Man killed in Tyson’s Corner shooting

[Anonymous]

The body cam footage was unclear. The unarmed man had a significant violent history and was coming towards the police when he was shot, and was reaching - the police officers thought he had a gun.

I don't know exactly what information was presented to the grand jury but the outcome seems reasonable to me.

[Anonymous]

I just can’t believe this young man was executed for stealing a pair of sunglasses. In what world is that justice? They wouldn’t even execute a thief in countries with Sharia Law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just can’t believe this young man was executed for stealing a pair of sunglasses. In what world is that justice? They wouldn’t even execute a thief in countries with Sharia Law.

He wasn't executed for stealing sunglasses. He was shot because he had a violent history and when he was chased by the police, he turned towards them threateningly.

[Anonymous]

His mother is sad for him. No one else needs to be.

[Anonymous]

WTOP yesterday reported a demonstration at Tysons against the shooting of this individual.

Usually WTOP does a decent job on news, but don't understand why they're stirring the pot here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How did the police know with 100% certainty that he was unarmed?

It's the police's responsibility to know if he's armed before blowing him away.

So a guy can reach into his pocket and look like he’s pulling out a gun, and then he points it at them - but it ends up being a bar of soap…you really think the police have time to judge that in a split second?

I know that’s not what happened here. But c’mon. You’re being ridiculous with you’re statement.

+1000

The police are not responsible here.

Also, it is probably best to not choose “recidivist criminal” as your career.

So if the police are not at fault, why was one of the two officers fired for not following use-of-force protocol?

A police officer being fired doesn't mean that he is at fault or didn't use force properly. This is why law enforcement has unions.

I’m curious to see how the union will spin the pursuit of a thief who stole one pair of sunglasses through the crowded mall to outside the mall and into a wooded area. Doesn’t seem a proportionate response, and it set off a chain of events that ended in a death.

No need to spin anything. A foot pursuit is absolutely reasonable when attempting to arrest/detain a suspect. Unlike a vehicle pursuit, they aren't creating a dangerous situation for the general public. The police are unable to predict the future actions of a suspect. It's actually their job to enforce the law, and that includes pursuing bad guys and using force when necessary.

I think these people want pool rules, fast walk only.

[Anonymous]

Let this be a warning to all DC residents: Keep your criminal destruction out of NoVA. We don't take that crap here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTOP yesterday reported a demonstration at Tysons against the shooting of this individual.

Usually WTOP does a decent job on news, but don't understand why they're stirring the pot here.

It's "stirring the pot" to report news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How did the police know with 100% certainty that he was unarmed?

It's the police's responsibility to know if he's armed before blowing him away.

So a guy can reach into his pocket and look like he’s pulling out a gun, and then he points it at them - but it ends up being a bar of soap…you really think the police have time to judge that in a split second?

I know that’s not what happened here. But c’mon. You’re being ridiculous with you’re statement.

+1000

The police are not responsible here.

Also, it is probably best to not choose “recidivist criminal” as your career.

So if the police are not at fault, why was one of the two officers fired for not following use-of-force protocol?

A police officer being fired doesn't mean that he is at fault or didn't use force properly. This is why law enforcement has unions.

I’m curious to see how the union will spin the pursuit of a thief who stole one pair of sunglasses through the crowded mall to outside the mall and into a wooded area. Doesn’t seem a proportionate response, and it set off a chain of events that ended in a death.

No need to spin anything. A foot pursuit is absolutely reasonable when attempting to arrest/detain a suspect. Unlike a vehicle pursuit, they aren't creating a dangerous situation for the general public. The police are unable to predict the future actions of a suspect. It's actually their job to enforce the law, and that includes pursuing bad guys and using force when necessary.

I think these people want pool rules, fast walk only.

Sorry, but most people don't buy into social justice warrior nonsense. Please stop making excuses for criminals and thank you for supporting our boys in blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How did the police know with 100% certainty that he was unarmed?

It's the police's responsibility to know if he's armed before blowing him away.

So a guy can reach into his pocket and look like he’s pulling out a gun, and then he points it at them - but it ends up being a bar of soap…you really think the police have time to judge that in a split second?

I know that’s not what happened here. But c’mon. You’re being ridiculous with you’re statement.

+1000

The police are not responsible here.

Also, it is probably best to not choose “recidivist criminal” as your career.

So if the police are not at fault, why was one of the two officers fired for not following use-of-force protocol?

A police officer being fired doesn't mean that he is at fault or didn't use force properly. This is why law enforcement has unions.

I’m curious to see how the union will spin the pursuit of a thief who stole one pair of sunglasses through the crowded mall to outside the mall and into a wooded area. Doesn’t seem a proportionate response, and it set off a chain of events that ended in a death.

No need to spin anything. A foot pursuit is absolutely reasonable when attempting to arrest/detain a suspect. Unlike a vehicle pursuit, they aren't creating a dangerous situation for the general public. The police are unable to predict the future actions of a suspect. It's actually their job to enforce the law, and that includes pursuing bad guys and using force when necessary.

I think these people want pool rules, fast walk only.

Sorry, but most people don't buy into social justice warrior nonsense. Please stop making excuses for criminals and thank you for supporting our boys in blue.

Just sos you know, I'm behind the boys in blue on this one, but not on their side in all the police brutality cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A police shooting to be clear

What difference does that make? It’s a shooting. Who did is immaterial. The point is we have guns everywhere