Cops shoot 19 yr old for running after being asked to show bus transfer

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
video is NWS

When police stopped a teenager stepping off the T-train yesterday to show his transfer as proof he’d paid his fare – $2 at most – he ran from them. They shot him as many as 10 times in the back and neck, according to witnesses. For many long minutes, as a crowd watched in horror, the boy, who had fallen to the sidewalk a block away, lay in a quickly growing pool of blood writhing in pain and trying to lift himself up as the cops trained their guns on him and threatened bystanders.
Click to expand...

http://truthfornews.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/19-year-old-fatally-shot-in-back-by-cops-over-bus-fare/
 
Uhh...

San Francisco police shot and killed a 19-year-old man after he fired upon them during a foot chase Saturday. The deceased, a Washington state parolee wanted for questioning in the slaying of a pregnant woman in Seattle last week, was shot while fleeing from police trying to cite him for evading bus fare:
Click to expand...
 
Reports are saying he was armed and fired at police while escaping. Oh and he was also wanted in the shooting of four people a week before, one being a pregnant woman who ended up dying from her injuries.
 
That entire website gives off a black panther vibe. I don't like that kind of outspoken bullshit where people have to say things like "AND PEOPLE DARE ASK ME WHY I DON'T TRUST THE POLICE WAKE UP PEOPLE REBEL REBEL" to get any kind of attention. What the hell is wrong with just putting a video up, explaining what you know, and letting people see it?

Still pretty shitty watching the guy bleed to death though, that obviously didn't go down too well with the crowd. And because he's black, it's obviously racism. :upstare:
 
Indeed, it's ****ing awful "news" source regardless of what actually happened.
 
Not surprising Stern posts something depressing and anti-establishment without taking the effort to research it. Cops shoot a guy who shoots at them = bad cops. There are bad cops out there. Go find them instead of the ones actually doing their job.
 
in other stern news,chomsky says that barack obama eats babies and pol pot was a reincarnation of jesus
 
StarBob said:
Not surprising Stern posts something depressing and anti-establishment without taking the effort to research it. Cops shoot a guy who shoots at them = bad cops. There are bad cops out there. Go find them instead of the ones actually doing their job.
Click to expand...
God why don't you stop hounding Stern in every thread he posts? It's getting really tiresome.

;)
 
Stupid news source but you guys shouldn't leap to defend the police so fast. A few things:

1) Those of you who immediately respond by saying he was wanted in relation to the shooting of a pregnant woman seem to be forgetting that we have something called the burden of proof in this country which also means he's innocent until proven guilty, so the implication that a 19 year old somehow deserved getting shot down in the street by police and left to die bleeding on the pavement in front of a crowd of spectators because he MAY have been involved in another crime is just retarded.

2) Police say that he fired shots at them... but this is unsubstantiated too. Eyewitnesses have said otherwise and you can clearly hear people in the video yelling "Where's the gun?" and accusing the police of killing an unarmed man. Other eyewitnesses say that he had surrendered / stopped when the police shot him.

3) It's not at all unreasonable to believe that the police may have either 1) killed him while he was surrendering because they knew they could get away with it and police really don't like people who shoot at officers or 2) killed an unarmed man and then fabricated the fact that he was shooting at them. Both have all sorts of precedent. Ever heard of the term "Blue Shield"? Police in this country also have a long and decorated history of shooting first and asking questions later because being trigger happy is encouraged in the culture of law enforcement since their view is if there's a possibility you are presenting a danger to police or civilians than you deserve to be shot even if you aren't necessarily an actual threat.

Who knows if the kid was guilty of the other crime or not? Who knows if he shot at the cops? Who knows if their killing of him was justified? We don't know yet. Saying things like "good riddance" just means you're a callous asshole that leaps to judgment too quickly with too little evidence. Yes, he ran from the cops when confronted - just like millions of other low-income minority youth in this country might, regardless of whether they thought they were guilty of a specific crime. That doesn't mean he deserved to get shot seven times... necessarily. If he was shooting at the cops then yeah, that's a pretty valid forfeit of life... but reports are super confused and preliminary right now and there is a LOT of discrepancy between eyewitness/bystander reports and the police story. Anybody leaping to defend either side is being a fool at this point.

edit: Vegeta you realize that you sound like a petulant child with all this Stern business right? Joking around because you think it's absurd people accuse you of "hounding" him? Protip: if half the forum accuses you of crawling up Stern's asshole all the time, there's probably a valid reason for it. If you just dropped it nobody would give a **** after another couple of weeks. This whole "it's ridiculous for you people to act like all I do is hate Stern" attitude just comes across as whiny and childish.
;)
 
Source is shit.

I do however have one question; Why did the cops need to shoot him 10 times?

What right has an officer to shoot any person 10 times?

Why did I say I had one question and then ask two?

Something doesn't add up in either story.
 
Ennui said:
Stupid news source but you guys shouldn't leap to defend the police so fast. A few things:

1) Those of you who immediately respond by saying he was wanted in relation to the shooting of a pregnant woman seem to be forgetting that we have something called the burden of proof in this country which also means he's innocent until proven guilty, so the implication that a 19 year old somehow deserved getting shot down in the street by police and left to die bleeding on the pavement in front of a crowd of spectators because he MAY have been involved in another crime is just retarded.

2) Police say that he fired shots at them... but this is unsubstantiated too. Eyewitnesses have said otherwise and you can clearly hear people in the video yelling "Where's the gun?" and accusing the police of killing an unarmed man. Other eyewitnesses say that he had surrendered / stopped when the police shot him.

3) It's not at all unreasonable to believe that the police may have either 1) killed him while he was surrendering because they knew they could get away with it and police really don't like people who shoot at officers or 2) killed an unarmed man and then fabricated the fact that he was shooting at them. Both have all sorts of precedent. Ever heard of the term "Blue Shield"? Police in this country also have a long and decorated history of shooting first and asking questions later because being trigger happy is encouraged in the culture of law enforcement since their view is if there's a possibility you are presenting a danger to police or civilians than you deserve to be shot even if you aren't necessarily an actual threat.

Who knows if the kid was guilty of the other crime or not? Who knows if he shot at the cops? Who knows if their killing of him was justified? We don't know yet. Saying things like "good riddance" just means you're a callous asshole that leaps to judgment too quickly with too little evidence. Yes, he ran from the cops when confronted - just like millions of other low-income minority youth in this country might, regardless of whether they thought they were guilty of a specific crime. That doesn't mean he deserved to get shot seven times... necessarily. If he was shooting at the cops then yeah, that's a pretty valid forfeit of life... but reports are super confused and preliminary right now and there is a LOT of discrepancy between eyewitness/bystander reports and the police story. Anybody leaping to defend either side is being a fool at this point.

edit: Vegeta you realize that you sound like a petulant child with all this Stern business right? Joking around because you think it's absurd people accuse you of "hounding" him? Protip: if half the forum accuses you of crawling up Stern's asshole all the time, there's probably a valid reason for it. If you just dropped it nobody would give a **** after another couple of weeks. This whole "it's ridiculous for you people to act like all I do is hate Stern" attitude just comes across as whiny and childish.
;)
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Its impossible to know what the situation is, as you can't trust either side to tell the truth. They didn't find the man's weapon, but theres tons of possible explanations for that beyond "cops are lying," like maybe a bystander picked it up and took off with it. Like Ennui said, there's plenty of precedent for people on either side to be lying about shit.

kazsymonds said:
S
I do however have one question; Why did the cops need to shoot him 10 times?

What right has an officer to shoot any person 10 times?
.
Click to expand...

10 times isn't that much really. For one, in the intense situation that is a shooting, its not unreasonable that they're going to pull the trigger a few times more than needed. When you pull the trigger, the intent is to kill someone or at the very least incapacitate someone. Doing one shot isn't a guarantee of anything. There's been studies that show that on average, regardless of the number of shots a single person fires, usually only 2-3 are actually hits. Police are probably trained to fire several rounds for that very reason. Considering that, plus the fact that there were multiple officers firing, getting 10 hits isn't odd at all. Its not like they saw him drop to the ground, and then just kept shooting him for the hell of it. He probably sustained all those hits in the span of 1-2 seconds before he fell.
 
Better to withhold Judgement until the facts are out. If the cops did kill a young man who was guilty of only trying to skip a jail sentence, they should be put before the courts.

That said, if I was an American I'd be ****ing terrified of the police.
 
Ennui said:
Who knows if the kid was guilty of the other crime or not? Who knows if he shot at the cops? Who knows if their killing of him was justified? We don't know yet.
Click to expand...

In fact, it will now be more difficult to ascertain these things because the man is dead and can't be questioned.

In Ireland, the police force is unarmed. I much prefer this.
 
KiplingsCat said:
In fact, it will now be more difficult to ascertain these things because the man is dead and can't be questioned.

In Ireland, the police force is unarmed. I much prefer this.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. and Mexico there is organized crime that trains their own soldiers. I'd like my police to be able to fight back against people who have guns.

That being said, I'm all for tazers and less lethal means of taking down criminals.
 
Krynn72 said:
My thoughts exactly. Its impossible to know what the situation is, as you can't trust either side to tell the truth. They didn't find the man's weapon, but theres tons of possible explanations for that beyond "cops are lying," like maybe a bystander picked it up and took off with it. Like Ennui said, there's plenty of precedent for people on either side to be lying about shit.



10 times isn't that much really. For one, in the intense situation that is a shooting, its not unreasonable that they're going to pull the trigger a few times more than needed. When you pull the trigger, the intent is to kill someone or at the very least incapacitate someone. Doing one shot isn't a guarantee of anything. There's been studies that show that on average, regardless of the number of shots a single person fires, usually only 2-3 are actually hits. Police are probably trained to fire several rounds for that very reason. Considering that, plus the fact that there were multiple officers firing, getting 10 hits isn't odd at all. Its not like they saw him drop to the ground, and then just kept shooting him for the hell of it. He probably sustained all those hits in the span of 1-2 seconds before he fell.
Click to expand...

How many shot are we talking to get 2-3 hits though? Maybe 6-7? That means they could have fired as many as 30 rounds at him?!

I'm not arguing that he was innocent or that they killed him unlawfully, and I know NOTHING about guns, but 10 hits seems like an awful lot to me. For that action i'd expect him to be waving an RPG at them.

Im so glad our police are unarmed.
 
Ennui said:
Stupid news source but you guys shouldn't leap to defend the police so fast. A few things:

*stuffs*
;)
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with you, but my point is (and I think most of us) is that Stern only posted one bias without divulging other important information, as usual.
 
ya I'm withholding information from the numbnuts who are too lazy to read the article. it's a fool proof plan; rely on hl2.netters being lazy. what could possiblie go wrong?
 
kazsymonds said:
How many shot are we talking to get 2-3 hits though? Maybe 6-7? That means they could have fired as many as 30 rounds at him?!
Click to expand...

They also could have fired as few as 10 shots. At the start of the video you see at least four officers with their guns drawn on the man. It seems to make sense that the first shots will be the most accurate, so if they each fired just 3 shots, thats 12 shots total with a decent chance of 10 of them hitting. They'd also probably fire more if the guy didn't immediately fall to the ground or give up. He he ignored his first several wounds, then many more would still be coming at him as he continued to be a threat (assuming of course that he was still legitimately considered a threat).
 
****ing called it.

Police said detectives have learned that Harding was a person of interest in the Seattle shooting. The gun used to the San Francisco shootout was found after police received tips to its whereabouts. It will be tested to see if it matches bullets used in the murder of Tanaya Gilbert. The testing could take days or weeks.
Amateur video footage of the exchange showed that a passerby picked up Harding's handgun after the shootout and took it from the area before investigators were able to establish a crime scene, police said.
But with the help of witnesses, police were able to identify the person who took the gun, and recovered it Sunday afternoon.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxreno.com/news/28583798/detail.html
 
lol, dumbass. If the cop was just looking for a bus pass, why not just produce a bus pass and get on with things? Of course, take into account that he's wanted in suspicion with the murders of 4 other people, which would mean he's already on the lookout for cops. Once an officer stops him, he freaks out, pulls his gun shoots a few rounds and runs. The bad news is... if you shoot at a cop, they're gonna shoot back. According to Krynn's link, a passerby picked up the dude's gun, which makes the officer's story of events much more plausible. IMO, the police were justified in using lethal force and this was not police brutality.
 
video on live leak shows someone picking up a gun and just leaving the scene calmly.

oh yeah rest in pieces.
 
Why the hell would you pick up a gun that some dude has dropped after being shot 10 times? Also, why didn't the police see them pick up the gun?

I dunno, not the nicest of stories is it, but if he was a murderer then I guess he deserved it.
 
Higlac said:
In the U.S. and Mexico there is organized crime that trains their own soldiers. I'd like my police to be able to fight back against people who have guns.

That being said, I'm all for tazers and less lethal means of taking down criminals.
Click to expand...

It takes an army to fight soldiers, not the police.

Edit: He didn't deserve it, Ren.182. He deserved to be properly tried and judged....why have a justice system if people don't survive long enough to get to it?
 
H saved the tax payer alot of money by opening fire on the Cops.
 
So much anti-cop sentiment on this site. I thought you guys were supposed to be immune to sensationalism?
 
why would you even post an article from a site like that :| was it to make me into a huge hypocrite?

also wtf taking someone's gun after they are shot, how the dick did the cops not notice that?
 
10 shots seems a bit excessive if you ask me. If he got shot and fired back, yes but still 10 shots? 3-4 body shots usually puts someone down....if you know how to properly take someone down :/
 
The Monkey said:
Christ, you didn't even know if he was guilty of the previous murders, and already you're celebrating his death.
Click to expand...


He tried to shoot the police as he was running away. I have no sympathy for low life thugs.
 
3-4 shots against a person not wearing bulletproof vests, sure.... 3-4 shots from 2 or more officers makes 10 shots not seem like that much at all.
 
Yuri said:
why would you even post an article from a site like that :| was it to make me into a huge hypocrite?

also wtf taking someone's gun after they are shot, how the dick did the cops not notice that?
Click to expand...
It's likely he was a friend/accomplice who was trying to help his friend out by disappearing with the gun. It's also possible he was some other street tough that was crazy enough to jump at the opportunity for a free gun.

Sometimes I feel like watching The Wire has given me an inflated sense of my understanding of these things...
 
The only person in here that hates the Police is Stern.
ennui doesn't hate the Police he just runs away from them lol.
 
Trying to imagine what would happen if this occurred in NZ. If a police officer shoots someone here, even if the guy was armed and holding hostages/shooting at police (this happens about once every 3 years) the cops are still put under the spotlight by media as overreacting and shooting unnecessarily.
 
Ennui said:
It's likely he was a friend/accomplice who was trying to help his friend out by disappearing with the gun. It's also possible he was some other street tough that was crazy enough to jump at the opportunity for a free gun.

Sometimes I feel like watching The Wire has given me an inflated sense of my understanding of these things...
Click to expand...

yeah maybe, but still: how the **** did the cops not notice D:

also i want to watch the wire i keep forgetting. but soon its breaking bad oclock ;)
 
Yuri said:
yeah maybe, but still: how the **** did the cops not notice D:
Click to expand...

Maybe they were slightly distracted by the large crowd screaming at them and trying to close in on the guy they shot.
 
Not surprised when I saw the author of this thread.
 
CptStern said:
ya I'm withholding information from the numbnuts who are too lazy to read the article. it's a fool proof plan; rely on hl2.netters being lazy. what could possiblie go wrong?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article you posted? Or the thread you posted it in for that matter. :v
 
CptStern said:
ya I'm withholding information from the numbnuts who are too lazy to read the article. it's a fool proof plan; rely on hl2.netters being lazy. what could possiblie go wrong?
Click to expand...

So, we're too lazy to read the article but you only had enough energy to post the part that made the cops look bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top