cops kill men with a crowbar *10 shots* - Page 5

any criminal lawyer that can confirm that? sounds very unlikely.


Anyway the point is not where they aimed the shots but the whole situation, why did they fire live ammo to some guy holding a short range not very dangerous weapon, and more importantly why in the hell they shot him 10 times.

When they need 10 bullets to stop a man with a crowbar the police is either inept or immoral, choose at least one.

Obviously ten shots is a little excessive, but then again I think it's easy for us to sit back and judge what should have happened. They're trained professionals (in most cases) but i'm sure none of them have been in a situation quite like that.

Do I believe the use of lethal force was justified? Yes...

On February 01 2012 14:53 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2012 04:31 byrnesam wrote: @ 3 minute mark The fact that some guy took a couple of shots to the chest and he was still semi-functional for an instant doesnt justify shooting a guy with a crowbar 10 times, tell me, do you think the guy with a crowbar is a serious threat to anybody after lets say 5 shots? do you think he can still run to you and hit you in the face? srsly

I dont even know what youre talking about anymore, i really dont.

Almost every other post in this thread is someone posting some sort of link to evidence for the reason the police acted the way they did in response to one of youre posts, then you just adjust your point of view slightly to disagree with how the situation played out.

Shooting a guy 5 times in the chest is ok, but 10 isnt.

On February 01 2012 14:53 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2012 04:31 byrnesam wrote: @ 3 minute mark The fact that some guy took a couple of shots to the chest and he was still semi-functional for an instant doesnt justify shooting a guy with a crowbar 10 times, tell me, do you think the guy with a crowbar is a serious threat to anybody after lets say 5 shots? do you think he can still run to you and hit you in the face? srsly

and to clarify

"semi funtional for an instant" is not the same as getting up.

dont twist things and phrase them in a way to make it look like the account OF THE GUY WHO SHOT SOMEONE TWICE AND WATCHED THEM GET UP has less credit than whatever youre going on about.

YES he obviously is still a threat as long as hes alive. He could easily have a gun on him. If he did, and he fired a shot into the cops face as he lay dieing on the ground, i bet youd be singing about how retarded the cops are for not getting off a kill shot on the guy.

YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE WITH A CROWBAR LOL.

On January 26 2012 05:21 TheHuHu3 wrote: Dead men tell no lies.

fkn huhu expert troll

Dead men tell no TALES

On February 02 2012 02:55 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On February 01 2012 14:53 Baalim wrote:   On January 29 2012 04:31 byrnesam wrote: @ 3 minute mark The fact that some guy took a couple of shots to the chest and he was still semi-functional for an instant doesnt justify shooting a guy with a crowbar 10 times, tell me, do you think the guy with a crowbar is a serious threat to anybody after lets say 5 shots? do you think he can still run to you and hit you in the face? srsly I dont even know what youre talking about anymore, i really dont. Almost every other post in this thread is someone posting some sort of link to evidence for the reason the police acted the way they did in response to one of youre posts, then you just adjust your point of view slightly to disagree with how the situation played out. Shooting a guy 5 times in the chest is ok, but 10 isnt.

What fucking link to evidence? your video of some gangster saying that some guy got up after he got shot with a 9mm in the chest? oh yeah that totally justifies shooting 10 times a guy with a fucking crowbar.

If the guy was wielding a gun then obviously you shoot him to death to avoid him even lifting an arm, if you shot a guy a guy a couple of times with a crowbar you dont give a fuck if he crawls back on his feet, he is in no way a deadly threat.

I have never switched my angle, ive always maintained that minimal force should always be applied, tasering unarmed old ladies or teen girls = not ok.... shooting 10 times to a guy with a crowbar = not ok, in what way im changing my stance?

What is the dog for? First 5 shots were justified, the next 5 were clearly unnecessary as the guy turned away from them, his "crowbar" wasn't a threat anymore and he was about to collapse