I wonder if the walls are drywall or if they are brick.?

Trying to shoot the lock showed he was armed and dangerous. People standing outside the store were in serious danger if he decided to use his gun against them.

One of PWEI's best jams!

Augusta, Georgia, late September,
One Mr. Brown's hot tempeed,
This man's possessed, he's restless,
Armed and dangerous, drugged and reckless.
Mrs. Brown you've got a lovely son
But he's on the run on a shotgun mission
"Listen here cocksuckers, motherfuckers, pay respect to my building.
It's JB property and it could be the one you get killed in."
Cops arrive, "What's this, what's happening,
What's what, where's the hot shot?"
James pressed his luck too far this time,
His pick-up truck's flat out and flying.
Cops get excited and grin with glee;
They got themsevles a celebrity!
7 cars give chase "You're in the clear, this is the race of the year!"
"Faster Soul Master, they're coming at you from all directions,
Speed's your protection...Don't look behind you 'til south Carolina"
Cops spring a roadblock "He ain't gonna stop!"
"He's gonna take a pop!"
Someone opens fire, the trucks front tyres are blown out
"Get the hell out!"
As six mile skid, trapped in a ditch,
In the lap of the FBI, the Secret Service,
The Russians, "they're all in this, they're doing it to James
Like they did it to Elvis"
A "good-foot" dance in a dusted trance
Breath tested "No Chance!" Arrested!

Playing meek does not protect you from any abuse you've mentioned, including being shot to death. It doesn't keep one from being arrested, beaten, humiliated, having false charges levied, etc. It only perpetuates the idea that the police are 'just doing their job's' when they abuse citizens. Fight back. This guy played meek until an asshat illegally grabbed his phone, then attacked him, and remained meek afterwards. He could have destroyed that cop if he fought back....but would have probably been shot if he had exercised his right to self defense.

If you are black and armed and you get stopped, shoot first. Being armed is now considered a legitimate reason for police to kill you. You don't have to be threatening, pointing that gun, or doing anything wrong at all, just having it is 'reason' enough for them to shoot you dead today. Prison is better than dead, imo.

Cops have squandered the good will and trust granted them by the public. They no longer get the benefit of a doubt.

It's 25 times more likely a cop will murder you than the odds you might murder them, they are all armed and dangerous, and turnabout is fair play. In my opinion, citizens have more right to shoot cops in self defence than vice versa.

He probably would have had a stern word with you about all the assumptions you're making too.

You've said the guy was unarmed as if it was an established fact when he was shot when it wasn't. You have said he was non-violent but his movement and demeanour certainly weren't submissive, and one really has to wonder what he was planning to do when he got close enough to the officer, kiss him?

My position in all this is that as a Brit I think it's madness that police have to go around with guns all the time. This simply couldn't happen in the UK so as far as I'm concerned it's a fully avoidable situation, just put all the fucking guns down.

However, it's really not that easy. Guns are everywhere in America so the police have to act accordingly. It's really easy with hindsight to say all the things you're saying but in the heat of the moment that cop has to assume the guy is armed and dangerous. That's the effect of having guns everywhere.

They're on the edge of a highway at night, the guy is lit with flashing lights and car headlights going past. This makes seeing bulges or anything like that that might indicate a weapon very difficult and yet you think the officer should have been able to tell this and be happy to risk his life on it? Bullshit.

People are suggesting that under the same circumstances it's a simple job to aim for an extremity and it's a guaranteed hit. Really? It's that easy? So easy you'd stake your life on it?

The guy committed suicide by cop. Plain and simple. He wasn't a compliant victim, he was a threat to the officer. His shuffling was strange and that in isolation isn't threatening, but shuffling closer and closer to an armed officer is a different story.

Maybe the cop should have pulled a tazer first? That wouldn't help much if the guy came out of the car with a gun. Or would it? I don't know. If a tazer would have worked in that situation please put me right, I'm no expert. To me it seems if a guy comes out of the car with a gun and points it at the officer then a gun would be more use in defence than a tazer. Same with pepper spray.

So maybe the officer should put the gun away as soon as he's established that the guy isn't armed? That's fine, I'm all in agreement there. But nowhere in the video is he able to establish that as fact. So if he started with a gun he sure as hell should still have it drawn all the way through this video.

I'm really fucking glad I don't have to deal with anything like this in the UK. It's shit that this happens. But given the prevalence of guns in the US I can't see any way this could have gone differently without risking the situation becoming like the videos reiwan posted.

Then your debate skills are severely lacking. My debate coach would have suspended you from the team.
You used at least 2 completely different scenarios to attempt to show what this one COULD have turned out like...if only the guy had been acting completely differently and been armed....that's like me saying your steak tastes like chicken, let me prove it by showing you some chicken dishes. See, I'm right, those taste like chicken, so your steak must taste like chicken...or it COULD taste like chicken....if only it were chicken. You don't know that steak won't suddenly start tasting like chicken...so it's rational for me to keep saying it already does, or at least could, and should be treated like it's chicken. You don't know that steaks intentions. ;-)
YOU brought up ridiculous comparisons between dis-similar situations and adding "if" and "could", I merely pointed out how silly that is with (also silly) magic golden finger guns. It's just as likely that my fingers will turn into golden guns as it is this unarmed man will suddenly be armed. The fact remains, he wasn't.
Assuming he is armed and dangerous is not a reasonable reaction to someone who's hands are empty and visible, and has no obvious 'bulge' anywhere indicating he's carrying, and is not making furtive moves, and is moving slowly, hands up.

Because someone COULD turn violent, but totally has not, is not an excuse to kill them. Are you really so dense you don't get that? It honestly seems that's the case.

I hope you mean 'good bye', this conversation between us was worthless, and still seems like you simply want to argue....poorly.

In my opinion, the people who mercilessly shoot dogs are simply Wild-West enthusiasts who go out on a daily basis desperate for the opportunity to use their deadly weapon. It's an us-vs-them attitude, and it makes their own job harder, which makes them act tougher, compounding the problem. The spirit of the frontier lives on in the minds of these bullies, and even if they are in the minority it means that there are armed and dangerous psychopaths walking around with the protection of the state. And if you even consider defending yourself, you're being killed or sent away for the long haul.

Cops DO NOT always assume someone is armed and dangerous. That's why they get killed so often. Someone comes in to file a report, you don't assume they are armed and dangerous. Little old ladies...not armed and dangerous. Children...not armed and dangerous. Wives of bikers...not armed and dangerous. Shoplifters....not armed and dangerous.

Guy runs a stop sign...you don't assume he is armed and dangerous. But you have to be aware that the possibility exists. Too many cops have paid the ultimate price for not watching the hands.

Of course, sometimes you are wrong. You can find a video of a shoplifter being detained in Russia...he pulls out a gun and shoots 4 people.

As for pepper-spraying people...I carried pepper spray for 30 yrs, never used it.

If a cop is using it on 'non-violent' protesters sitting in the street, it's because his supervisor said 'clear the street, cars have to move through here'. See...because you've already told 20 people to move out of the street and guess what...they didn't do it.

As for being treated violently by other cops, the reason cop's families don't get treated violently is because they generally don't make meth in their kitchen, they don't engage in violent domestic arguments, etc.

But you yourself have said that everyone is suspect and considered armed and dangerous until proven otherwise...so who is this 'everyone else'?
Small town cops also can be much more difficult to get along with, as they develop the 'us VS them' mentality faster and to a greater severity, being more isolated. That's why they think it's OK to do things like swab pepper spray into the eyes of helpless, immobilized, peaceful protestors.
It sounds like a better idea would be for cops to have to walk in the shoes of a 'suspect' a few times a year...as in having SWAT or other police (not the force that particular cop is part of) called on them and have them and their families treated like the violent armed suspect they treat everyone else as...then perhaps you and they might see the error of your ways (once they've been visited on you and yours, I doubt you would support the violence and angry escalations).

You story link is way different than what I found,

This story is vastly different and far more credible. It propose that this dark skin guy was a know terrorist and on a watch list.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/24/armed-and-dangerous-becks-latest-revelations-on-saudi-national-once-considered-person-of-interest-in-boston
-bombings/


The 18 min video is not bias to the left or right just facts.

Yes, but "imminent danger" requires (or should require, I'm not a lawyer) that they KNOW where the danger is, or it's not "imminent". When it's done without that knowledge, it's just saying 'we're scared he could be there, or over there, or in there, or in Boston...', and that's not allowed (or should not be).
I agree, they should have considered him armed and dangerous until they knew otherwise, they didn't know at the time only his brother had a gun and bombs.
The validity of any possible lawsuits will undoubtedly hinge on the validity of the "exigent circumstance", which will probably depend on the competence of the lawyers arguing the points of each case, and yes, I know my opinion has no bearing on that.

>> ^swedishfriend:
statistics, physical reality: no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails. No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian. If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop. At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop. It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.

You have a very strange sense of logic. Let's look at the facts:

1) The man immediately got out of his car, confronted the cop and then put his hand into his pocket.
2) The man was wearing a baggy sweatshirt and baggy pants, both of which could easily conceal a weapon.
3) The man completely ignored the cop's orders.
4) While ignoring said orders, the man actually approached the cop.

Given these facts, it's very clear that the man was neither calm nor rational. Do you really believe that the cop should have ignored these facts and thought "Well, statistics show that there's only a 20% chance that this guy is going to attack me so I guess I should holster my weapon and relax"? And even if the cop did indeed do that, how do you think the man would have responded to being told that he was pulled over for a crooked license plate? Given his already belligerent behavior, do you think he would have just said "Oh, okay" and suddenly become compliant? I doubt that very much. In all likelihood, he would have only become more hostile and the situation would have been escalated.

Cops can never assume that a suspect is harmless, especially when that suspect is acting aggressive and confrontational. You can cite all the statistics you want but common sense will always prevail. Like it or not, the police hold a position of authority over you. They have the right to shoot or taser you should you present yourself as a threat. As such, you need to think logically. Don't want to get tasered or arrested? Don't present yourself as a threat. It's that simple. Almost every one of these videos is the same. Someone acts confrontational, ignores police orders and/or resists arrest, then they suffer the consequences. If you believe you have the right to ignore the police and do whatever you want, by all means, go ahead. Just don't be surprised when you get tasered or shot. It's like acting outraged after walking onto the freeway and getting run over. Common sense, please.

>> ^swedishfriend:

statistics, physical reality:
no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails.
No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian.
If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop.
At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop.
It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.


And what percentage of those civilians who die are killed in valid self defense? 90%?

statistics, physical reality:
no matter how many times I flip a coin and get heads up the next toss is still an equal chance to come up heads or tails.

No matter how many stops a police officer makes, the results are 4 times more likely to end up in a dead civilian than in a dead cop at any one stop. in other words if stops result in 10 cops killed in a year the same number of stops resulted in 40 civilians killed. On a stop by stop basis the risk is 4 times greater for the civilian.

If a cop makes 100 stops in a year he may be more likely to end up dead in that year than a person who gets stopped once during that year but that doesn't change the odds at any one stop.

At any one traffic stop the risk is four times greater that the civilian will end up dead. Most stops end well but I don't find it reasonable for the person who is definitely armed and dangerous to always assume that the other person is the dangerous one by default. Especially since statistics show that cops are more likely to commit crimes than the general population and that each interaction with a police officer is more likely to end up badly for the civilian than for the cop.

It also seems to me that starting any interaction off with an attack and / or assumptions about the other person not based on any evidence will definitely make the situation more dangerous for all participants.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.


Throwing rocks is still a way of showing you being angry, but not wanting to do serious damage.

As stated, all guns would do is provide a medium for someone to do something really stupid.

Essentially, think the cascading events of V for Vendetta, and take this exact video as our grounds.

People are angry, some are protesting non-violently, some are throwing rocks (To me that says they're still disgruntled and showing it, but not wanting to do serious harm).

Then you get one or two idiots, who do something really stupid. Weather that's shooting a cop, or shooting another protester. This leads to someone else doing something stupid, be it the rest of the protesters who grow more violent due to the first stupid act, or the corrupt cops.

Either way, the other side is just going to arm themselves and get involved (Police to take down rioters, rioters to take down police).

The entire situation would become all out chaos.

I really can't see how having guns in this fight would cause it to go any other way. What else are you going to do? Stand there and wave them about saying "Hey look, I have a gun!"?

The fact that there's a lack thereof is probably saving dozens of lives.

I would say that if you don't have a shitload of guns - protest peacefully. Throwing rocks is just the dumbest fucking thing you can do. The stupid little bastards in Palestine have been doing it for centuries with the expected reward of fuck all...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.