It kinda just goes along the same "well they said he had the weapon, therefore he did." kind of reasoning. "He was on his stomach when he was dead, therefore, he flopped over after he was shot." (never****ing mind that the video doesn't show this at all)

This kind of non-logic I expect from someone trained to not ever question authority. It's ok, it's not your fault.

tbf that part was pretty funny

1.http://i.imgur.com/cVNkynK.jpg

This is the screen shot from the moment the first shot is fired. It's hard to say exactly where he his but i see a bend in his knee consistant with being on his back.
I am still waiting for you to post your evidence showing him getting shot while on his stomach.

2. Looks like you were disputing it to me

3. Well he was tased (possibly) several times and continued to fight. Considering that getting tased is supposed to completely incapacitate you, and it didn't do that to this guy, that, by definition, makes it ineffective right?

4. You still have yet to show anything with him being on his back at any time other than AFTER the shots. Where as I have posted several times pics of him on his back grabbing the weapon (therefore making the argument about how easy/difficult it is to remove relevant). I said it's easy to remove a gun from a level I retention holster because you can simply just pull it out. Then I said it would be difficult, not impossible, to remove from the man's position. Are you too slow to see how both of the statements can be true without contradicting each other?

5. See above. Waiting (probably forever) for your counter evidence.

6. So it's impossible to admit something is true without it being directly related to the conversation at hand? The fact is, you don't want to admit the officers were justified because that would be so far removed from your initial take on what happened and you have so much hate for police that you only want to see them as murderers in situations like this. If this isn't true, then it should be no problem for you to admit that (based on the current evidence) the officers were in the right.

Which of the people with guns drawn were in danger from the man on the ground?

Fantasy worlds must be fun to live in. This one seems sad though.

When he's trying to take an officer's weapon, all of them LDO.

So in other words, none of them, since in that still he is nowhere near any officers gun. If that still realy is the moment the shot him he was not a trheat to anyone. As a side note, if you have someone outnumbered 5 to 1 and can't keep him from grabbing your gun from you have no business carrying a gun.

You're talking about a difference of a second or 2, which is how long the average draw takes. The officer stubles away from the man's grip at 24 seconds and the first shot comes around the 25-26 second mark so have fun Monday Morning quarterbacking that one.

Also please explain to me how you would go about restraining someone without getting close enough for them to grab your gun if they really want to. And don't say taser because they did that and it didn't work. The only reason it doesn't happen more often is because most criminals getting arrested aren't that stupid because they know what the consequences would be. When you grab an officer's gun, you are showing murderous intent.

It also funny how people say, "Why can't cops keep criminals from getting to their gun", but these same people bitch and moan about cops not getting in there and fighting it out when it's just one officer to arrest someone. People don't seem to understand that if someone is resisting you violently, you don't have the same options as everyone else. If you get knocked out, you have to basically assume the guy is going to take your weapon and kill you.

Maybe have fewer guns? The police introduced weapons turning this into a dangerous situation. You just said that reaching for a gun shows murderous intent and these guys we are arming are hired on their willingness to kill.

Yeah, it's pretty sick to think about how many of these situations would have ended much more peacefully if the cops had not even been there.

TBH I agree that officers sometime bring their firearms into situations that aren't really necessary. I can't say if that's the case here because we don't really know what happened in the moments before the confrontation. What we do know is when the officers responded, the man retreated into his tent, which is certainly cause for the officers to have someone draw at least one weapon, since you don't know if he's going for a gun or not. But I do know that officers respond to calls in different manners based on:
1. What is the crime being committed?
2. What is the arrest history of the suspect?

Given that this guy had an extensive criminal history (including serving 13 years for committing a violent bank robbery) that may have played a part in their decision. (Just speculating). But saying the police introducing weapons made this situation dangerous is false. The situation was already dangerous due to the man's previous actions. And the part about hiring people based on their willingness to kill is just LOL.

I lol'd.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha...ejo#.snqZPjdNK

Police shoot an obviously unarmed naked man

http://m.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/d...hooting/nkRY6/

The cop feared he was concealing a gun in his anus.

http://gawker.com/suit-cops-forced-m...-im-1689962382

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...205-story.html


"The consensus was that it is our responsibility not only to work with police day in and day out, but also to hold them accountable on those particular occasions when an officer does wrong," Williams (Philadelphia Dist. Atty. Seth Williams) told reporters.

Yeah, no conflict of interest there....

St Louis Police not having a good 6 months.

Federal Probe into SLMPD – Are St. Louis Officers Working for Drug Dealers?

IPs used in edits to Wikipedia articles on NYC police brutality cases traced back to NYPD

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/0...rner-sean-bell

It's all about messaging

A heartwarming tale

http://www.roanoke.com/news/columns_...a88391aa3.html

Wow

Kid shouldn't be associating with them foreign tree leaves anyway.

That leaf was no angel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...5b9_story.html

If he'd just followed orders and not resisted he'd be alive today. He was no angel either, stealing movie viewings like a common thug. Shame that it happened, but this was clearly Mr. Saylor's fault.

Will withhold judgement until his Instagram account is linked.