Anonymous wrote:The grand jury declined to indict the cop for the shooting.

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2023/04/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-fairfax-co-officer-in-deadly-shooting-of-unarmed-man-near-tysons-corner-center/?fbclid=IwAR2EUYHjyQBDOtyGh_3t3C_4DQbNQjoAL4cyMXEQoJIOIE7Rj-yEPYmMt4g

All police are racist bigots!

The grand jury declined to indict the cop for the shooting.

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2023/04/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-fairfax-co-officer-in-deadly-shooting-of-unarmed-man-near-tysons-corner-center/?fbclid=IwAR2EUYHjyQBDOtyGh_3t3C_4DQbNQjoAL4cyMXEQoJIOIE7Rj-yEPYmMt4g

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're gonna learn the hard way, just like this cop.

Do tell. Show me where that is the standard that police follow.

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.

What a ridiculous idea! No. Just NO.

Police chase criminals. That is just how it is, so deal with it, OK?

Should police have “just let them go” in this case??

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2023/03/fairfax-co-police-find-child-in-car-backseat-after-chasing-down-grocery-store-thieves/

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

You're gonna learn the hard way, just like this cop.

Anonymous wrote:People. This man had a violent history. News accounts state he was well known to local police departments. With a violent history and prior arrests, he had to know better than to reach into his pocket or waistband. Maybe it was an instinctual gesture due to habit of carrying a gun.

Save your sympathy for the innocent people who become targets of police aggression. This guy was not in that category. When you defend a scumbag like him, you are saying this guy is in the same category as someone who is a good citizen but is brutalized by the cops.

This guy went looking for trouble, and he found it in spades.

This. When people show you who they are for 20 years, believe them.

There are real police injustices out there. This isn't one of them.

People. This man had a violent history. News accounts state he was well known to local police departments. With a violent history and prior arrests, he had to know better than to reach into his pocket or waistband. Maybe it was an instinctual gesture due to habit of carrying a gun.

Save your sympathy for the innocent people who become targets of police aggression. This guy was not in that category. When you defend a scumbag like him, you are saying this guy is in the same category as someone who is a good citizen but is brutalized by the cops.

This guy went looking for trouble, and he found it in spades.

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.

So, in your mind, police should just let larcenists go? Like San Francisco??

No thank you.

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 one of the problems is the lack of police foot patrol policies (and presumably car chase policies). Here are some interesting facts from a article on the shooting (linked below):

"Davis [the police chief] said on Thursday that the department — and most police departments across the country — currently has no policy regarding foot pursuits. (A 2012 study found that more than 85% of police departments did not maintain a foot pursuit policy.) Research has found that over an eight-year period in Chicago, half of all police shootings occurred after or during a foot pursuit. A study of foot pursuits and police shootings in Philadelphia also reached a similar conclusion. Last year, Chicago joined cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia in implementing rules about when officers can engage in a pursuit, after two foot pursuits in recent years ended in the death of 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez and 13-year-old Adam Toledo. The new policy bans officers from chasing people on foot only because they’ve run away, or they’re believed to have committed minor offenses, like drinking in public or traffic violations."

https://dcist.com/story/23/03/23/timothy-johnson-tysons-police-shooting-body-camera/

Anonymous wrote:If the police officers knew that the man had a violent history before or while they were chasing him it means that they knew his name and could easlily have found him later and arrested him in a way that didn't result in killing him.

If they didn't know who he was what is the probable cause to believe a shoplifter running away from you is a danger to the community that warrants killing him?

Police should not be roaming death squads to kill citizens who step out of line

Must be nice living in LaLa land!

Anonymous wrote:If the police didn't have to assume that everyone is armed they wouldn't have an excuse for shooting so many people.

This guy had a 20 year history of being armed.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if a weapon isn't uncovered next month or next year in the forest - they looked and looked but it's easy to lose things in a place like that. And very hard to find things.

If the police didn't have to assume that everyone is armed they wouldn't have an excuse for shooting so many people.

If the police officers knew that the man had a violent history before or while they were chasing him it means that they knew his name and could easlily have found him later and arrested him in a way that didn't result in killing him.

If they didn't know who he was what is the probable cause to believe a shoplifter running away from you is a danger to the community that warrants killing him?

Police should not be roaming death squads to kill citizens who step out of line

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.