Personally, I think the guy barking orders played a huge part in the cluster. I was tense just hearing him scream.

Irrelevant to what?

Me too, but I thought it was the voice of the shooter and there was only one cop. Did the jury hear the audio portion?

Yep. And they heard from the officer.

You send a team of commandos up there. You are barking you will die if you make any wrong move. One of the minion commandos sees a wrong move and fires. And we blame the minion only? He was also following his training and the directions.

It's irrelevant that once all information was known the guy only had a pellet gun.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ju...rticle/2642978

Yes it is irrelevant to that aspect. It is not irrelevant to the overall situation because had he actually been threatening someone with a gun and they killed him, even though he was no longer a threat or armed, it is part of the consequence of being a criminal that you will be perceived as a threat.

Does the cop know he's not? No. Should they assume he is in this situation? Yes. Is the fact that they ****ed up their assessment and ended a man's life based on their ****ty incompetent military role playing worse for it? I think so. That's why it's relevant. I get that the law demands we compartmentalize things when considering them, but guess what? You are not on a jury. It is relevant to that guy's family. It's relevant to me. It should be relevant to any thinking person who may come in incidental contact with out of control police.

What's your point behind posting a piece from the Opinion section of a right-wing rag?

So if you saw the same video and found out later that the guy was actually going for a gun everything would have been ok? Seems results oriented to me.

More that the jury was presented evidence that his wasn’t aiming at the suspect or had his finger on the trigger prior to the wrong move.

Enough to create doubt that he was planning to kill him.

Interesting. In the video linked in this thread, dude had his finger on the trigger 100% of the time. Not sure what brand of crack you're on today, but time to find another pharmacist.

I have no clue how anything I have said informs you of how I would feel about this entirely new situation you describe. I think we are missing each other by a mile or so.

Seems so. All I am saying is that on the guilt or innocence of the cop on a murder charge, finding out after the fact that the victim was unarmed, when it was reasonable to think he might be, is irrelevant. I have made no other comment as to if I think he should have been found guilty or not based on other factors.

are golf and rob the same person?

Yeah I agree with you. My point is that once we stop dissecting this incident for legal culpability we are left with the overall picture. That is any person minding their own business can suddenly be confronted by hyper-violent, under-trained groups with obvious killing fetishes pointing military style guns at them and under no obligation to care about their well being. They can escalate a situation to the point where it becomes a ****ing mind game to escape with your life. This can happen at a traffic stop, or without warning in a hotel hallway. And the response if they waste your life is "well can you reasonably let him off hook based on the minimum requirement to kill someone if you erase every other aspect of the situation?"

Obv this is nothing new to minorities in this country. It has been swept under the rug by the majority because they are not affected, don't know anyone who is affected, or can visit the rage for a while and forget about it once the news cycle changes. But now we have video proof more frequently and people are not saying "oh my, this needs to be addressed!" they are like "yeah he is allowed to shoot there and any reasonable cop would have killed the guy. The dude with the loose shorts should be dead. Case closed."

So my point is not that it would be okay to kill a guy who was a criminal, previously posed a threat and didn't any longer, or even still posed a threat that was defuse-able by a skilled crew with that intent. My point is we are now saying any average citizen who is unfortunate enough cross paths with what we deem a reasonable officer can expect to die a certain portion of the time. It's just a hazard like any other and we are fine with it. You may get hit by a bus, you may get shot to **** by a scared or angry cop.

I agree that the militarization of local police and poor training of many officers is a problem.

I'll take issue with "obvious killing fetishes". Obvious overstatements make for weak arguments.

Do you have an opinion on YOU'RE ****ED in huge caps on his ejection port cover of his AR-15, or no?

I would be careful about conflating the specific with the general.

In this case, I don't know enough about the individual to say. In general I'd say bravado is not the same as an "obvious killing fetish".

conflating itt

The use of bravado there is quite generous.

**** man. If you don't think it is obvious from the cute inscription on his own pet killing machine, the fact that they killed this dude for making a mistake just like they promised or all the other ample evidence we are presented with over and over what can I say?

My dad was in a motorcycle club that was mostly cops in the 80s. He quit because it was too much macho **** for him and he told me back then they often talked about either hoping to get to kill someone or lamenting that they never got the chance in the case of some of the retired cops. I was a kid so I didn't get details but that was a different time than now.

Here's some more proof from a different story three years ago. They tasted and suffocated a 61 yo man in the sand. They claimed they found him collapsed. The coverup almost had his body cremated before it was examined. There were 8 cops at least on scene. Then the video surfaced of the arrest. Then audio of one of the cops bragging and laughing about killing him.

If you can stomach another snuff film there is video as over a half dozen cops either help or watch as they kill the man who had already laid on his stomach--before they lied about it.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop...ng-killed-man/

It's not a ****ing overstatement. I know a lot of decent cops and some good ones too. That doesn't change anything that happened in these videos and doesn't change the ones that are not on video.

Our laws clearly permit him to shoot. A report of a guy with a gun. He makes the same movement as someone would be to get a gun. Horrible coincidence. Tragic.

Non-zero chance he had a gun. Especially considering the report the police received. You have a guy barking orders. Is it really that surprising that a person on the team shot him? The suspect was nervous. Everyone was nervous. It was an incredibly tense scenario.

Why isn't anyone blaming the cop doing the talking with the orders? I think he had more to do with it than anyone else. Destined to fail with the falling on the face. Ridiculous.

I'm not speaking for anyone else but I mistakenly assumed the speaker was the shooter with the body cam. I blame them both. But in the end I need someone to explain how they were in more danger when he was crawling and pulled up his shorts than when he dropped both hands behind him in the beginning? If he shot the guy when he first made the mistake of putting his hands behind his back and none of the other bull**** had a chance to take place I probably would not have been arguing it was out of line. As it stands the cop either ****ed up really bad the first time he didn't kill him, or he wasn't reaaaaalllly that worried he was about to die imo.

If you keep jumping from this case to general America I'm probably going to get dizzy.

This will be my last post on this subject: With the limited amount I know - I watched the video once and everything else comes from this thread - it certainly looks to me like the cop(s) should have been found criminally guilty of something. What, I don't know; I am not a lawyer.

Now that I know it was two separate people, I would place some of the blame on the talking cop.