Well sorry then misread it.

You know cops are allowed to arrest even active shooters, let alone potential future shooters?

The "gun" was pointed down at the floor at the moment the cops arrived. When a suspect isnt an immediate threat they should be given a chance to surrender, like no one but you is even confused by this.

I mean I am kinda down with cops just showing up at Chicken Fila and blasting gun owners open carrying in public because caller incorrectly identified that the gun was being pointed at people mostly just to prove the point that there would be HUGE ****ING OUTRAGE on the right. But a black guy with a toy gun and the right is talking about how the cops thought it might have turned into an active shooter situation and they had no choice but to shoot him dead with no warning.

He wasnt a threat to anyone at the point he was shot. At all. Even if the gun was real he wasnt.

A guy with a gun in his hand, especially one reported to be aiming it at people, is an immediate threat phill. It's actually quite difficult to shoot someone in the time it takes to raise a gun and fire it. This isn't Criminal Minds or the movies.

Also, if you watch the video he was in the process of raising the gun and it was almost waist high when the cop fired. Though it was pointed at the shelf and not anyone.

Cop should not have fired. But it was an intense stuation. The cop believed you had someone armed and dangerous, took his fliping the gun up as a dangerous move and shot. So what is the charges Phil?

Dude, I dont care about that. I mean I do, but not in this thread right now.

When British cops can show up with guns to 12'550 calls for a person with a weapon (that is their specialised job) and only shoot 5 times then it puts into context how much more trigger happy American cops are when they ****ing shoot people they know are unarmed let alone how much more often they will shoot a guy with a weapon.

Take the case from a couple months ago where dude was illegally camping and they used deadly force because they got bored of talking him down!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5021117.html

He appeared to be surrendering when they flash banged him then shot him because he grabbed a knife. Then when he wouldnt respond, because he got shot repeatedly by beanbag rounds and then they let a dog attack him because apparently the dog had magical teeth that heal unconscious shot people.

No one was around, they advanced on him from two directions. They never once identified themselves or told him to drop the gun.

I have no idea what the charges should be, I am not a lawyer. At the very least they should be fired for excessive force.

Why do you say they? Testimony is clear only 1 cop shot. Why should the other cop who did not shoot be fired?

Also, why do you believe they never said anything? Both cops said they did at least 3 times. Now it is clear he did not hear/respond but that could be because he was on the phone or not paying attention.

If your going to Monday Morning QB this you might as well have the guts to pick charges and the number of years the cop should spend in jail for this action.

I'm not sure the 911 call is enough. If there really was a guy with a gun who had been pointing it at shoppers, there would have been a commotion.

I understand the cops being on edge, but arriving at a calm Walmart should probably have been enough to try to assess the situation a little better. Just staying back and observing for 10 or 20 seconds, setting up positions and issuing commands from a bullhorn.

It's hard to second guess, but without even a report that a shot had been fired, it seems like a mistake to have rushed to the guy with guns ready.

It's similar in that respect to the gas station cop killing. When cops approach a suspect with guns ready, people will get shot for any unforeseen movement.

So, in my uninformed opinion, stay back with some cover. Issue commands. Cops don't fire until fired upon or are more certain of the that. That will conceivably put some people in danger, but I would think the actual additional danger would be so low it might even be less than the danger of friendly fire or bystanders getting shot in avoidable police shootings.

Not sure anyone is really disputing the cop made a mistake in handling the situation. Question is if it amounts to criminal intent where the cop should spend years in jail.

Depends on the training, standard procedure, and specific orders. If that specific cop was ordered to rush the suspect, the blame certainly shifts.

I'm not sure what justice would be here if the cop were following procedure and orders.

I am interested in a study comparing police deaths in our two countries. I see that my post was a bit off target. I really just wanted to size the problem and your idea of intercountry comparisons works better.

Doubt there was any orders. Cop arrives, waits a minute for backup, verifies with dispatch suspect still insides and still armed, grab rifles, go in and investigate, told suspect in pet supplies, see suspect, cop says they told him to drop gun, suspect starts to raise gun, cop thought he was threatened and shot him twice.

Police said they followed procedures. Now the we told him to drop the gun could be false and self serving. Though that might be tough to prove. They followed procedures is contingent on telling them to drop the gun and being threatened.

Just another cop following procedure who kills another person who didn't have a gun real or fake.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...lying-demands/

This is so right. The place would have been in crazed panic if the guy was actually threatening or shooting.

This is what I am talking about.

When cops can shoot civilians because the threat they are under is limited only by their imagination clearly innocent people are going to get shot for no reason. Apparently quite often.

I say they because there were multiple cops there. Any one of them could have warned him.

I dont believe they said anything because the guy didnt react whatsoever to anything before he was shot. If someone shouts "POLICE, DROP THE GUN IMMEDIATELY" and then you look in that direction at the very least. 3 times GTFO that is obviously a lie, they over-lied which made it so obvious they said nothing.

But that you would justify the murder of a guy holding a toy gun because "he wasnt paying attention" is ****ing disgusting even if they were lying.

I dont know the law of the state, what is the point in picking years, especially since cops murdering people without warning isnt even illegal enough to get the cop fired? OK, manslaughter and 5 years prison, now what?

You said
There was 2 cops, 1 shot and 1 was present. It happened very fast, did they say something? not sure we will ever know. But there is no reason to fire the cop that was present. Again, Phil why should multiple cops get fired?

Yeah, but doubt it is beyond a reasonable doubt. If said, it was very fast. Still good chance someone absorbed in a phone conversation does not hear or react that fast.

You just say in your next breath that it justifies reducing the charges from murder to manslaughter. Make up your mind. Was there some justification to drop it from murder to manslaughter or not? I do not think the cop went into the store to kill anyone. Think he was put into a stressful situation and handled it poorly. Maybe a negligent or reckless type charge could be appropriate.

What the policy, actions of the DA and Grand Jury is and should be with respect to police officers is the whole discussion.

GTFO, I dont have to give them reasonable doubt. What is it with you guys not understanding what the concept of reasonable doubt actually means?

Also manslaughter is also less commonly referred to as murder in the third degree. Congrats on learning a new thing today.

lol I'd bet you are one of those conservatives who interprets recessions as individuals getting lazy all at once and not wanting to work anymore.

Not only are people seeing a lot of unjustified police violence, inexplicable reluctance on the part of prosecutors, a change of direction in policing from keeping the peace to enforcing the law with "zero tolerance", changes in police training etc. but there is this little thing called the history of the United States and it's institutions. These incidents don't happen in a vacuum but rather in a highly structured and dynamic social environment. Why at any given time the focus might land disproportionately on one case as or another as emblematic doesn't really matter.

You would do better to impose your own political views on the situation, to advocate for your interpretation of the proper context or ideology, then trying to deny any and all context and ideology. The latter is easily dismissed as idiotic or worse.

If your talking about what criminal charges to bring or what criminal charges should be brought then it is an important thing. Now if your just whining to whine, continue on.

It is kind of sweet. People can now basically call in hits to the police using false information.

Next time my neighbor bothers me I'm going to call 911 and state I saw him pointing his sniper rifle out the window at passersby.

Has Officer Wilson been indicted yet?

Hope you can post bail.

I'd call anonymously like I would any other call I make when placing a hit out on someone.

So much for the theory that body cams will keep cops from straight-up murdering people.