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

No, he had ample time to issue a warning and wait for the victim to lay his weapon on the floor.

 

The obviously false.

The gunman murdered an innocent civilian.

The one who murdered the civilian.

No it does not. Everyone can see that the victim is bending down to put his weapon on the floor, not assuming a shooting stance or brandishing, pointing, or threatening anyone with the gun.

I can see an innocent man who answered his door thinking -- correctly, as it happens -- that a neighbor might be about to give him grief over his video gaming, who then sees that it is the police and bends down to place his weapon on the floor, and is then instantly and without warning murdered by a violent, psychopathic uniformed gunman.

You continue to make false claims.

It's in the article I pointed you to, and which you self-evidently did not read because you have to avoid all contact with facts in order to preserve your false and evil beliefs.

Because of baby-boom demographics, drug prohibition, and foolish welfare policies that broke up poor families.

It's not racism and I'm not blaming whites. I am identifying the indisputable historical fact that the original race crimes in the USA were perpetrated almost exclusively by whites against blacks and the aboriginal population, that those crimes initiated a vicious cycle of racial resentment and revenge on both sides, and that whites therefore now bear a special burden of forebearance when blacks and aboriginals express their resentment against whites, even when they do so inappropriately.

 

I watched the video several times and the "gunman" / armed citizen was in the process of putting his pistol on the floor when he was shot in the back by someone who has no business being an LEO.

I can't think of anyway that an armed individual could have complied more thoroughly unless you feel that your right to be armed in your own home stops at your front hall.

Yes, I know that hindsight is 20/20 but at no time did the victim indicate anything other than a complete willingness to co operate.

We'll just have to disagree on this one.

 

I have demolished and humiliated you for your fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous tripe.

Thank you for confirming that your claims are absurd and disingenuous tripe.

It is well known and undeniable historical fact.

So they were British Protestants who forcibly dispossessed and subjugated the native population of Irish Catholics.

None -- if you don't care about freedom, justice, or truth. Which you obviously do not.

For rationalizing and justifying tyranny, injustice and deceit.

Thank you for agreeing that you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers.

 

He may have thought he was acting correctly. But we can see from the video that it was a bad call by the Officer.

 

1. The body cam backs my viewpoint
2. People who possess crack are not non-violent offenders, the crack epidemic of the 80/90s made gunfire the leading cause of death amongst young black men, by locking them up you saved their lives.
3. You're right about the Muslim girls but this is a democracy, it's different, it's better.

 

1. Really? When did that happen? We must all have missed it?
2. Yes, the Williamites were the good guys, we wanted democracy not James 2nd ruling as a dictator and imposing Catholicism onto his unwilling subjects. Democracy, the Act of Toleration, Bill of Rights and preservation of Magna Carta are GOOD things. The Jacobites stripped Williamite prisoners and left them to die in the elements outside the city walls, we were always the good guys.
3. I'll ask again, how were we Irish any different from the rest of Britain/Europe?
4. No, it's Irish Nationalist myth and prejudice.
5. No, it means they were Irish Unionists who worked hard and wanted Britain to succeed and flourish which the Nationalists didn't, of course they prospered. Only leprechauns are the 'native' Irish, apologise to me for your racism!
6. I do care about freedom, justice and truth, that's why I'm arguing with you who can only see your own viewpoint.
7. I'm giving plenty of answers, you're flannelling for you have nowhere else to go.

 

But the cover officer CANNOT see things from the contact officer's viewpoint, you can only judge his actions from the cover officer's viewpoint. That what so many hindsight hypocrites can't seem to accept.

 

No, if the gunman had wanted to shoot the contact officer he had micro-seconds to save him.

 

No they CAN'T! The cover officer DOES NOT see that! You must only watch the footage from his viewpoint. No one was murdered, this whacko gunman opening the door with a gun in his hand and then bringing the gun around got himself killed.
Come on, give up the 'blame whitey' nonsense, people should be treated equally and minorities should stop making excuses and accept their own failings.

 

Really, you can see that from the cover officer's perspective? No, you watched the contact officer's footage but the cover officer could not see that, you must ONLY watch the cover officer's footage or it's hindsight hypocrisy. The gunman could have dropped the gun, instead he brings it around the side of his body as if levelling it at the contact officer. In fairness he probably didn't even realise the cover officer was there and how that would look to him. Put yourself in the cover officer's shoes and you can see he acted correctly.

 

I just watched the videos provided again to refresh my memory and am even more convinced that the grossly incompetent killer should at least be fired if not prosecuted for manslaughter.

Re:

1. I don't know about you but my bedside pistol is an HK45 and after sighting it in, I would not likely just drop in on what looks to be a concrete surface.

2. I don't know where you see the imaginary gymnastics of "...brings it around the side of his body as if levelling it at the contact officer". as the victim is in reality simply holding his handgun to his side and immediately begins to lower it to the floor when he is shot in the back by an incompetent, trigger-happy killer.

3. I am not at all anti police and in borderline cases am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO. This case, however, is not even borderline and the killer should be prosecuted.

After a cursory review of this thread, it looks like virtually all readers disagree with what you imagined you saw in the videos of this inexcusable killing. Maybe you think that a badge excuses all criminal incompetence but most readers of this thread see this killing/murder for what it is.

Again, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this case.

 

I agree there is the possibility for an ND if he'd dropped it but surely he didn't have a round in the chamber and the safety off? Who would be THAT stupid? And it would still be better to do that than bring it around towards the contact officer. Secondly you DON'T see that from the cover officer's viewpoint, blank the contact officer's footage from your mind because the cover officer never sees that. This is a borderline case, this was a split second decision and the officer was not culpable.

No, when the police are wrong they are wrong but that is not what happens here. The cover officer had a split second decision to make and given his viewpoint it was the right decision. We can't agree to disagree when a man's liberty is at stake. Put yourself in his shoes. If you are an ER doc and you give a dying patient an injection to save his life but they turned out to be allergic to it and it killed them are you a murderer/manslaughter? If you are a fireman speeding on your way to a blaze and you run down a deaf man who couldn't hear your sirens should you be prosecuted? If you are a soldier in Iraq/Afghanistan who opens fire on a vehicle which smashes through your checkpoint because you think it is a suicide bomber and it turns out they were just a drunk driver are you a murderer? If you are a bank security guard who shoots a man who tries to rob the bank claiming to have a gun in his pocket but it turns out he is bluffing and it's just his hand are you a murderer?

Don't be a hindsight hypocrite, be the man in the arena.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

 

When you take a position that limits your view or perspective, you are beholden to take those limitations into consideration before acting. But to then make a mortal judgment from within those limitations without consideration of those limitations, it is akin to passing judgment without all the facts, or for the blind to presume to lead. Because of that, an innocent man is dead, at his own door, in his own home, having done nothing wrong. Face it, the Officer screwed up. If you can't admit to that, then you have some kind of a mental block or a personal stake in the matter. Even LEO's screw up from time to time. Usually it's small and inconsequential. And sometimes, though rarely, it's huge and life changing. You can't wish it away, anymore than to say that the man isn't dead and his family has no one to miss or mourn or grieve.

 

Yes, they can.

Yes, he does.

The victim is self-evidently crouching down, not assuming a shooting stance, and he is indisputably moving the gun down towards the floor, not the contact officer.

An innocent civilian was murdered by a uniformed gunman.

There is no evidence that he was a whacko.

Because he surmised -- correctly, as it happens -- that his $#!+-for-brains neighbor was about to give him grief about the noise from his video game.

He didn't bring it around. That is a bald fabrication on your part. He was indisputably putting it down. At no time did he brandish, point, or threaten anyone with the gun.

I see. So, the destructive legacies of explicitly racist laws, government policies and private crimes by whites are "their own failings"?

Disgraceful.

 

No, that's just another baldly false claim from you. Even expert fast-draw champions take tenths of a second to aim and fire, and there was no indication the murder victim was doing any such thing. The murderer already had his gun out and aimed at the victim, a round in the chamber and the safety off. He had the absolute drop on him, and had ample time to wait for the victim to place his weapon on the floor.

 

Not only that, the shooter had more than enough time and was close enough to use a taser and/or issue a verbal warning.

 

No one missed it. You know you have been demolished and humiliated for your disgraceful and disingenuous garbage, and so does everyone else reading this.

A "democracy" in which Catholics could neither hold office, vote, nor own land....

That is an absurd rewriting of history. James's policy was tolerance and even-handed treatment for Protestants and Catholics.

You mean the Toleration Act of 1689 that extended freedom of worship to all religious non-conformists EXCEPT CATHOLICS? That Act of Toleration?

With which the Williamites had absolutely nothing to do.

Williamites did much the same to Jacobites, and worse.

What nonsense. Williamite atrocities are indisputable. Read and learn:

"Wolseley's troops now surged into the town, looting and committing crimes against women and children, led by the Enniskillen troops, notorious for their cruelty against local populations... Wolseley then burned the town and withdrew back to Belturbet."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cavan

And I'll explain it to you again: Irish Catholics were stripped of their rights to hold office, vote, or own land.

That is outrageous and Orwellian nonsense. Catholics were forbidden to hold office, vote, or own land, effectively reducing them to peonage.

They prospered by forcibly stripping Catholics of their rights and economic base, effectively enslaving them.

You really like making a fool of yourself, don't you? Read and learn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland

Huh? Which "race" do you incorrectly imagine me to have derogated?

It is obvious that you hate freedom (especially for Catholics), justice and truth.

I have demolished and humiliated you with fact and logic even more than you have demolished and humiliated yourself with fabrications and nonsense.

 

It most certainly does not.

They most certainly are.

No it most certainly did not. Prohibition did, by creating a financial incentive to monopolize the illegal trade by force.

By making their pursuit of happiness a crime, you took their rights to life as well as liberty.

Tell it to the millions of non-violent "offenders" whose lives you have destroyed.

 

You are factually incorrect. The caller falsely complained about domestic violence in progress so that he could get a high priority emergency response to a videogame that he thought was too loud. His crime resulted in a homicide.

The officer shot an innocent man, who was not a threat and immediately obeyed all police instructions, in the back. That's murder.

Did you even watch the bodycam videos or listen to the 911 calls?

 

There is no evidence that the innocent resident was intending to shoot anyone.

 

Good luck to you.

 

The why answer the door gun in hand? I doubt he did intend to shoot anyone but you have to look at it from the cover officer's viewpoint.

 

Yes and nonsense, look at it from the cover officer's point of viewpoint, a suspect hiding a gun in the small of his back who brings it around his side towards the contact officer. From his viewpoint he was justified and we can only see things from his viewpoint.

 

No, you can't say "He should have waited and seen' because if he had his oppo would be potentially dead. I sure do have a personal stake in the matter, I empathise with this officer and don't want him punished for doing the right thing, I don't have a mental block, those who do not see things from the officer's viewpoint do.