31
Comments (53)
sorted by:
15
Tendies_or_GTFO 15 points ago +15 / -0

He fucked around and found out. No qualms with this one. Follow the fucking commands. How many times did they tell him to get face down on the ground? No less than Five Fucking Times. Show your hands and get down on the ground. Dipshit did neither and got himself ventilated. Fuck him. This was a clean shoot.

4
motrhed3 4 points ago +5 / -1

wasnt a clean shoot, but was not murder either. am sure charges will be dropped or just plain acquittal if goes to court.

6
Tendies_or_GTFO 6 points ago +6 / -0

Not a clean shoot under what actual rules of response/engagement? Please clarify.

1
motrhed3 1 point ago +1 / -0

probably my anti cop bias showing, but all those shots after the kid went down shows excessive force. dont really know. but hey, after this year? not ever going to be a big supporter of "lae enforcement" again.

2
Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

The optics are bad, but I'm not sure it shows excessive force. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your couch, but once lethal forced is engaged within the OODA loop (observe / orient / decide / act), it takes time to process through that loop again to determine when to stop. We should consider 2 things here, (1) was the decision to engage in lethal force supported by the evidence on hand at the time of the incident as well as by the individual's actions. I would say that the answer to that part is yes. (2) is was lethal force ceased in an appropriate, and timely manner according to when the threat was clearly no longer actionable? That is a tough one, and likely one that will earn a payout to the family. Not because it was excessive force, but because it just looks bad regardless of whether or not the expectations that made the optics yucky are reasonable. A little force on force training will change your thoughts on this rather quickly if you're being honest with yourself.

1
motrhed3 1 point ago +1 / -0

my police experience was only when i was in the service, and the excessive force would be from all the shots after he went down. yes, easy to say when you are not in the action. i also used to agree with tried by twelve rather than carried by six. but after a lifetime of bad dealings with police rather than good dealings, and what has been happening with demonstrations this past year where officers have shown where they stand, i certainly will not just give them the benefit of the doubt. quits sure all involved will be acquitted of any wrong doing, but not in my mind. sorry, that is just how it is now. defend them all you want.

on the flip side, i sure hope this doesnt become another geo floyd type case.

0
Smithereens45 0 points ago +2 / -2

was probably drugged out of his mind

gotta admit police training is way to abrasive and trigger happy

1
Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know that there's evidence of the training being trigger happy, that's just human nature if we're being honest. Departments across the country spend tremendous amounts of money to try and combat that initial quick response because it's too easy to get wrong and absurdly easy to second-guess.

0
Smithereens45 0 points ago +1 / -1

You dont think they are trained to shoot when they see weird hand movements like going on pockets and such?

2
Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

You dont think they are trained to shoot when they see weird hand movements like going on pockets and such?

That's not being "trigger happy", that's called addressing a threat.

1
Smithereens45 1 point ago +1 / -0

But it makes them so, they act before they think

1
Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's called reaction, and even the best training doesn't avoid it (because it can't, it's how we're wired). Training ingrains in you how to act when you have to act before you can fully process and think. That's oversimplifying things, by quite a lot, but it covers the basics. That has nothing to do with being trigger happy. Either you're wrong or you used a phrase you don't fully understand.

1
Smithereens45 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think they are trained to shoot right away if suspect makes wird hand movements

you could see it on the video how they all shot in unison according to training

7
BrewSwillis 7 points ago +7 / -0

None of the cops ever asked him to "empty his pockets". They asked to see his hands. He should have complied with commands. How many videos do you see of cops killing people who are obeying commands?

It's pretty stupid to use this as an example of cops, not being your "friend". I'm pretty sure they just don't want to get shot, and are not worried about being your "friend".

5
20KAG20 5 points ago +5 / -0

Only one that comes to mind is the guy that was shot in the hallway because he was on his knees, crawling forward, and tried to pull his basketball shorts up. A cop with “You’re Fucked” on his AR15 dust plate lit him up. That video/situation pisses me off so much. Cop got off but was fired. Should have been jailed for sure.

3
Olds77 3 points ago +3 / -0

There's another where they show up at an apartment in Arizona. The guy can't hear there cops, his neighbor called a noise complaint on him and he answers the door with a gun by his side, never raises it, tries to put it down and is killed 2 seconds later. I believe it's just little over a year old incident, pre-covid of course.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R49P9TuFLOQ&t=87s&bpctr=1615961715

7
trump20202024 7 points ago +8 / -1

in their defence he was fucking around in his pockets, however, why were they looking for him? whats the context. I get its a garbage shoot but 100% they wouldnt of shot him if he just layed down no hoodie front pocket reach...

8
20KAG20 8 points ago +8 / -0

Police were responding to an armed robbery.

4
NinjaFish 4 points ago +4 / -0

Does video then show him reaching back into his pocket?

3
Tendies_or_GTFO 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes.

3
ObamasLooseButthole 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well, when a bunch of people have guns on you and you quickly reach around to your back pocket after not following their commands, what do you expect to happen?

3
Tendies_or_GTFO 3 points ago +3 / -0

For context:

The incident dates to November 23, 2020, when officers were called to a report of an armed robbery at a gas station, according to the affidavit. The clerk fled the store during the robbery and locked the suspect inside by himself. Numerous officers arrived, set up a perimeter around the building and issued commands over a loudspeaker for the suspect, Stavian Rodriguez, to exit the store, the document states. Video surveillance shows he then climbed out of the drive-through window, the affidavit states.

Body camera footage shows multiple Oklahoma City Police officers simultaneously giving him various commands. The document states that Rodriguez lifted his shirt to show his waistline, pulled a firearm from his pants with his left hand -- holding it by his thumb and forefinger -- and dropped the firearm on the ground.

He then put his left hand in his rear left pocket and his right hand at his front right pocket or waistline, the document states.

At that point, the officer who was not charged fired a 40 mm "less lethal" round that struck Rodriguez, the affidavit says. Officers Sears, Barton, Adams, Skuta and Pemberton all then "unnecessarily" fired lethal rounds at him, striking him 13 times, the document says.

https://archive.is/KUJhq

3
20KAG20 3 points ago +3 / -0

Guess the other officers need to understand when not to fire if someone is going to use less lethal first. If procedure was broken here, the cops should be released but i wouldn’t call it criminal by any means.

2
Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is a good point, not sure what the communication protocol was. The less-lethal shot was apparently fired first. If that was not coordinated, it's a bad show all around (the sound of gunfire can provoke more gunfire). That doesn't mean the kid should not have been shot, but your point stands in terms of procedure.

2
RedditSucksChinaPoo 2 points ago +4 / -2

If he is an illegal then I am on the cops side. If not then offsetting penalties.

2
HumansDisgustMe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry OP. I gave up attributing human feelings to savages last summer.

2
LokeyLewd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Act like a crook and you will get treated like one.

2
thelastlast 2 points ago +2 / -0

he reached for his back pocket, this isnt a bad shoot.

kid looked high, its too bad, but still

3
Zskills 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah you hate to see anyone get killed, but he was reaching into his waistline after already pulling out a weapon.

"Comply, and you won't die" never fails.

1
thelastlast 1 point ago +1 / -0

dont really like comply, I dont think people should ever comply with the police again after their covid behavior and other recent things.

but if someone has a gun on you you're a blink away from death, doesn't matter if it's a cop. cops are just legally allowed to shoot.

1
Zskills 1 point ago +1 / -0

The goal is to come out alive. Comply and you won't die. The debate is later, with a judge and a good lawyer

2
thelastlast 2 points ago +2 / -0

yeah, I agree with that

2
Thunderbolt45 2 points ago +2 / -0

His problem was dropping his gun and then reaching back to apparently pull his pants up. To the officers yelling for him to get on the ground, I'm sure it looked like he was possibly reaching for another gun. Cops probably thought he was trying to rope-a-dope them: "I'll drop this gun like I'm giving up, and then whip out this second gun to shoot at the police."

Only problem is, he didn't have a second gun.

2
Zskills 2 points ago +2 / -0

yeah and I don't think it's up to the officers to wait around and find out if he's reaching for another weapon. 1% chance is too high. Comply and you won't die. Simple.

1
Snoman 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are 2 groups of policing. Law and order or protect and serve. This group in the video are the law and order.

1
Gilbey 1 point ago +1 / -0

When the police have tat gun point DONT reach for the back waistband of your pants is the only lesson. How is it any but that?

1
Rerun1Central 1 point ago +1 / -0

Justified kill. Clean.

-8
AgnesDomini -8 points ago +1 / -9

Show me your hands AFTER you murdered him? The truly frightening thing is that there were THIS MANY stupid, trigger happy cops. Forget rioting over Floyd, these cops need to be charged with murder, not manslaughter. He was standing at one spot, and not moving towards them, and they didn't even shot for his legs.

6
Thunderbolt45 6 points ago +6 / -0

I hope you're joking about "they didn't even shoot for his legs." because if not . . . your crazy.

4
motrhed3 4 points ago +4 / -0

shades of joe biden on the legs thing

0
AgnesDomini 0 points ago +1 / -1

His back was against a wall, his was not trying to run or move sideways, and he was not making a break forward, so, yeah, pretty much standing in place so they could have aimed lower instead of at his vitals. Shooting for legs is nonsense on moving targets, but there was no need to aim for the torso as he was in situ.

1
Thunderbolt45 1 point ago +1 / -0

I take it back, you’re not crazy, you’re just an idiot.

1
AgnesDomini 1 point ago +1 / -0

Potaytoh, Potahtoh, but you are entitled to your opinion.

1
Thunderbolt45 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, this isn't an issue where maybe one way is better than the other or vice versa. If the police perceive a deadly threat (disregarding orders and perceived to be reaching for a weapon) and respond by shooting that person in the legs, they are not ending the threat. Criminals don't shoot you with their legs, they shoot you with their hands. Had this guy been pulling a gun, shooting him in the legs allows him the opportunity to continue to draw his weapon and fire shots at the officers.

4
Tendies_or_GTFO 4 points ago +4 / -0

No, they commanded he show his hands and get face down on the ground no less than five fucking times before they shot him.

5
ObamasLooseButthole 5 points ago +5 / -0

Don't forget the part where the guy started reaching into his back pocket right before they shot him. I see nothing wrong here.

1
AgnesDomini 1 point ago +1 / -0

Go back and do the downtime, and see how many seconds lapse between screaming at him and shooting him---almost no time whatsoever.

1
Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

How much time is appropriate? And if you answer, what do you base your answer on?

-1
Schmoebody -1 points ago +2 / -3

Calm down Donut, we get it.

3
Tendies_or_GTFO 3 points ago +3 / -0

Quiet, the adults are talking.

1
Schmoebody 1 point ago +1 / -0

Uh ok....I’m not disagreeing with you etc, it’s just every time I read your comments on this I hear Donut Operator. Relax bro, watch some his vids and have a good time with yourself.

2
Tendies_or_GTFO 2 points ago +2 / -0

Schmoebody

Uh ok....I’m not disagreeing with you etc, it’s just every time I read your comments on this I hear Donut Operator. Relax bro, watch some his vids and have a good time with yourself.

Yeah, that was a quote from one of his vids. Thought you'd catch that. ;)

1
Schmoebody 1 point ago +1 / -0

You know after I made that comment it kinda clicked but I left it up as I don’t run from my mistakes. Well played sir.