Incarnate Word Student Killed During Traffic Stop (Houston: dangerous, moving)

[geargrinder70]

Originally Posted by dastexan

I think one of the bigger issues raised here is that the cop appears to be overweight and out of shape and thus unable to handle some of the basic duties that could arise in patrol work.

But my assumption is that the unions involved dont really care about this issue and the cities (loose term, also applies to counties, universities et al) dont actually care about this issue either.

I mean in the military which has been discussed and not related doesnt allow their soldiers to get out of shape to where they cannot perform basic fitness tests.

Why is it I see so many fat and out of shape cops around town on patrol? Note: I see this less with SAPD and more with places like schools and the county.

Shouldnt it be a basic requirement to actually be in shape? And while I realize this is a total 180 degree tangent, shouldnt we as a public kind of demand this of our peace officers? I mean we do pay their salaries and all...

It would be one thing if Joe Schmoe in the private sector is fat and out of shape, who cares. The public isnt paying them to be the peace keepers in our society.

Its one thing that bothers me, continues to bother me and will always bother me.


I'd love to hear an explanation for why this is ever allowed?

I do agree that all officers should be required to maintain a certain level of physical fitness just by the nature of the type of job they are doing. I would imagine you would have to challenge the unions on this point since they protect the officers from this requirement. Also just to be fair as tax payers we all pay into their salaries as do the police themselves, remember they also pay the same taxes as we do so to make a statement like "we pay their salaries" is only partially true at best. The attached link is about the physical requirements.
http://www.ksat.com/news/defenders/k...x/-/index.html

[ItsTheTruth]

Originally Posted by pr57001

Your argument makes no sense

1) Because he is a "skinny white, early 20's" college student, he shouldn't be stopped for DUI? WRONG

2) Because he is a "skinny white, early 20's" college student, he can't attack a police officer? WRONG

3) You can't be justified in shooting someone who attacks you with a baton? You can't be justified in shooting someone who attacks you while at gunpoint? WRONG

You make it sound like the cop started shooting at him while they were driving down Broadway on the speculation he was a mass-murdered. That's not what happened by anyone's account.

None of these things make the officer's actions justified, but nothing so far proves the inverse, either, which is what you have to prove.

I'm saying that the cop should be able to make an assessment of the situation and react accordingly. It sure seems like the cop confronted this kid with his baton in hand, and when that didn't scare him, he pulled the gun out. In fact, I do not believe the kid ever had the baton in his hand and that the cop is straight up lying. I'm saying that by pulling over a skinny white early 20's college kid at 2am, this could have been resolved very simply, and without having to pull out a baton or gun.

[ItsTheTruth]

Originally Posted by MattTx

The student was told to stop resisting 56 times and all of it was recorded by sound altough the video was not recorded. I still think 4-6 times to shoot was a bit much, but I was not there so I can't really determine how someone can still be a threat even after shot #4 considering he was not armed with a gun.

I can find hundreds on youtube videos with cops yelling out "stop resisting" repeatedly as they're beating someone up. It drowns out the victim's voice and their pleas for help. Cops are taught to do this.

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

I'm saying that the cop should be able to make an assessment of the situation and react accordingly. It sure seems like the cop confronted this kid with his baton in hand, and when that didn't scare him, he pulled the gun out. In fact, I do not believe the kid ever had the baton in his hand and that the cop is straight up lying. I'm saying that by pulling over a skinny white early 20's college kid at 2am, this could have been resolved very simply, and without having to pull out a baton or gun.

This sums up you whole post.

You were not at the location when the incident happened so I don't know how you think you "believe" you know what happened.

[geargrinder70]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

I can find hundreds on youtube videos with cops yelling out "stop resisting" repeatedly as they're beating someone up. It drowns out the victim's voice and their pleas for help. Cops are taught to do this.

Proof please or is it too much to ask?

[ItsTheTruth]

Originally Posted by geargrinder70

Proof please or is it too much to ask?

Can you use google?

The first few matches are videos from Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New Jersey, DC, and Las Vegas. In every case, the victim is already in handcuffs and is being repeatedly punched or kicked while told to "stop resisting". In the LA video, the victim is actually unconscious but is apparently still resisting. These are obviously not isolated incidents. It doesn't take a Harvard grad like Neshomamench to figure out that cops are told to do this for their own defense when cameras are rolling.

[geargrinder70]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

Can you use google?

The first few matches are videos from Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New Jersey, DC, and Las Vegas. In every case, the victim is already in handcuffs and is being repeatedly punched or kicked while told to "stop resisting". In the LA video, the victim is actually unconscious but is apparently still resisting. These are obviously not isolated incidents. It doesn't take a Harvard grad like Neshomamench to figure out that cops are told to do this for their own defense when cameras are rolling.

Too bad for you and those poor victims that assumptions are not considered evidence in court. I would give anything to see you in a court room and a judge ask you too back up your claims with some kind of evidence and you reply to the judge "can you use Google". I swear they would remove me from the room because I would be laughing so hard. It's your job to back up your own statements not mine or anyone else.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

Besides the fact, silly or not, you can go to jail for it.

I know it's a law. It's a stupid law.

[ItsTheTruth]

Originally Posted by geargrinder70

Too bad for you and those poor victims that assumptions are not considered evidence in court. I would give anything to see you in a court room and a judge ask you too back up your claims with some kind of evidence and you reply to the judge "can you use Google". I swear they would remove me from the room because I would be laughing so hard. It's your job to back up your own statements not mine or anyone else.

I don't need to back up my statements to anyone. This is not a courtroom. So, like I said, go use google and research whatever you feel like researching. I stand by my statement. If you feel like trying to prove me wrong... don't care. You don't believe my statement... don't care. Pretty much anything you say or think... don't care.

[kevcrawford]

Originally Posted by ItsTheTruth

Neshomamench, one more question for you. The cop claims he was hit several times in the head with his police-issue collapsible baton before he was able to fight back and get it back. Have you ever struck someone with your baton in the head, or could you imagine someone being able to withstand several of those strikes to the head without injury?

Again, this ain't the movies. Someone swings a baton at me, guess what I'm doing? Stepping in close to shorten the swing and covering while striking. But when that first swing happens, I'm going for blood, because if I can't cover in time, I'm dead, and if only one of us is walking away that night, I know who that's going to be.

Even without a baton, one good hit and you're out. The first rule of self defense is to make sure YOU are the one that goes home. "Defense" means that you HAVE to go on the offense if attacked, or you won't make it. At least you'll be worse for wear.

You talk about nobody having evidence, but I'm fairly certain you don't either. For now, let's just see what comes out and THEN make our decisions.

If an attacker has hands and feet, they're armed. Who's to say he DIDN'T have a gun? Should the cop have just backed up and waited to see if the kid pulled? Then what? A duel at 20 paces?

Fantasy land is nice, but the real world is something most of us have to live in. It's horrible that kid is gone. Horrible. But to try and ruin another life without a shred of evidence is also horrible. If he was protecting himself, he's got every right to go home to his kids that evening.

And for those that folks you "know" that have nothing good to say about him, did they say he was a murderer? Or did they just not like him? Because I'm fairly certain that if ANY of us were in a situation like that, there would be someone that could dig something out of each of our closets. It's what attorneys do for a living.

Buy unless he was violent or had a past like this, who cares? What does it have to do with anything?

It'll come out in the wash.