[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Sorry but are you saying that they were right to attack law enfoprcement officers?

No, I'm really just pointing out that we've done this discussion to death something like 5 times in the last 6 months, with slight variations to the story, and everyone's opinion remaining the same.

If you want my opinion on this, feel free to look up the last "stupid kid gets shot by trigger happy cops" thread.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Are you saying that it's right that the police shot a child because he was holding a broom?

One event caused the other, if the police weren't inept then there wouldn't have been a riot.

we have no idea what happened as the facts have not come out, even if the police did shoot the person when restraint could have been better applied


1. they did not so it because they wanted to
2. They did not do it because they are evil muderers

So the people there regardless shopuild not attack thje police as they had no idea what went on

You cannot encourge mob justice

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, I'm really just pointing out that we've done this discussion to death something like 5 times in the last 6 months, with slight variations to the story, and everyone's opinion remaining the same.

If you want my opinion on this, feel free to look up the last "stupid kid gets shot by trigger happy cops" thread.

Each situation differs and in this one we have no idea what happened


In the last one where that kid had a gun in a parkl the officers were rightly and thankfully cleared

[Denver]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

we have no idea what happened as the facts have not come out, even if the police did shoot the person when restraint could have been better applied


1. they did not so it because they wanted to
2. They did not do it because they are evil muderers

So the people there regardless shopuild not attack thje police as they had no idea what went on

You cannot encourge mob justice

Of course they wanted to shoot the boy

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Of course they wanted to shoot the boy

If you cant be serious then this is not the thread for you

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

we have no idea what happened as the facts have not come out, even if the police did shoot the person when restraint could have been better applied


1. they did not so it because they wanted to
2. They did not do it because they are evil muderers

So the people there regardless shopuild not attack thje police as they had no idea what went on

You cannot encourge mob justice

I've not spoken about mob justice, nor encouraged it. I've only said that the riot was a direct consequence of the police officers' actions. I don't condone it but you can't use it to remove blame from the police, that's just really desperate.

There's nothing contradicting the events present in the story, no one's come out saying any differently, no one is contesting the eyewitness' version of events. How long do you intend to wait for a magical non-existent justification for the murder of a teenager?

The boy had a broomstick, police officers carry, batons, tasers, pepper spray and probably some other non lethal weapons that I'm forgetting. The fact that they went for their guns first against someone who wasn't even a lethal threat is just piss poor policing and downright murder.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

If you cant be serious then this is not the thread for you

What sane person would think when they see a child walking around with a broomstick the first thing you do is shoot 2 bullets in them?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Each situation differs and in this one we have no idea what happened


In the last one where that kid had a gun in a parkl the officers were rightly and thankfully cleared

Each situation differs, and everyone climbs back on with their same old opinion and yaaaawwwnnnnn. You know exactly who each member is going to side with, and their reasons, before even opening the thread. Why would that be if every situations differs? The answer is that they don't, really. Slight differences in set up, zero difference in response.

[Crimson Dynamo]

All we have is some people who were there (maybe intoxicated, friends of the perp or police haters) who told the local media what they think happened.

Now its likely that they were attacking the police so naturally would wish to try and make it look like it was all the fault of the cops


Do we have the police side of the story? no


Its just the same old - "its was the cops fault" bollocks


The POlice cannot issue their video at the moment: "Police cited the ongoing investigation into the shooting and possible charges against the teenager as to why they would not release the video "



This is why the police were called (at night): Salt Lake City police say a 17-year-old boy and another male were attacking a third male with metal sticks when officers shot the teenager Saturday night. SO not very nice and criminal behavoir.


Police said in a statement that the teenage boy (17) did not drop the object when ordered to do so by police and instead advanced on the victim. - so they warned him to drop the weapon, he did not.



Criminal behavoir and not doing what armed oficers tell you in America can lead to you being shot dead.

[arista]

Yes LT
Police in USA doing there job.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

All we have is some people who were there (maybe intoxicated, friends of the perp or police haters) who told the local media what they think happened.

Now its likely that they were attacking the police so naturally would wish to try and make it look like it was all the fault of the cops


Do we have the police side of the story? no


Its just the same old - "its was the cops fault" bollocks


The POlice cannot issue their video at the moment: "Police cited the ongoing investigation into the shooting and possible charges against the teenager as to why they would not release the video "



This is why the police were called (at night): Salt Lake City police say a 17-year-old boy and another male were attacking a third male with metal sticks when officers shot the teenager Saturday night. SO not very nice and criminal behavoir.


Police said in a statement that the teenage boy (17) did not drop the object when ordered to do so by police and instead advanced on the victim. - so they warned him to drop the weapon, he did not.



Criminal behavoir and not doing what armed oficers tell you in America can lead to you being shot dead.

Speculation, speculation, speculation. We can't defend the police officers or the injured person without further information.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Speculation, speculation, speculation. We can't defend the police officers or the injured person without further information.

yes thats what i just said

[Northern Monkey]

Now if they'd taken the broom off him and beat the **** out of him with it i could understand.But shooting him is excessive.I mean i could easily disarm somebody weilding a broom so i'm sure two cops trained in self defence would have no problem.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Now if they'd taken the broom off him and beat the **** out of him with it i could understand.But shooting him is excessive.I mean i could easily disarm somebody weilding a broom so i'm sure two cops trained in self defence would have no problem.

It was a metal pole and he could have a gun in his pocket

you would not last long in the Police Force with that gung-ho attitude

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It was a metal pole and he could have a gun in his pocket

you would not last long in the Police Force with that gung-ho attitude

They had no suspicion of a gun though.They could have tazed him or something.If he had a visible gun or knife then yeah blast him but a metal pole i think a tazer or pepper spray is enough.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

They had no suspicion of a gun though.They could have tazed him or something.If he had a visible gun or knife then yeah blast him but a metal pole i think a tazer or pepper spray is enough.

In the USA the cops have to expect ALL suspects may be armed. We say a vcideo last week where a drugs perp on a routine stop pulled a firearm and shot an officer

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

In the USA the cops have to expect ALL suspects may be armed. We say a vcideo last week where a drugs perp on a routine stop pulled a firearm and shot an officer

If he's brandishing a metal pole then chances are that's the best weapon he's got.

[Beso]

one blow from a metal pole is more likely going to kill than a stab wound.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Criminal behavoir and not doing what armed oficers tell you in America can lead to you being shot dead.

NO! Surely not?? I dunno LT, I'd be totally clueless about the world if it wasn't for these little pearls of wisdom.

Out of interest LT... how on earth do British cops, sans firearms, manage to deal with thugs brandishing sticks / metal poles / bricks / bottles etc? Against all odds, they seem to manage it

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

NO! Surely not?? I dunno LT, I'd be totally clueless about the world if it wasn't for these little pearls of wisdom.

Out of interest LT... how on earth do British cops, sans firearms, manage to deal with thugs brandishing sticks / metal poles / bricks / bottles etc? Against all odds, they seem to manage it

Different countries and heritage. I am not saying the USA is a better model

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Different countries and heritage. I am not saying the USA is a better model

It doesn't matter what the heritage is or why it happens. It's entirely cultural. We're discussing necessity... And if police in one part of the world can disarm and subdue aggressors wielding makeshift blunt weapons without the use of firearms and without excessive casualties, then police anywhere in the world can do the same.

I understand why they have to carry guns, as so much of the population is armed. Carrying one doesn't mean they have to use it as their go-to response in any given situation, though.

[lostalex]

"Riots" is definitely an exaggeration. Nice try trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill though.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes thats what i just said

Then why are you so adamantly defending the police officers?

[DemolitionRed]

American cops are famous for using unnecessary deadly force.

According to this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b079b2818b8870 American cops are 18 times more lethal than French, Danish and Swedish police forces that carry guns and a 100 times more lethal than Finish police.

Less-lethal weapon holders make up only about 20% of deadly force victims in the US. Yet the rates of these deaths alone exceed total known deadly force rates in any European county.
British police have fatally shot only one person wielding a knife since 2008. US police have fatally shot more than 575 people allegedly wielding blades and other such weapons between 2013 and 15.

My question is, why didn't they shoot up in the air as a warning shot or shoot a none vital body part instead of shooting to kill?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

My question is, why didn't they shoot up in the air as a warning shot or shoot a none vital body part instead of shooting to kill?

Is this a joke? you watch too many movies. and what happens when that bullet they shot in the air kills someone a mile away when it comes back down?