*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, February 15th, 2015 10:40pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Baristan.

This is horrific shit and becoming way to common here in the states. Just another cop kills citizen news story.

Although i think everyone should be exposed to these videos, i'm pretty sure its considered sift 'snuff' and should be removed. I think @lucky760 can verify if it qualifies or not.

Yes, @eric3579 is correct. This falls under the Sift's definition of snuff, so it has to be *discarded.

After viewing the video, though, I'd consider this a justified shooting because the suspect's hand went out of the officers' view (behind his body) and when it came back around he put his hands together as if attempting to fire a weapon.

Discarding this post - discard requested by member lucky760.

I could go along with that, but I don't think all 3 cops needed to empty their clips (or close to it) shooting to kill, especially when NO one saw a weapon, just arms flailing. That's text book definition of 'excessive use of force' in my eyes.

It's outrageous to me that not one of them had a taser, baton, or pepper spray out, and instead they all had their guns out ready to kill. It's inhuman to me that they always seem to think it's proper to kill rather than disable, and worse that they are supported in that contention by fellow officers AND the law (in many cases).

It's also outrageous and quite telling to me that they initially shoot at him 5 times as he's running/walking away with his hands completely visible. Apparently all those rounds missed the target and flew down the street where there were many bystanders. Absolutely no excuse for that part. That alone should get all 3 fired, or at least on desk duty until they all 3 pass a gun safety class.

All that said, I expect you are correct and this will be seen as 'justified' because...he had hands that might have had a gun in them? Sad but true.

I'm really starting to think we need to do what England did and stop allowing street beat cops to carry guns and only special weapon and tactics guys should have them, and they should be trained to not use them unless needed. These terrified bullies running around our country armed to the teeth with an immunity shield protecting them from consequence is not working.

That would seem to be common sense except that same textbook instructs officers to only shoot to kill; if they fire, they are only supposed to do so to kill because doing otherwise may result in the perp still being able to harm them or others. (That's why I'm always bumped in movies and TV shows when a cop shoots a bad guy just once.)

Any other non-lethal uses of force could not be used in this kind of situation for that same reason. If they are approaching an unknown subject who is acting erratically and on the move and may be armed (meaning they are not proven to be unarmed), it's understandable [to me] they can't risk just attempting to disable him when doing so could put themselves or bystanders in danger if the guy pulls a gun and starts shooting.

Non-lethal means of disablement don't always disable a person. I've seen suspects get hooks directly and fully into the skin for a tasering, but be completely unaffected. Adrenaline and PCP work wonders in making you impervious to pain.

It's always easiest after the fact to assume there was a much better alternative, but in those precious few moments where you're concerned for the safety of yourself and everyone around you, the options that will guarantee that safety are limited.

Of course these kinds of things are debatable and always subject to ideas about what the cops could have or should have done and what the suspect did and could have or should have done, but the only certainty is that there was a potential threat and they took the only action that could guarantee that that threat was neutralized.

The population is being training to fear police more than they fear the criminal.
Why would kids EVER want to go to them for protection, or to ask a question?
Just walking up to them, makes you a suspect and potentially dangerous in their eyes. They will shoot to kill if you have a cell phone in your hands.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)