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.
How long should an encounter go on before any move to the contrary of the cops orders doesn't end up in the the suspect being shot? 10 minutes? Twelve minutes. This kind of garbage is absurd.
How much of an opportunity do the cops need to cuff a guy before the onus is on them to end the situation without anyone ending up dead? He reached to pull his pants up. That was obvious from a grainy body cam video, it had to be much more obvious in person. Why were they even asking him to crawl inthe first place? Justified.....
Some of us have been asking this question for forty plus pages. And no answer yet. Just a lot of "he reached towards his waistband..."
Honestly, this is probably a good reason we should have just female cops go in and do this kind of stuff. They aren't insane meat-head testosterone fuelled idiots just looking for a reason to act like rambo and kill. And they'll actually use their brains and try to escalate the situation.
On the contrary I've encountered a few female cops who think they have even more to prove than their male counterparts.
Honestly, this is probably a good reason we should have just female cops go in and do this kind of stuff. They aren't insane meat-head testosterone fuelled idiots just looking for a reason to act like rambo and kill. And they'll actually use their brains and try to escalate the situation.
That's backwards. Their lack of physical strength means female cops have to really on their guns more than male officers do.
Did you bother to watch the video link I posted? It’s a bit over 4 minutes long. The woman easily complied to the officer’s orders without threats. The man wasn’t able to comply with orders not once, not twice, but several times. The officers were responding to a call about someone with a gun at the hotel. Now they’re faced with a man who isn’t complying and is attempting to reach behind his back towards his waistband. The officers must assume he may have a weapon and they acted accordingly. It’s easy to armchair quarterback after the fact but that’s not the same as actually being there in the moment.
Yeah, we all watched that link, and it shows a compliant man being tormented by cops for no reason whatsoever. He doesn't have to follow their stupid orders, but he tried anyway. Then he was shot for sport.
The cop shot because the guy reached for his waistband as you can see in the video. Granted, the whole situation could've been avoided altogether, but the shooting itself was justified.
So- what if he reached for his waistband? That's legal. You can't shoot people for that.
How long should an encounter go on before any move to the contrary of the cops orders doesn't end up in the the suspect being shot? 10 minutes? Twelve minutes. This kind of garbage is absurd.
It wasn't just a move "contrary to cops orders." It was a movement consistent with reaching for a weapon, by a suspect who had been reported as armed.
Under such circumstances, LEO is justified in shooting in self-defense. Upheld in every jurisdiction.
Please inform yourselves so you don't experience the same outcome.
Some of us have been asking this question for forty plus pages. And no answer yet. Just a lot of "he reached towards his waistband..."
It was answered. To distance him from his hotel room door before they cuffed/searched him. Safety protocol. They had no idea if there were more armed persons inside the room.
It was answered. To distance him from his hotel room door before they cuffed/searched him. Safety protocol. They had no idea if there were more armed persons inside the room.
They didn't seem too concerned when they nonchalantly went in after killing the guy.
On the contrary I've encountered a few female cops who think they have even more to prove than their male counterparts.
Another justified shooting, this one by a female LEO. Not guilty. Why? The suspect made a movement consistent with reaching for a weapon, so the LEO fired in self-defense.
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.
