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.

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

My guess is because the shooter didn’t say the magic words “fear for my life”. Why he didn’t, who knows? That would have been the end of the story.

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?

Because police in Virginia have fewer protections than just about any other state.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think police should risk their lives and careers for a pair of stolen sunglasses. They should have let him go. If he had just assaulted someone that would be different.

I read that he reached for his waistband and that's when the cop shot him. If that's true I think the cop will be exonerated. The only position hands should be in when being chased and/or captured by police is in the air. No way of knowing who has a gun in their pocket these days. I'd assume everyone does.

I totally agree with your first statement: police shouldn't risk their lives for a pair of stolen sunglasses. Ditto on car chases for non-violent offenses. Too many innocent people get killed that way.

We'll see whether or not the LEO who was fired will be exonerated. The police chief stated that officer did not follow proper protocol. I don't think the cops should have chased a sunglass thief/shoplifter into the weeds, even if he was known to have a record. That's just looking for trouble. If you know who he is, just pick him up later at him home. No need to put yourselves (LEOs) and anyone else in danger.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked. All the police have to say is “I was in fear of my (or another’s ) life” before shooting dead and no jury would convict him. He’d more likely get a hero’s parade.

A reasonable fear. And in this case, seems reasonable to me.

Ok but the shooter was fired.

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.

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.

You just make that up? I've never heard that before.

I don't think police should risk their lives and careers for a pair of stolen sunglasses. They should have let him go. If he had just assaulted someone that would be different.

I read that he reached for his waistband and that's when the cop shot him. If that's true I think the cop will be exonerated. The only position hands should be in when being chased and/or captured by police is in the air. No way of knowing who has a gun in their pocket these days. I'd assume everyone does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked. All the police have to say is “I was in fear of my (or another’s ) life” before shooting dead and no jury would convict him. He’d more likely get a hero’s parade.

Too bad for police that body cameras give the game away. Police can't lie anymore and murder suspects pretrial and get away with it.

Screw all the DCUM harpies defending this pile of human excrement.

This body cam exonerated neither the victim nor the cop. Too bad for everyone.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked. All the police have to say is “I was in fear of my (or another’s ) life” before shooting dead and no jury would convict him. He’d more likely get a hero’s parade.

A reasonable fear. And in this case, seems reasonable to me.

The police chief said that the fired officer "did not follow the department’s use-of-force protocols." Is the police chief lying? Should police departments not have use-of-force protocols? Should the police kill anyone they want and cite "reasonable fear"?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A reasonable fear. And in this case, seems reasonable to me.

He's unarmed. It's unreasonable to be in fear for your life if the suspect is unarmed.

How hard is this for you to understand?

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

Anonymous wrote:
A reasonable fear. And in this case, seems reasonable to me.

He's unarmed. It's unreasonable to be in fear for your life if the suspect is unarmed.

How hard is this for you to understand?