+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: PS3 theif killed by cops (/showthread.php?tid=23544)
He wasn't a thief. - RAMd®d - 12-05-2006
He was a violent robbery suspect. Big difference.
There's a lot to this story that has not been mentioned yet.
Fortunately there is no shortage of people who will leap to conclusions without knowing all the facts.
WHAT was taken is irrelevant. It's HOW it was taken that is important.
Personally, I don't care if it's milk money, PS3s, or the cure for cancer. Robbery is robbery, and assaulting someone while robbing them is a felony in almost every state.
There's no excuse for police to shoot and kill someone who's unarmed, especially cops that are part of a special unit like this.
Excuse? Maybe, maybe not.
One might correctly infer from your statement that you've already made up your mind that the police shot and killed an unarmed man. At least you seem to believe he was unarmed.
First, it's not only excusable, but it's absolutely justifiable to shoot someone if you have reason to *believe* that a suspect is armed, and that he or she poses a threat of death or great bodily harm. That's the way it is.
Did the police have reason to believe he was a threat? That has yet to be explained.
Police are paid to apprehend the bad guys and protect the good guys. They accept and take risks to do so. They are *not* paid to be shot at, wounded, or killed, despite what many civilians prefer to believe. Sadly, it does go with the territory.
And while there are various levels of training and skill required depending on a particular assignment, cops are still mere humans, possessing humans skills, strengths, and failings.
So far, few if any police possess the power of super speed thought, or being able to slow down time. This would give them plenty of time to assess a situation and make absolutely the right call. Such powers might even give stupid people the opportunity to make the right call.
But when you are faced with seconds or even split seconds to make a decision as to whether your like or the life of others in in jeopardy, it's a different story.
Many people would like to think that it's easy-- just wait for the bad guy to shoot at you, duck, and shoot the gun out of his hand. Easy.
BS. It just doesn't work like that. If a suspect makes a threatening move or what appears to be a threatening move, his welfare needs to be in jeopardy. The end.
He needs to be stopped. If he dies, that's his problem.
Most people have absolutely no concept of reaction time, and the consequences of being slow to fire, or all the dynamics that take place in a deadly force confrontation. These are different from even most military scenarios.
Just a couple of days ago, a Bay Area police officer was making a traffic stop and was shot as he got out of his car. The suspect was wanted for a weapons violation and yet he still got the first shots off, hospitalizing the cop for a few days.
In a near perfect world, he would have seen the gun, the blood lust and constricted pupils in the assailant's eyes, and shot first, debilitating the crook.
The world is nowhere near perfect.
One side of my brain says everyone who thinks that s shoot/no shoot situation is easy to assess, should be in one.
The other side knows there would be a lot of dead critics.
Re: He wasn't a thief. - Seacrest - 12-05-2006
Doesn't he have a couple of lives left?
What level was he on?
Re: He wasn't a thief. - M A V I C - 12-05-2006
Murder is murder. Police are not above the law. We'll see when more facts are released just what happened. Same thing with the incident in NYC.
No, I am not saying the call is easy, and for some people it's much harder than others.
Edit: One might correctly infer from your statement that you've already made up your mind that the police shot and killed an unarmed man. At least you seem to believe he was unarmed.
That's because the article said a witness stated he was unarmed and the police have yet to refute that.
Re: He wasn't a thief. - trisho. - 12-05-2006
[quote RAMd®d]They accept and take risks to do so. They are *not* paid to be shot at, wounded, or killed, despite what many civilians prefer to believe. Sadly, it does go with the territory.
You quite openly contradicted yourself with those statements.
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - SeattlePhotog - 12-05-2006
Yes, let's worry more about "criminals' rights". The poor, poor boy who was shot to death for the small juvenile indiscretion of aggravated assault and battery, plus the small matter of the robbery.
Poor, poor dead boy. Let's mourn. Let's blame the cops, in fact! No, let's blame society! When a college student isn't making enough money to afford his own PlayStation 3, it is his right...nay, his DUTY...to beat on someone else and steal one!
Power to the peple! Stick it to the MAN! This must somehow be George Bush's fault! Let's blame HIM!
Okay, reality check. These violent criminals could have just as easily beaten and/or raped your wife, your daughter or your mother. So before you pathetic bleeding hearts make ONE MORE insipid post about how the cops shouldn't have taken this scumbag down, let's take a deep breath, close our eyes, and get a CLEAR IMAGE in our minds of these knuckleheads raping your daughter.
Now: how do you feel about cops protecting us? Still want to let the criminals run rampant?
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - Lux Interior - 12-05-2006
Judge, jury & executioner.
I'm glad I live in the U.S.A where you're innocent until proven guilty.
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - Racer X - 12-05-2006
Unless it is a matter involving the IRS, then you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - mattkime - 12-05-2006
>>and get a CLEAR IMAGE in our minds of these knuckleheads raping your daughter.
wait....can someone be convicted for something i imagined them doing?
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - vision63 - 12-05-2006
Any incident that features weapons can go very wrong. By participating in a strong-arm robbery, the suspect invited a potentially deadly scenario to potentially befall him. When instant reactions are involved, ANYTHING can happen.
Atlanta PD just killed a 92 year old grandmother who open fired on them from inside her home. They had a warrant that identified the residence as a drug location complete with suspects. They sent officers to bring in the suspects. Grandmother thought it was intruders and commenced to firing. They returned fire. She's dead. Turns out it was the wrong house.
It's the current lead story on ajc.com.
The most likely fault in that (and likely this) situation has more to do with the tactics involved than how the police reacted. The decisions made before the action was even carried out.
I'm not only affected by crime if a criminal rapes "my" daughter. I wouldn't like it if they rape "anyone's" daughter. My sympathies aren't contained only within my family. I don't think it's wise to suspend due-process just because I think someone is a scumbag. We all have right. There's no point to rights if only some of us have them.
Cops don't like killing anyone. It can affect them for the rest of their lives. While some of us happily cheer the killing of a bad guy, the officer that kills them not only is typically haunted by it, but is often fired or jailed due to participating in a "bad shooting."
Re: PS3 theif killed by cops - RAMd®d - 12-05-2006
You quite openly contradicted yourself with those statements.
Actually, I didn't.
The sad thing is, most people well never be able to comprehend that. You've demonstrated that with your statement.
Police are not above the law.
Nobody said they were.
Murder is murder....
Except when it isn't.
Same thing with the incident in NYC. We'll see when more facts are released just what happened.
You've already made up your mind.
I'm glad I live in the U.S.A where you're innocent until proven guilty.
Unless you're a cop.