases where minorities are the victims.
Really police need to do something about them being so used to being abusive of the citizens they are supposed to protect
They wanted well regulated militias for each state of trained members to be able to retain their firearms against the federal government.
You are thinking of the Supreme Court decision during Reagan's administration.
Really police need to do something about them being so used to being abusive of the citizens they are supposed to protect
They wanted well regulated militias for each state of trained members to be able to retain their firearms against the federal government.
You are thinking of the Supreme Court decision during Reagan's administration.
You have no argument to make and continue to embarrass yourself. Keep posting pictures.
Sure, I could understand if the guy was waving a gun around or was in the act of harming someone, but this is unjustified. All that's cited is the old, "he was reaching for his waistband!" line that's used every time to justify a police officer's deadly shooting.
There needs to be stricter protocols in place for when to use deadly force. Right now it's a fucking free for all, ESPECIALLY since police can pretty much do whatever, whenever and not be held responsible (and now in this case, actually put blame on someone else).
well, the gun being in his waistband is part of the 9/11 call so i can kinda understand why they shot him.
Oh, I seem to have missed this, thank you.
If it was clear he was pulling his gun out, then shooting him seems like the correct thing to do.
Two things:
- Why not use rubber bullets?
- Why always aim for the upper body/head, surely the aim is to incapacitate so an arrest can be made? Why not blow their kneecap, or generally just shoot them in the knee, foot, or somewhere else that's less likely to be lethal? Surely that'd also lessen the risk of lethal collateral?
America, you really need to sort out your gun laws.
- Why not use rubber bullets?
- Why always aim for the upper body/head, surely the aim is to incapacitate so an arrest can be made? Why not blow their kneecap, or generally just shoot them in the knee, foot, or somewhere else that's less likely to be lethal? Surely that'd also lessen the risk of lethal collateral?
America, you really need to sort out your gun laws.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The police are directly responsible for the woman's death because she was killed by bullets they let off. They had options, they chose poorly.
Velcro Fly
Member
Cømet;128341604 said:
there is no such thing as shoot to wound or shoot to incapacitate.
The Faceless Master
Member
Cømet;128341604 said:
no rubber bullets because he potentially had a gun.
no shooting for the knee hand toe etc because it's a ridiculous shot. they aim for the torso because it's the best target.
the question is just shoot or don't shoot. i'd say it was premature.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
His life probably wasn't flashing before his eyes when he was tasering the guy. As for how you miss, easily. It's fucking hard to hit shit with a pistol even when your adrenaline isn't pumping out of fear.
So why try to taze him then first?
Chie Satonaka
Member
Without going into the law, or doing a super analysis of what's happened given the facts of the case as we know them, I'm going to say that this "shoot first ask questions later" policy we have in regard to policing doesn't seem like it's always the best solution.
It just seems like there could have been another way to resolve this without someone being dead, especially considering that the gun wasn't loaded. I can't co-sign on this, even if I think that the police acted appropriately (and I'm not saying that I do).
Edit:
Before 15 people quote me, yes, I'm aware that they tried to taze him first. I don't think one attempt at a non-lethal solution shouldn't be the end all be all green light justification for putting someone in the ground.
It just seems like there could have been another way to resolve this without someone being dead, especially considering that the gun wasn't loaded. I can't co-sign on this, even if I think that the police acted appropriately (and I'm not saying that I do).
Edit:
Before 15 people quote me, yes, I'm aware that they tried to taze him first. I don't think one attempt at a non-lethal solution shouldn't be the end all be all green light justification for putting someone in the ground.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked