SWAT shoots/kills black man (VIDEO)

Was this shooting an example of justified use of force?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 79.6%

  • No

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Not enough information

    Votes: 8 14.8%
  • Total voters
    54
T

TheeBadOne

Moderator
Straight from the headlines. SWAT team attempts to apprehend 3 Armed Robbery suspects, shoots and kills man after Police say he reached for a gun in his waist band. The other 2 surrendered to Police. This incident was caught on video and here is the link below.

Justified use of force, or violation of civil rights?

VIDEO LINK CLICK HERE
 
He was obviously reaching for something, how long should the cop wait to see what that something was.
 
How is the man's dermal pigmentation relevant to the story? :confused:


The other two suspects have their hands in the air immediately.

The suspect who was shot lifts his shirt, then seems to freeze.

I won't second guess the officer given just this video. Probably looked much different and happened much faster from his perspective.
 
You see, the funny thing about this type of situation is that while we are sitting here, viewing and reviewing over and over the tape or the actions of that officer we have all the time in the world. We don't have a very real threat to our lives looking at us. We also don't have to decide the proper response in roughly a second...Any longer than that could mean you don't go home at the end of the shift. We have just recently had a series of police shootings where I live. Some were clear cut, others the press had a field day with. To my knowledge, the Officers were all found to have been justified. That being said, I won't judge those men for what they did because I was not in their shoes at the time. Same way I won't judge the Officer in the video. If it had been me, I would probably have shot too. But thats just me.
 
Looked justified to me.

Two guys immediately show their empty hands and live, one guy quickly lifts his shirt with his left hand, while appearing to fish for something with his right. Looks like he paused in the last split second, as though making a decision, but the deputy's hammer was probably already moving then.
 
Looks to me like he changed his mind....


....too late.



Limited evidence? Perhaps, but more than we usually get. It looks justifiable to me. Actually, I don't think the officer had much choice. The guy reached for SOMETHING, and I don't expect a cop to wait for the bullets to start moseying his direction before he shoots back.
 
On another note, how do you like that (sickly looking weakling) idiot infobabe? "We asked Broward County sheriff how they justified using this location."


Uh, maybe because they were trying to go a good job and not endanger the general public?

The spokesman did a good job, though. And he didn't call us "civilians"! Where some PDs there their mouthpieces I don't know, but this guy was good.
 
I love how the media can see furtive movement plain as day and they continue to take the stand point of calling this suspect a "victim." The two men to the dead BG's right were smart. This could have gone a different way. The point man could have been shot and we'd be seeing news footage of bagpipes at his funeral and a flag draped across his coffin. I'm thankful that this man will go home to his wife and kids. The media's tone made is seem bad that the point man is back on the streets. What else would you expect from CBS?

The "victim" had two choices of what to do with his hands: hands up or hands down. He chose hands down and the point man acted accordingly. The media constantly gives SWAT teams the persona of being assassins. Ultimately, their goal is to bring everyone in alive while staying alive themselves. That's a great concept on paper but the same could be said about Communism (not that I'm an advocate).

Just stand there in front of the camera with your safe and cushy job, little miss anorexic anchor woman. But, keep your bleeding heart rhetoric to yourself before I force feed you donuts.
 
Just stand there in front of the camera with your safe and cushy job, little miss anorexic anchor woman. But, keep your bleeding heart rhetoric to yourself before I force feed you donuts.
Click to expand...

:D


A man after my own heart!
 
Looked righteous to me.

When the man with the gun says things like "Freeze!" and you make a motion that looks like you're reaching for a gun of your own, you should not be surprised if he shoots you. This is fairly elementary stuff.
 
Looks good to me. It almost looks as though he went for his gun then reconsidered. The officer did not have the benefit of the camera angle and slow motion. I would have shot the guy if I was in the same position of the officer.
 
TBO's MO

How is the man's dermal pigmentation relevant to the story?
Click to expand...
It's not. This is what TheBadOne likes to do over and over and over and over and over and over again at GlockTalk.com. He gives his threads inflamatory titles which will attract readers to what might appear to be a cop-bashing thread and then posts a story which he believes can arguably be about justifiable behavior by the LEOs involved. He once had about a dozen such threads lined up on top of each other at the Cop Talk forum at GlockTalk.

In this case, it's kind of like drawing a moral conclusion about the behavior of two pitbulls thrown in to the ring. Like the scorpion said, "I can't help it. It's my nature."

The police did say that it was "a set up," after all. :p

Rick
 
Well, the intial cropped video they showed for the segment, I'd say no. but after the longer full field of view clip, I'd say yes.


The guy yanks his shirt out from his waistband goes for something with his right hand, and then decides to not do that a bit too late. I can't think of a single thing that would be a really good idea to take out of my pants at that moment other than a weapon. User might have been planning on ditching his stash of drugs, but well you still get darwinated for some decisions these days.
 
(obligatory libertarian observation)
If laws didn't inflate the price of cocaine, there might not be as great a need to run sting operations to catch drug thieves. Is it really necessary to do that, anyway? Set up a warehouse, call in SWAT, all to prevent a few drug dealers from losing some illegal product? Make no mistake, I'm for drug legalization, but if you're in business dealing illegal products, I don't think preventing those products from getting stolen should be a LE priority. More than likely the police couldn't easily catch the suspects on drug trafficking charges, so they had to get them on burglary.

Good shoot. Doesn't seem like there's much to discuss, except...

Thin == anorexic? That comment reminds me of Tom Clancy complaining on the Sum of All Fears DVD commentary that Bridget Moynahan was anorexic. What a great idea for a poll for the THR round table, though... "Is Florida CBS4's Susan Barnett anorexic?" :rolleyes:
 
Let's say the SWATies came into your house looking for illegal guns. Since many of us here carry at home, if someone burst through the door, I think a very possible and very natural thing to do would be to at least reach for that strong-side firearm.

After all, during CCW, IDPA and ad-hoc practice, we train to develop muscle memory for a smooth, quick draw. How many of us practice "reachin' fer the sky" in case the SWATies, oops, enter the wrong house?

As an addendum to Tyme's post which I should have added to the "set up" comment... can anyone say entrapment? After all, what did the cops think a few armed fellas would do in that situation. Sure, maybe all three of them will instantly raise their hands. But, wouldn't ya know, 66.7% is more likely, eh?

Boom-boom. Another "drug-related death."

Rick
 
SWAT team attempts to apprehend 3 Armed Robbery suspects
Click to expand...
Where is this "drug" stuff coming from? Bias overflow?
confused.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top