You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

You misread. Please don't speak for me, especially when you're so wrong.

I support both disband the police, which means require all police to go through the hiring process again with those with multiple or serious complaints on their record disqualified or at least forced into retraining and a long probationary period...and I also support defund the police...meaning remove mental health from their job (and fund a mental health department that is sent on mental health calls, normally without police escort), it means the SWAT team is only called after weapons are used, not pre-emptive for non-violent calls, so can be cut in half or less. It means ZERO dollars for military equipment.
It does not mean eradicating the police, it does not mean cut ALL police funding, it means remove the second, third, and fourth hats they wear, remove violent or abusive officers, and cut their funding accordingly.

Mostly I think people want enforceable responsibility, criminal and civil, not immunity. If police had no shield from their actions, they would act better instantly. That's a no brainer and doesn't cost a dime.

Edit: eradicating the police unions would go a long way towards fixing the culture.

I think the demands of the public are more homogeneous than you claim....I know so, since you mischaracterized my position to create an outlier. That said, people do have different ideas of how to fix a problem we seem to agree on....but stripping immunity seems to be nearly universal outside police and Republican senator circles.

The people running the country aren't our best and brightest, they are those narcissistic enough to think they alone can make a difference and those slimy enough to think they can take advantage of an elected position for their personal gain. Trump proves undeniably that they aren't necessarily better educated , smart, or professional.

Our SWAT teams never play good music like that.

Your video, SWAT Team Raids "Stash House", Fails Horribly, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 111 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on SWAT Team Raids "Stash House", Fails Horribly has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Yeah he's got it down. Probably at least as on top of his arms as any average swat team, even.

Congratulations! Your video, Swat Team Completely Destroys Home Chasing Shoplifter, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 28 Badge!

Your video, Swat Team Completely Destroys Home Chasing Shoplifter, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What's also interesting is that nicotine, despite being legal, is about as addictive as crack cocaine or heroin... drug policy is really whack.

Essentially, if they want to be consistent they need to start sending swat teams into corner stores for distributing nicotine and alcohol - nicotine is nearly as addictive, and alcohol is more harmful to society (than heroin/cocaine).

But it's just political show for the masses. Look here, we do something about our shitty police! That's the sad part.
That won't stop cops from showing up with SWAT teams at your house because you didn't pay parking tickets.
The problem isn't being run over with a tank or getting shot to pieces by .50 cal machine guns. Any sensible law enforcement officer working in the US should just know that this is ridiculous overkill. They're not fighting Terminators or Transformers, they're fighting fleshy, squishy humans.
And here's the real problem. They shoot people with handguns and kneel on their throats. They spray you with mace or beat you with sticks. They use somewhat low tech weaponry to cross the lines.
The only field where that military equipment could become a real problem is in mass-protest situations. Just look at the occupy protests. However, teargas, riotgear and batons are still the very effective go-to-solution.

When the SWAT team rolls in... has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

@lantern53

When you have a country were it is acceptable for SWAT teams equipped with more weapons and body armor than an average soldier in your national military to kick down doors and throw flashbangs into people's homes on the "suspicion" that a small amount of drugs may be in the house, or to intimidate peaceful protestors by raising their weapons towards them, when it is acceptable for the NY city police department to conduct secret surveillance on anyone within three states who happens to be a Muslim in the name of counter-terrorism activities, when it is acceptable to taze people simply because they don't provide identification upon demand, when it is acceptable for the police to go to the wrong house to serve a warrant and shoot the dog that happens to live there then I think it is only natural that people are going to hate on the police. The police in the US (particularly the LAPD) have earned the hate they receive ten times over in my opinion for a lot of the reasons he states in this video.

Like he said, the problem is that you are telling a group of people that they are there to enforce the law. Which isn't a problem until it dawns on some of them that they occupy a position that allows them to actually act above the law and get away with it.

Every cop should have to have a camera attached to their uniform that is recording at all times while they are on duty and that video should be available for a civilian oversight committee to review. The committee should have the ability to punish or fire officers who overstep their authority or misbehave on the job. And the videos should be public record so we can see both the good cops and the bad.

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

Marching in lock-step to your demise, child. Your comments on this matter read like a dutiful slave to your own oblivion.

One of the things no one has even cared to mention about this event is that the federal government, enforcing a civil affair (non-payment of grazing fees) sent armed swat teams to enforce the matter. The citizens of the United States who chose to show up in support of Bundy (a dumb-ass for the shit he's said of late, that the media has completely used to distract the putties with racism being an opportunistic side-issue in this entire debacle), who did so with guns as well-were within their rights to do so, breaking no laws. For this, they are called all manner of names and labeled as agitants, crazies,etc., by people without a clue as to how they are being ass-fucked.

The media, an arm of the state's machine, focuses upon this and continually pumps their brand of newsspeak, loaded language (like newtboy here repeats and foments to his own audience of parrots), and in doing so guides the story in a direction that further ignores facts while blatantly promoting the further erosion of individual rights under the constitution in favor of bigger, stronger, more restrictive government.

We are going to see more and more of this in the coming decade, as well as more people who favor the cozy protection of government control over individual responsibilities and accountability.