For this episode of Videosift, the role of Blankfist will be played by gwiz665.

Way to go, statist idiots!

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 18th, 2011 3:14pm PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

And obviously, this is completely insane. These people should be fired and thrown in jail for murder.

Just watched, in horror, again and was surprised at how the officers can only clearly be heard saying "Get on the ground!" about 3-5 seconds after the guy goes limp. I'm trying to imagine what (since the audio from the camera was obviously outside of the home before the door is forced open) if anything, the man inside heard and how I would react to someone breaking down my door right now.

I'd probably pick up the closest thing that I could use as a weapon for my own safety. Well wait, then I'd get put down in a hail of gunfire from police. Fuck... Well ok I'd lay on the ground with my hands over my head. Well wait, what if someone really WAS burglarizing my home? Shit then I'd get my head blown off because I saw their faces after I looked up to check if they were cops...fuck...FUCK!!!

This is why all police should employ flash bangs.

^ There was a sh*tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?

>> ^Aniatario:

^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?


Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.

Statism.

I can't watch this.

I wonder what the church (mormon, of course) has to say about this.

That thar is some grade A murdurin.

Sorry Jig, awareness or not, I don't really feel this should be on the sift.

Post a news story about it, get the message out. Don't post the actual video.

Your title is misleading, I came in thinking this was going to be something funny (there's another video of a single druggie trying to fight a bunch of cops, but he's "girl" hitting them.) And because I didn't read the text first I saw something I never want to see again.

The message should get out, but videosift is not the medium for this.

Glad it's on the sift. It is newsworthy, which I believe is the criteria for snuff vids.

For those interested in why nothing gets done about these kinds of things, the independent investigation's conclusion was:
"Our best conclusion is it would have taken less than half a second for Mr. Blair to close that gap and strike the officer [with a weapon of an unknown nature at the time].”

I'm not defending that reasoning, but it's good to know how the investigations look at these things.

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair-burnett-officers-police.html.csp?page=4

>> ^chilaxe:

For those interested in why nothing gets done about these kinds of things, the independent investigation's conclusion was:
"Our best conclusion is it would have taken less than half a second for Mr. Blair to close that gap and strike the officer [with a weapon of an unknown nature at the time].”
I'm not defending that reasoning, but it's good to know how the investigations look at these things.
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50932722-76/blair
-burnett-officers-police.html.csp?page=4


Drunk drivers might attempt to swerve at the last moment to avoid the pedestrian but it's their actions that led up to the need to swerve in the first place that is criminal.

Same in this case.

glad i read the comments (proceeding to not watch)

>> ^Shepppard:

Sorry Jig, awareness or not, I don't really feel this should be on the sift.
Post a news story about it, get the message out. Don't post the actual video.
Your title is misleading, I came in thinking this was going to be something funny (there's another video of a single druggie trying to fight a bunch of cops, but he's "girl" hitting them.) And because I didn't read the text first I saw something I never want to see again.
The message should get out, but videosift is not the medium for this.


Who died and made you the guy who makes decisions....YEAH!

Despite being a moron Shepppard is right about one thing the Title. It could've been much clearer and done in a way that could've shown more respect for this serious incident. I think we should have a "kill" tag or something like that. It's not something some of us want to have anything to do with when we check out our sift, I pass by a lot of videos because the descriptions are obviously something I don't want to see. However I believe having them available is a good idea...just like the Wikileaks collateral murder video which took me about a year to actually get up the guts to watch.

@Yogi @Shepppard

Are you fucking kidding me? You mean the 16 seconds of warning messages at the beginning wasn't enough to tell you? I didn't trick you into watching anything unless a statement like

"Warning: the following video depicts a Weber County, Utah, police raid in which a man is shot to death,"

can be misinterpreted, I don't see how either of you have much to stand on. Ok I guess I didn't put "kill" in the tags but "murder" is in there (so give me a break eh?). That said I'd be willing to change it to something less pseudo-humorous out of respect for the victim.

Suggestions?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi @Shepppard
Are you fucking kidding me? You mean the 16 seconds of warning messages at the beginning wasn't enough to tell you? I didn't trick you into watching anything unless a statement like
"Warning: the following video depicts a Weber County, Utah, police raid in which a man is shot to death,"
can be misinterpreted, I don't see how either of you have much to stand on. Ok I guess I didn't put "kill" in the tags but "murder" is in there (so give me a break eh?). That said I'd be willing to change it to something less pseudo-humorous out of respect for the victim.
Suggestions?


Video is good but change the title.
Based on your title I expected the same as Shepppard - comedy. I did see the warnings and changed my expectations, but still.

@Yogi

Last time I checked the website wasn't a complete monarchy, and was a community. Therefore I believe I'm allowed to state my opinion on things. I didn't throw this in discussion, or do anything unnecessary, I just voiced my thoughts.

and @JiggaJonson Basically, what Dan00108 said. Coming into this I expected something comedic, and made the bad choice to watch the video since I was already here. Essentially clicking the play button and having a half smile instantly fade from my face.

Quite frankly I see your title and description as conflicting. On the one hand, you say you don't agree with posting snuff on videosift, and on the other you make a mockery of it by giving it a comedic title.

Maybe the title wasn't meant as such, but it's obviously easy enough to misinterpret.

@Shepppard Meh I had a shitty childhood so I wound up with a sadistic/dark/drydrydry sense of humor. Humor is one of my ways of dealing with things I find repulsive.

I'm still waiting for a more appropriate title suggestion b/c "Cops murder some poor schlep" doesn't sound appealing to me.

Also @dag quotefail 2 posts up

I normally do not bash police work, but this seems strange.

It's obvious that the suspect has a weapon in his hand, but it's also obvious that it is a melee weapon. The suspect pretty much goes down on the first shot. The rest are kill shots.

Now, if this was a military op I would understand, but this seems like strange procedure in police work - SWAT team or not.

The only reason we thought of this as comedy is BECAUSE we've seen the other video (which was pretty funny TBH). Out of context, this video is tagged well enough to warn you about it's contents.

Tho very sobering, I think it adds to the integrity of the site to allow these kinds of videos.

And tho I disagree with sheltering yourself from reality, no one should ever accidentally watch this.

It needs a better title. I think VS should also employ a pop up "click ok" warning for videos like this.

"Police Raid Ends in Murder" would be a better title imo.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.


Completely ignoring the content of this video for a moment, the usual reason for forced entry is the possibility that if they wait, he (or an accomplice) would have a greater chance to destroy evidence or he might give them the slip while they were on a doughnut run.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?

Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.


I can agree to this waiting until the offender is out of the house first. However, since Law Enforcement would need to be around his house for when he did leave, that would be one hell of an overtime bill. Say it takes 12 hours, and each officer makes 40 bucks in overtime-age, that adds up to 4800 dollars... Assuming the offender even comes out within 12 hours... Let's multiply that by the number of raids around the state and...wow, what a tab... Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor? (And to argue that we would not neeed to pay the officers overtime is just foolish. They would not be able to just go home, after all.)

Oh, and with the hate I hear about tazers and rubber bullets, we eventually equate this (horror) with those circumstances anyways.... "How dare they use 20 rubber bullets" etc... Sad, we should embrace less-than lethal methods all the times, especially in cases of abuse where people would die, but all I hear about them is shit talk (Right until something like this happens, I mean.)

Onto the actual video. 21 feet is the lethal zone a knifeman needs to kill a gunman. That may sound off, but it is completely accurate. I get hit twice or so with fourty, and ofteb I would still be up (Which happens often since men don't die like they show in the movies.) I can and will stab whoever shot me.

That doesn't mean I agree with this video at all. The officers had little security for themselves, so they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. These officers seemed intent on a showdown. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option. That at least allows space to find cover and surround a suspect.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 28th, 2007" href="http://shepppard.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #0000cd">Shepppard Meh I had a shitty childhood so I wound up with a sadistic/dark/drydrydry sense of humor. Humor is one of my ways of dealing with things I find repulsive.
I'm still waiting for a more appropriate title suggestion b/c "Cops murder some poor schlep" doesn't sound appealing to me.
Also @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 16th, 2006" href="http://dag.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">dag quotefail 2 posts up


So it is a comedy to you Jigga? And the others have the right to be a bit upset because you labeled it humorous, when to everyone else it is not? Then why argue so vehemently with Sheppard and Yogi at the their comments? Why say you clearly labeled its intent, when its intent to you is comedy?

How about the label "Ten Glocks versus Drug Suspect" or "Ten Thugs versus Unarmed Man."

And even the title now is numerically incorrect. It was one officer against one man--the others who came after never pulled their triggers. And though this seems nit picky, it is not. You could call it "One Premature Cop Unloads."

Last point Jigga, you state that only 3-5 seconds after the man goes limp that police could clearly be heard saying "get on the ground?" Well, I wasn't there, and cameras suck at transplanting real life on screen. I heard it loud and clear before the guy got shot (But still too late to be considered an adequate warning) and you know what? With the walls, hallways, noise and such, the suspect still may not have heard it. Or he may have. You, me, no one can know.

Well, this sure shatters the illusions movies paint about guns killing people...

Quote-"And even the title now is numerically incorrect. It was one officer against one man--the others who came after never pulled their triggers. And though this seems nit picky, it is not. You could call it "One Premature Cop Unloads.""

What a stretch.

The title is not in-accurate. If the title read, "10 Fully Armed Police SHOOT Drug Addict" *THAT* would be in-accurate. I don't know if there's ten cops in the video (so there's that), but whatever the number is.. that's what the guy was up against.

The rest where trying to hand him a copy of the Watch Tower..??

..just sayin'

First of all, @dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)

Second, @Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.

You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.

But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."

And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation *cringe*) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.

Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.

You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.

>> ^Smugglarn:

I normally do not bash police work, but this seems strange.
It's obvious that the suspect has a weapon in his hand, but it's also obvious that it is a melee weapon. The suspect pretty much goes down on the first shot. The rest are kill shots.
Now, if this was a military op I would understand, but this seems like strange procedure in police work - SWAT team or not.


I had a discussion about this kind of thing with a cop a while back. She basically said that you don't fire unless you fear for your life, and if that is the case then you don't fire just one bullet and wait to see if one was enough. Part of that is because with some drugs one bullet isn't going to neutralize the person immediately unless it's through the head or spine. Another part is that a judge/jury is less likely to believe the officer feared death if they only fired once.

In this case it's hard to tell because of the poor video quality. The first time I watched this video I thought the guy opened his front door and the police gunned him down immediately. Watching it again they were inside yelling "search warrant" and then there's suddenly a guy holding a golf club (?) in a stance like he's about to attack with it. I watched that part several times but couldn't tell if the guy was moving forward, backward, or standing still.

I prefer non-lethal means, but in this case I'm not sure what the cop should have done differently at that moment, nor can I say with any certainty what I would have done in his place (one reason why I'm not a cop). I've seen police video of a meth'd-up guy repeatedly punching someone with his severely broken arm, so I doubt a non-lethal bullet wound would stop someone in that state (all the more reason for preemptive flashbangs).

I feel that the first cop in perhaps should have had a tazer rather than a pistol, but then I'm not sure what he would do if the guy had turned the corner with a shotgun instead. That's a situation I don't care to be on either side of.

wow I really thought he was beanbagged or something, but I have to admit it sounded alot like a gunshot. Still the fact that the police man said "get on the ground" after shooting made it all seem non-lethal. I wouldn't have upvoted it otherwise. I thought snuff was not allowed on here, that's probably why I didn't think that's what it was. How this video is very important I don't claim to know.

It seems like this is just a consequence of the drug war. That is to say that the police enter with a very high level of aggression and are prepared for the worst ie getting shot at. Allowing alot of time to say "this is the police outside of your house with a warrent" would only allow those inside to prepare and in a worst case get armed and ready to start shooting. However when people break into your house with alot of noise all of a sudden the reaction to be aggressive towards them is very understandable, who is going to react to the front door breaking open by calmly getting down on the floor and placing their hands behind their head.

The story of Christina Korbe, who shot a police officer who had entred her home shows the other side of this problem. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11018/1118768-53.stm

The escalation and risk that is taking place as a result of tougher penalties on drugs is only going to cause more and more incidents of violence and unnessecary deaths.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?

Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.

I can agree to this waiting until the offender is out of the house first. However, since Law Enforcement would need to be around his house for when he did leave, that would be one hell of an overtime bill. Say it takes 12 hours, and each officer makes 40 bucks in overtime-age, that adds up to 4800 dollars... Assuming the offender even comes out within 12 hours... Let's multiply that by the number of raids around the state and...wow, what a tab... Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor? (And to argue that we would not neeed to pay the officers overtime is just foolish. They would not be able to just go home, after all.)
Oh, and with the hate I hear about tazers and rubber bullets, we eventually equate this (horror) with those circumstances anyways.... "How dare they use 20 rubber bullets" etc... Sad, we should embrace less-than lethal methods all the times, especially in cases of abuse where people would die, but all I hear about them is shit talk (Right until something like this happens, I mean.)
Onto the actual video. 21 feet is the lethal zone a knifeman needs to kill a gunman. That may sound off, but it is completely accurate. I get hit twice or so with fourty, and ofteb I would still be up (Which happens often since men don't die like they show in the movies.) I can and will stab whoever shot me.
That doesn't mean I agree with this video at all. The officers had little security for themselves, so they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. These officers seemed intent on a showdown. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option. That at least allows space to find cover and surround a suspect.


This was interesting ->http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet-valid.htm

Anyone that's played SWAT 4 knows how this is supposed to play out as "Breach, bang, & clear" - unless you want to get you or someone else killed.

Don't put price-tags on human life.
Shoot tear gas through the window if you don't want to wait around.
But don't make excuses on why you had to kill an unsuspecting person.

Murder would be the correct term here.

I'm not sure what other result they were expecting here when they storm in with guns ready in the dark.

Everyone mentioning the "Get on the ground!" part that takes place after the shooting.. it's possible there was someone else in the house as well, off camera.

What I just saw was murder, and no defense lawyer would convince me otherwise. I wish I were on the jury for this one.

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

>> ^MarineGunrock:

This is why all police should employ flash bangs.


Flash bangs can blind, deafen, or even kill. I'd be outraged if they threw those into the houses of suspects without confirming that they are armed.

But definitely they should have non-lethal weapons drawn on raids. This is a perfect example of why. I have a bit of sympathy for the officer's decision to shoot. It did sort of look like he came around the corner with a sword. If that was the case he could close that distance in a dark room very quickly. What turned this into a tragedy is that the officer was holding a gun in the first place.

What if a kid happened to walk around the corner when they were shooting at that guy? Fucking unbelievable use of force here.

>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights.

The police believed he was a meth dealer (hence the raid), but I'm not sure if that was confirmed. He was almost certainly a user and possibly an addict.

Of course, some people "deal" just enough to cover the cost of their use because of their addiction, so there isn't a clear distinction between addict/dealer in such cases. Supposedly he had very few items of discernible value, so if he was selling then he was probably more of a middle-man than a distributor.

Preaching to choir: End Drug Prohibition.

It must be nice to live in a world so black and white. Send a postcard sometime

>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?


Unfortunately for the police and pretty much everyone else on planet Earth "Common Sense" is never standard issue.

I've watched enough cops to know that less lethal does not work on all drugged out suspects. They can take a taser all day long and bean bags do nothing. Their instinct is to fight instead of flight, at all costs.

>> ^Drax:
Quote-"And even the title now is numerically incorrect. It was one officer against one man--the others who came after never pulled their triggers. And though this seems nit picky, it is not. You could call it "One Premature Cop Unloads.""
What a stretch.
The title is not in-accurate. If the title read, "10 Fully Armed Police SHOOT Drug Addict" THAT would be in-accurate. I don't know if there's ten cops in the video (so there's that), but whatever the number is.. that's what the guy was up against.
The rest where trying to hand him a copy of the Watch Tower..??
..just sayin'


Well, here is a equal statement; "Ten knife fight at bar." If by ten knife fight you mean three people stabbing seven others, sure, the statement is still true-ish... I mean ten people were involved in the knife fight... But then, true-ish is a stretch too.

Jigga, calm down please. I never called you a troll and in fact find, besides your angry outbursts, you are rational. I disagree with you on numerous points--not that your views have less merit than mine or more.

If you wanted an intersting title, you should have been prepared for some question marks about the slick practice of headling catching...

Second, I am actually with you on one thing Jigga--I think money should never come before public safety in Law Enforcement. And that means I never contradicted myself. If people are willing to pay, then yes, waiting would have been vastly the better option. You seem to think I hold the opposite view... On a side note, we agree even further. The war on drugs is not a good thing...

And lastly, a hockey team does not play in a line, one behind the other. The comparision is not worthy of you. Single file means the first person is by himself for as long as he acts solo... And in a time counted in gunshots, that is less than seconds.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
First of all, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 16th, 2006" href="http://dag.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)
Second, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.
You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.
But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."
And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation cringe ) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.
Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.
You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

It depends on what he heard. If I was a drug user or dealer living in a house which has the potential to be raided(in the United States) due to drug use or dealing and I heard people screaming police, search warrent. No matter where in the house I was I would drop to the ground hands out and face down. Unless I was sure I could get rid of my drugs first. Thats just what I would do living where I live, and having some expierence with being around drugs and always aware that I could be in a place that could potentially be raided(any place drugs are being bought and sold).

If i had to guess, I think he probably didn't realize it was a raid and just reacted to the screaming he heard outside. The whole thing unfolded in such a short time. He didn't have a chance. Extremely unfortunate and tragic.

>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

That's exactly my point. I would not have figured out what the racket was all about until they breached the door.
>> ^eric3579:

It depends on what he heard. If I was a drug user or dealer living in a house which has the potential to be raided(in the United States) due to drug use or dealing and I heard people screaming police, search warrent. No matter where in the house I was I would drop to the ground hands out and face down. Unless I was sure I could get rid of my drugs first. Thats just what I would do living where I live, and having some expierence with being around drugs and always aware that I could be in a place that could potentially be raided(any place drugs are being bought and sold).
If i had to guess, I think he probably didn't realize it was a raid and just reacted to the screaming he heard outside. The whole thing unfolded in such a short time. He didn't have a chance. Extremely unfortunate and tragic.
>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

Who says Counter-Strike does pays off?

Nice grouping.

>> ^gwiz665:
Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:
Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"



Sadly, we have the most laws and the highest amount of prision population in the world, per capita, and per period.

Somewhere, in the depths of your personality..

there's a reasonable, well-informed, fact-checking, aware & receptive to the obscured realities and hardships which others face, science loving, strong need for evidence-based arguments [gasp] mushroom..

..waiting to spring forward. = P



>> ^quantumushroom:

Preaching to choir: End Drug Prohibition.

Clearly the video needs a good couple of minutes of warnings that there are going to be warnings of what is to come.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Clearly the video needs a good couple of minutes of warnings that there are going to be warnings of what is to come.


The people who wrote the warnings for the warnings were sacked, as were those that wrote the warnings for the warnings warnings.

Not to be one of those guys but....

I have totally been on the wrong end of a FELONY search warrant and if you are doing anything but putting your fucking hands up and getting on the ground, then you are putting yourself at risk.

This dude brandished what looks to be a sword, so as a cop, what would you do?

Guns are drawn prior to for a reason. People seem to forget that warrants are called warrants because something like (insert felony charge) WARRANTED their need for a forced entry after the suspect refuses to turn himself in. It's not like this guy had no idea this was coming.

Oh, and the police are still yelling "Get on the ground" after the shooting because the don't know who else is in the house.

Testament to the site that this CAN be posted. Even more so that you can discuss it as adults, giving incredible feedback from people like myself who live outside the US on how people within the system feel about it.

I haven't read all of the above comments, but I read enough to know that this community is one I'm proud to be involved in.

Umm no I would NOT have done the same thing. I would still be in shock and would have complied with whatever was shouted at me. Police or intruder.

You use the term "most people" very lightly and you clearly don't represent "most people".


>> ^gwiz665:

Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

And you clearly do? If all they yelled were "SEARCH WARRANT" and busted down the door, I don't know what I would have done. If I had lived in a bad neighborhood, why should I believe they were actually cops and not robbers? They didn't even give him a chance to lower his stick or what it was in his hands. They shot him and then said get on the ground.

You must be very easy to rob.
>> ^rellik:

Umm no I would NOT have done the same thing. I would still be in shock and would have complied with whatever was shouted at me. Police or intruder.
You use the term "most people" very lightly and you clearly don't represent "most people".

>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

Related
http://videosift.com/video/The-War-on-drugs-is-far-more-brutal-than-drug-use-itself

Am I the only one that sees this as sad, but understandable and justifiable outcome given the circumstances? Raising a deadly weapon at the SWAT team was met with deadly force.

Never said I did. At least I know that there are other people that are different than me.

Sure it's probably very easy to rob me. I don't live in a bad neighborhood, so I don't expect to have to fight for my safety. My life is more important that material objects that they are after.

If you live in a bad neighborhood, popping out of a corner with a golf club without knowing what you are up to is not the smartest thing. Might work if you hear a silent breaking and entering since they obviously don't want to be heard and you may scare them off. But these officers were LOUD. If you want to protect yourself which you have the right to, maybe pack some heat. Again you have to smart about using it.


>> ^gwiz665:

And you clearly do? If all they yelled were "SEARCH WARRANT" and busted down the door, I don't know what I would have done. If I had lived in a bad neighborhood, why should I believe they were actually cops and not robbers? They didn't even give him a chance to lower his stick or what it was in his hands. They shot him and then said get on the ground.
You must be very easy to rob.
>> ^rellik:
Umm no I would NOT have done the same thing. I would still be in shock and would have complied with whatever was shouted at me. Police or intruder.
You use the term "most people" very lightly and you clearly don't represent "most people".

>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

I have two sockpuppet comments (two different accounts) above this one, but it's your job to pick which ones they are. Tee hee. Fun!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Preaching to choir: End Drug Prohibition.


I thought they were only using the prohibition analogy on pot. They're using it on methamphetamine now?

I remember when search warrants didn't require SWAT teams.

fairly sure this an unjustified * death (if someone could, siftbot the meany won't let me) no matter what supposed authority figure said otherwise.