Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Mechagnome zEmini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    694

    Trigger happy LAPD cops shoot 2 women

    Due to the Manhunt, they decide to take out their frustrations and paranoia on citizens.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ad-no-warning/

    I was going to post in the other thread, but it derailed.

    Anyways what would you do in that situation? Sue the LAPD in to ground? Fight back? Die?

  2. #2
    Scarab Lord StayTuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,970
    Old news.... http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...teresting-news


    There is really no need for a 2nd thread just about this. If it derailed, give your best to bring it back on the tracks.

  3. #3
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    I would only be satisfied with life sentences. Fine examples of human garbage right there.

  4. #4
    im kind of seeing the murderers spree and the cops actions as separate subjects. the LAPD has, imo, a systemic problem, and it has been highlighted during this hunt. my wish would be the feds stepping in and reaming the LAPD the way they have in a couple of small jurisdictions, but i dont see it happening
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    The fucking Derpship has crashed on Herp Island...
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Meet the new derp.

    Same as the old derp.

  5. #5
    How do we really know that no verbal commands or warnings were issued?

    I'm not taking either side in this situation until there are some more facts, but if the police give you a command and you don't obey the command or make threatening motions or gestures, I have no sympathy for them shooting and killing you. Mistaken identity or not, if the police say "get on the ground" or something similar, and you start yelling about how you didn't do anything and then reach into your coat, that's the wrong move. Get on the ground, do as they say, and fight any illegal arrest or detainment later. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it's happened before and people cry foul of the police.

  6. #6
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    I agree that this is a separate matter entirely. This blows my mind. They actually say that there blunder was mistaken identity. So they would have likely been all for the cops performing a drive-by on this accused killer instead of ever apprehending him. Makes you wonder if it is vengeance or if they want to silence a potential witness.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 12:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    How do we really know that no verbal commands or warnings were issued?

    I'm not taking either side in this situation until there are some more facts, but if the police give you a command and you don't obey the command or make threatening motions or gestures, I have no sympathy for them shooting and killing you. Mistaken identity or not, if the police say "get on the ground" or something similar, and you start yelling about how you didn't do anything and then reach into your coat, that's the wrong move. Get on the ground, do as they say, and fight any illegal arrest or detainment later. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it's happened before and people cry foul of the police.
    So it is OK to shoot and kill someone for resisting arrest? What the fuck happened to non-lethal force? Holy shit man.

    Did you even read the story? This was a 40 and 70 year old woman. There is no mention of them doing anything other than getting shot. Way to jump to conclusions. I am not surprised.

  7. #7
    Mechagnome zEmini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    How do we really know that no verbal commands or warnings were issued?

    I'm not taking either side in this situation until there are some more facts, but if the police give you a command and you don't obey the command or make threatening motions or gestures, I have no sympathy for them shooting and killing you. Mistaken identity or not, if the police say "get on the ground" or something similar, and you start yelling about how you didn't do anything and then reach into your coat, that's the wrong move. Get on the ground, do as they say, and fight any illegal arrest or detainment later. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it's happened before and people cry foul of the police.
    Perfect example of a bad opinion. You don't have any symphony for someone being murdered because they didn't obey some demands?

  8. #8
    Moderator aiko-chan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    5,665
    Quote Originally Posted by zEmini View Post
    Perfect example of a bad opinion. You don't have any symphony for someone being murdered because they didn't obey some demands?
    I don't typically play music for murdered people either!
    Sorry, had to. I agree with you, though. That is a perfect example of a terrible opinion.

  9. #9
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by zEmini View Post
    Perfect example of a bad opinion. You don't have any symphony for someone being murdered because they didn't obey some demands?
    Agreed. Cops cannot just open fire because an unarmed person didn't lie on the ground.

    There needs to be charges for these cops, and soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    So it is OK to shoot and kill someone for resisting arrest? What the fuck happened to non-lethal force? Holy shit man.

    Did you even read the story? This was a 40 and 70 year old woman. There is no mention of them doing anything other than getting shot. Way to jump to conclusions. I am not surprised.
    They were inside a vehicle, there was no way to know who they were or what they were doing. If the police issue verbal commands, and you ignore them and act in a threatening manner, prepare to be tazed or shot. Reasonable people don't ignore the police and act irrationally; they comply.

    That is why I prefaced my statement by saying there isn't enough information. If these cops said "Hey it's a similar looking vehicle to that guy we're looking for, light it up" and then shot it to hell, wtf were they thinking. If they stopped the vehicle, issued warnings to the drivers and occupant who then ignored them or made threatening gestures or motion, I don't have a lot of sympathy. I was living in Florida at the time of the police murder and resulting shooting scandal where they fired 100+ shots or whatever at the suspect. I was driving the same make and model car as the suspect, and was stopped and removed from my car and detained at gun point. They were extremely aggressive and forceful, because they don't know who I am, or what I am doing. Them detaining me was a minor inconvenience to me, the alternative to that would be them approaching me as if I was a 70 year old grand mother, being wrong, and winding up dead. Which is worse?

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by zEmini View Post
    Perfect example of a bad opinion. You don't have any symphony for someone being murdered because they didn't obey some demands?
    This is where people get emotionally charged and these threads get derailed. It's not murder if the police shoot and kill you for resisting arrest or threatening them, even if the thread is only perceived and not real. Comply with their commands, and if you feel your rights are violated, the time and place to fight that is in the courtroom, not on the side of the road in the dark with police who do not know who you are, or what you are doing.

  11. #11
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    If the police issue verbal commands, and you ignore them and act in a threatening manner, prepare to be tazed or shot.
    You really don't know much about police conduct then. They are only authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Agreed. Cops cannot just open fire because an unarmed person didn't lie on the ground.
    Since we don’t know what exactly happened in this case, it’s not really fair to make a call one way or the other. However, it’s been shown time and time again that if the police issue a verbal warning/command, and you don’t comply, they will treat you as a threat. Reach into your coat and pull out an object, charge them, throw something at them, drive your vehicle at them, and expect to be shot and killed. They don’t know who you are, what you are doing, and have a duty to protect themselves and others from harm. It’s nice to be an arm chair quarterback and review the situation after the fact, but in most of these situations the police involved have a split second to react. If you made the choice to ignore their commands, you escalated the situation, not them.

    If it’s found that the police indiscriminately fired on the vehicle without warning or provocation, then by all means, charge them.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You really don't know much about police conduct then. They are only authorized to use deadly force if lives are in imminent danger.
    This thread is going to get derailed real fast, personal attacks are already getting spun up.

    Imminent danger isn't limited to actually seeing a weapon.

  13. #13
    Tinykong is right in that concealed weaponry is a huge threat. Therefore, take the guns away from people and they won't have the kind of concealed weapons that lead to cops shooting a person with no warning and getting away with it.

  14. #14
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Imminent danger isn't limited to actually seeing a weapon.
    http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/140

    I suggest you read.
    However, the mere fact alone that a person possesses a deadly weapons does not justify the use of deadly force. (Harris v. Roderick (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3rd 1189, 1202.)
    Last edited by Rukentuts; 2013-02-08 at 07:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I'm well aware of police procedure. Are you trying to say that the police are not justified in using deadly force in the situations I've described? Don't create a hypothetical and stick my name on it, refer to my previous posts that have said the police both issued a verbal warning/command, and that the person then threatened them.

  16. #16
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    They were inside a vehicle, there was no way to know who they were or what they were doing. If the police issue verbal commands, and you ignore them and act in a threatening manner, prepare to be tazed or shot. Reasonable people don't ignore the police and act irrationally; they comply.
    First off, you run the plates. Secondly, if you think that there are armed suspects in that car, you call for backup. But they would have ran the plate sand seen that it was not the suspects vehicle. That was the whole reason they were there, because they thought it was his vehicle, so confirm that shit. Duh!

    These women were delivering papers. They were not parked in some shady area. They were driving around throwing papers out the window. Seems like if the cop followed them for more than a second they would have seen that. Big difference between a 40 something and 70 year old women and a large black dude.

    If they were indeed delivering papers, odds are that this was in a residential area. If they had used their speaker to tell the people in the car to get out, someone else would have heard it.

    I am confused as to why these women are in any way to blame for the shooting. Seems to me it is clear that the police did not follow procedure and were extremely dangerous in there decision making. We will get more information soon surely.

  17. #17
    Merely a Setback Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    26,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    I'm well aware of police procedure.
    Then you didn't read my link. There are cases with clear limitations on deadly force.
    Self-Defense: A personal assault which itself is not sufficient to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily injury, even if the assault constitutes a felony, is insufficient to justify the use of deadly force against the assailant. "(T)he felony contemplated by the (justifiable homicide) statute is one that is more dangerous than a personal assault." (People v. Jones (1961) 191 Cal.App.2nd 478, 481-482; and see P.C. §§ 197.1, 197.3, above.)

    In defending oneself or another, deadly force may only be used in response to the illegal application of deadly force from the aggressor. Thus, "a misdemeanor assault must be suffered without the privilege of retaliating with deadly force." (People v. Jones, supra, at p. 482; People v. Clark (1982) 130 Cal.App.3rd 371, 380.)
    Please read the link before you actually respond to it.
    Last edited by Rukentuts; 2013-02-08 at 07:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Both of those links don't provide any evidence. They make unsubstantiated statements

  18. #18
    Scarab Lord Roose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tuscaloosa
    Posts
    4,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    I'm well aware of police procedure. Are you trying to say that the police are not justified in using deadly force in the situations I've described? Don't create a hypothetical and stick my name on it, refer to my previous posts that have said the police both issued a verbal warning/command, and that the person then threatened them.
    Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about unless you make some outlandish assumptions.

  19. #19
    Completely unacceptable, the whole LAPD needs to be internally investigated by an outside body to root out the corruption.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Then you didn't read my link. There are cases with clear limitations on deadly force.
    I read your link, and I didn't see any cases limiting deadly force under the circumstances I suggested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roose View Post
    Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about unless you make some outlandish assumptions.
    What are we talking about then, since basically no facts are known about this case other than two people are dead who were shot by police. I'm merely offering some plausible scenarios for which the police can, and do, use deadly force that results in justified killing of innocent people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •