Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I understand it, there is now a second citizen-made video in evidence which does show the guy holding a knife, as the officers said in their report …
Of course, I wasn't there, and neither were you …
No, and neither of us has seen the video, either. Nobody has, because they're not releasing it. And it's not at all certain that it shows a knife, because even the sheriff is hedging on exactly what it shows.
Quote:
A second video that captured Texas deputies fatally shooting a man whose hands were raised appears to show that he was holding a knife, a sheriff said Wednesday, declining to release the video because the investigation is still going on.
Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau said at a news conference that the video has been forwarded to the Texas Department of Public Safety's crime lab to see if the footage can be blown up and slowed down to establish the sequence of Friday's events. Although it's unclear from the video what 41-year-old Gilbert Flores may have been holding while facing deputies with his hands up outside of a home near San Antonio, investigators believe it was a knife, she said.
"Appears to show..." "Investigators believe it was a knife..." Whatever he may or may not have been holding, they have to send the video to the state crime lab to try to get a better look at it, so it doesn't sound very certain at all.
But one thing that stands out to me is that nowhere in that article does she say, "We recovered a knife at the scene." They have a video that they believe shows that he appears to have a knife, but as I asked earlier - if he had a knife, where is it? They don't seem to have it. So how do they explain that? A video that they think may possibly show a knife, but no knife at the scene? Where did it go?
Is this going to come down to them telling us, "we think he was holding something that looks like a knife, but no, after we shot him we couldn't find it. but trust us, we're pretty sure he had one."? Because right now that looks like the direction this is going. If that's where it lands, are you going to be satisfied with that?
The police. Don't you have to hire better qualified people, support them with superior training, good policies and well written procedures or does all this fall onto only the police? Your singular focus seems strange considering the end results you want.
Oh, I agree with that 100% and I've made that argument. I've also made the argument that Departments do too little to deal with emotional issues that cops have to deal with. How can you expect a cop to go from a double homicide and then back to regular road patrol and expect them not to carry that baggage with them. No I see the problem as being complex and difficult to solve. BUT! when clear cases of abuse and excessive force (not to mention everyday corruption) have to be dealt with, with the same vigor as any other criminal act.
...
Take into account America is overrun with glorified thug culture - hell, there are several big money movie and TV shows about it. Americans are 100 times+ more unruly than the rest of the world and most of that is within a 10 mile radius of one's own home. 'Unarmed' thugs in this country means they weren't carrying that day.
I heard this quote in a cowboy movie once and it makes sense still...'Some people need killing'.
Now we get to your problem. You watch too many Clint Eastwood hang-em-high type movies and television shows. "America is overrun with glorified thug culture". Really? Let's see, I live in a small city (population about 650,000). When was the last time I ran into a thug here. Hmmmmmmmm. So long I can't remember. I was up walking around downtown Denver Saturday. Let's see. No thugs where I was. And yet you say we're "overrun" with thug culture. Frankly, most of America isn't. But you scared. So your answer is "Some people need killing".
Police are now saying the guy had a knife in his hand.
I watched the video again; the guy can be seen walking down the sidewalk with his hands by his sides, fingers loose, not clutching anything. All he was wearing was a pair of shorts. He could have had a knife in his pocket, but it would have been an awfully small knife.
Did the police yell at him to put the weapon down before shooting him? Did they tell him to get on the ground? Who knows? In any case, whether he had a knife or not, he was just standing there with at least one arm raised. Hardly any time went by between the time the guy raised his arm and he was killed.
In other words, he was not 'lunging' at the cops as so many pets are prone to do these days.
Now the police are also speculating that this guy may have wanted to commit suicide by cop.
Stupid way to do that, I think, just standing there with at least one arm raised. I mean, c'mon! Shouldn't he have tried to rush the cops or something?
I guess in this day and age people who want to commit suicide by cop have it easy...no running or lunging necessary...just stand there.
You must have the eyes of an eagle to discern the subject's fingers at that distance from this poor-quality video, and tell the capacity of his pockets. But yet you did not notice he is wearing a white t-shirt? Since he had already yanked one taser away from them and a second had failed to work, and since they were responding to a call that he had injured his wife and child, I believe we can safely assume that they had intimated to him that they would prefer that he drop his knife.
How about licensed gun owners who use them responsibly?
Lots of cops use them responsibly too. But we still have a lot of irresponsible murders by cops. And we have lots of irresponsible murders by licensed gun owners. The issue is not whether there are people who use them responsibly. The issue is whether we can trust everyone who has them to use them responsibly. And the answer is obviously no. And we can't use that as a basis for deciding who can have them, because we can't predict who is going to use them responsibly. So the only sane thing to do is get rid of 100% of them, including those used by cops. But only if we can find a way to get rid of all of them, including the ones hidden by criminals. Gun nuts say it's impossible, and that therefore gun control advocates want only criminals to have guns. But that's because gun nuts tend to be low-IQ redneck types. They don't have the brains to think of ways we could get rid of 100% of all guns. So they jump to the conclusion that everyone who isn't a gun nut wants criminals to be the only ones armed. And the argument goes in circles forever.
Lots of cops use them responsibly too. But we still have a lot of irresponsible murders by cops. And we have lots of irresponsible murders by licensed gun owners. The issue is not whether there are people who use them responsibly. The issue is whether we can trust everyone who has them to use them responsibly. And the answer is obviously no. And we can't use that as a basis for deciding who can have them, because we can't predict who is going to use them responsibly. So the only sane thing to do is get rid of 100% of them, including those used by cops. But only if we can find a way to get rid of all of them, including the ones hidden by criminals. Gun nuts say it's impossible, and that therefore gun control advocates want only criminals to have guns. But that's because gun nuts tend to be low-IQ redneck types. They don't have the brains to think of ways we could get rid of 100% of all guns. So they jump to the conclusion that everyone who isn't a gun nut wants criminals to be the only ones armed. And the argument goes in circles forever.
Bullying tactics will work against them. Transparency is the only way to solve police relationship with the public. If those cops wore cameras then they can use that to show proper procedures were followed.
It's the duty of the police to apprehend and let the judicial system determine the crime.
Since when did we have so many Judge Dredds out there?
Only since high-resolution cell phone cameras became widely available. Before that, cops were a lot more civilized.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
