WATCH: Phoenix Cops Kill Man after Responding to Noise Complaint over Video Game

1. You can see that from the contact officer's viewpoint, not the cover.
2. The cover officer fired because he legitimately thought the gunman was about to kill the contact officer.
3. Who answers the door gun in hand? Argue with your neighbour, don't shoot him!
4. No, the epic and destructive self pity of some minorities is keeping them back.

 

Rubbish, the heroic officer had no way of knowing if the gunman had already drawn a bead on his oppo, didn't you watch the footage?

 

Tasers are for people with knives, this guy had a pistol, he had no time, he had microseconds to react, he did the right thing.

 

1. No I'm walking tall and you know it.
2. Nor could protestants, we had an established church, if you didn't belong to it you were disadvantaged, plenty of Irish people had rights and privileges English, Scottish and Welsh people didn't. The difference between Britain and the rest of the world is we got rid of it sooner. James was a dictator, trying to rule by decree and subvert parliament. The Act of Toleration established in law for the first time the right of other religions to practice and was the beginning of the religious freedoms Britain was famed for. Couldn't give it to Catholics because of Regnans in Excelsis, not repealed until the late C18th. Unionists prospered because we wanted Britain to succeed, Nationalists wanted it to fail then whined when it plunged them into poverty. There are no 'native' Irish, not 'true' Irish, racial purity is a lie, there are only different types of people. I love freedom, have risked my life for it and would gladly die for it, for EVERYONE, that's what being a Unionist means.

Come on, give it up, give it up, just admit you were wrong, say it, come on, say it....

 

1. What footage did YOU watch?
2. The rise of crack cocaine triggered incredible violence within the Afro-American community, locking up all the young black men stopped the violence and saved their lives.
3. Crack cocaine addiction is 'happiness'?
4. Gladly, I'd say to them, it's all your fault, no one made you be a drug dealer and you get what you deserve.

 

The same footage you watched, the only difference was that I described it accurately.

GARBAGE. It was prohibition and ONLY prohibition that provided the motive for violence: monopolizing the lucrative illegal trade.

You don't get to tell other people what makes them happy, sorry.

I see. So, they are forcibly deprived of their liberty when they have violated no one's rights, given felony records that make them unemployable, and can see just one economic opportunity, which prohibition created, and somehow it's "all their fault" that they took advantage of that one opportunity.

What a despicable, disingenuous, and evil load of filth.

 

You are walking tall but with $#!+ running down your face.

Blatantly false.

No they didn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

I invite anyone to Google James II and confirm that you are just makin' $#!+ up again.

It deprived Catholics, specifically, of their religious liberty.

No, that is false. Could but didn't give it to Catholics.

It was forcible removal of their economic rights that plunged them into poverty, and I will thank you to remember it.

Already proved false.

Which is why you mentioned it.

Yes: honest and dishonest.

You hate freedom for other people and have fought against it.

Except Catholics.

OK: you were wrong.

 

The psychopathic murderer could see clearly that the innocent victim had not drawn a bead on anyone, nor threatened anyone, nor brandished or pointed the weapon at anyone.

I did. I am just telling the truth about what it shows.

 

You can see it from both viewpoints.

No he didn't. He just saw an innocent man he could get away with murdering, so he murdered him.

Someone who correctly surmises that his $#!+-for-brains neighbor is about to give him grief over a video game -- and might be armed himself.

Tell it to the murderer in uniform.

Desire for liberty and justice is not self-pity. You just hate liberty and justice for other people.

 

Because he knew his $#!+-for-brains neighbor wanted to give him grief over the noise from the video game, and might be armed.

 

I don't know that I would call the killer in this tragedy a "psychopathic murderer" but he clearly has no business being an armed LEO.

I've followed this thread since it was started and while I have not read all of the posts, I can't find one other person who agrees with @Reasonablerob.

I don't know why he sees movements made by the victim that no one else seemed to see but some people are apparently willing to "see" anything as long as it excuses crimes or incompetence demonstrated by LEOs.

I am not at all anti police but am willing to condemn obvious crimes such as the one committed by the trigger-happy killer in this incident.

 

Maybe you should put yourself into the Officers shoes. Imagine him seeing the video we are seeing and realizing that he shot dead an innocent man who was in the activity of compliance. He clearly misjudged the mans movements and his intent because the man made no movements and exhibited no intention to harm anyone. He merely answered a loud knock on his door while legally holding his gun behind him so as not to scare anyone. And when he realized he was face to face with an armed Officer, he immediately began to comply. His compliance was misread by the other Officer who, panicked, overreacted and killed him. How you can say that was "doing the right thing" is beyond me. Now put yourself in the dead mans shoes, or his Wifes and family's shoes. How can you say to them that he is rightfully dead.

 

1. So did I, you just misinterpret it.
2. The drug laws far preceded the crack epidemic.
3. Well crack doesn't.
4. Yep they knew the reality and they made their choice.

 

1. If there is it's because you keep spouting it?
2. God you know nothing about Irish history do you? Good thing you met me who has a degree in it!
3. No it didn't, it enshrined their right of worship, no more Bloody Mary's, Charles' 1 or James 2.
4. Couldn't, the Pope forced them to choose between their faith and country.
5. I'll thank you to remember that's not true, Protestants were also disadvantaged but flourished, they wanted Britain to succeed.
6. No it's not, there are no 'true' or 'real' or 'native' Irish, there are simply different types of Irish people, racial purity is a lie.
7. I love freedom and have risked my life to protect it, you think 'freedom' is forcing everyone to agree with you.
8. No, that's what being a Unionist means, are whole ethos is political and religious pluralism.
9. Oh, I was incorrect and you admitted you were wrong? Must have missed that.
7.

 

Of course not, didn't you watch the footage?

 

1. No you can't, from the cover officers viewpoint the gunman is drawing a bead on the contact officer.
2. WHY would the officer possibly want to do that?
3. So your neighbour wants to complain about a noisy video game and they way you decide to settle the matter is with your pistol?
4. What murderer?
5. How so? To have empathy for an officer in an impossible situation who has to make a split second life and death decision without the benefit of hindsight?

 

There's no incompetence or crime here, the officer acted correctly, no one was trigger happy, it was the quick or the dead. Do me a favour, get a friend and a toy pop gun and recreate the scene, you're see what I mean perfectly.

 

Remember the officer DOESN'T see the contact footage until afterwards, he can only judge on what he sees himself. Because the gunman answered the door with a gun in his hand? Because instead of dropping it or backing away he then brings it around the side of his body so it looks like he's pointing it at the contact officer. He got himself killed, nothing was the officer's fault.

 

No, he is self-evidently doing no such thing; that's nothing but a fabrication on your part.

For pleasure. He joined the police force in the first place in order to gain access to such opportunities to legally murder innocent people and get away with it.

No, to be prepared if HE brings a weapon, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, and you of course ignored because you know you have been demolished, and have no answers.

The cop who murdered the innocent civilian.

You call an innocent man who was in the process of laying down his weapon a "gunman" and an "idiot," and will say anything whatever to rationalize, justify and excuse his murder.

It was not an impossible situation in any way. It was quite an ordinary situation, and entirely under control until the murderer just chose to murder an innocent man for pleasure.

He had the benefit of his two eyes, which told him the victim was disarming himself, so it would be safe to murder him.

 

I watched it; and unlike you, I am describing it accurately, as every other person reading this thread agrees.

 

No, because you do.

You should sue your professors for filling your head with such absurd, disingenuous and bigoted twaddle.

That is a bald falsehood. It prohibited Catholicism, as I already proved to you.

The Pope supported William.

You just love finding new things to be wrong about, don't you?

It is most definitely and indisputably true, as I already proved to you.

Because they could own land. The landowner steals from everyone else, so of course they flourished -- at the expense of the landless, especially Catholics.

No. They wanted to steal from everyone else by owning the land, and were legally entitled to do so, exactly like the whites in apartheid South Africa.

Of course there are, as I already proved to you: the original inhabitants.

And their English conquerors, who forcibly dispossessed, impoverished, robbed, enslaved, oppressed, tortured and murdered them...

Which is why you keep repeating it.

You only love, and have only risked your life for, your freedom forcibly to deprive others of their freedom.

I'm not forcing anyone. I'm just proving you wrong. It merely feels like force to you because you hate the truth so venomously.

Under English Protestant rule...

I "admitted," and proved, that you are wrong.

 

No, as everyone else reading this thread agrees.

Crack was just a more lucrative form, so prohibition increased the incentive for violent crime.

Neither does alcohol.

Like abolitionists who helped slaves escape to the North, or Mohandas Gandhi, who publicly broke the law against making salt which had been robbing the Indian people for a century, or black activists who opposed apartheid in South Africa, like Nelson Mandela, or North Koreans who dare to watch South Korean soap operas. Right.

Why do you choose to be on the side of evil?

 

It does not look like he is pointing it at the contact officer or anyone else. That is a fabrication on your part. He is self-evidently in the process of laying it on the floor.

Disgraceful.

 

I've agreed with almost everything you've written. However, I don't necessarily think the shooter (murderous cop) joined the force for the purpose of killing people and getting away with it. Of course, that's possible. I'm not discounting it. With that said, notwithstanding information to the contrary, this cop seems to have just overreacted. He never shouted a warning or attempted to subdue the man with hand-to-hand combat. I "get" that he was probably scared but that doesn't excuse what he did. A man paid with his life because an officer seemed to forget everything he ever learned in the academy and time on the job.

It is clear after all these posts that the one dissenter is never going to be honest with himself about what happened and is clear to everyone not wearing blinders and posed to act as shooter cop apologists and historical revisionists.

 

1. You can see it clearly in the vid
2. WHAT? You don't actually BELIEVE that?
3. No one murdered anyone, this idiot got himself killed.
4, Say what you see.
5. The cover officer see the gunman about to shoot the contact officer, he acted correctly.