Previous Post
Next Post

“‘At some point in there, a struggle over one of the officer’s weapons occurred,’ Smith said. ‘At that point an officer-involved shooting happened.'” That’s the report at quoting Cmdr. Andrew Smith of LAPD’s Central Division and Safer Cities Initiative. As you’d expect, exactly what happened is still very much in question. Some witnesses on the scene . . .

criticized the arresting officers for going “straight to lethal force.” Then again, “Jose Gil, 38, said he saw the man swinging at the police and then heard one of the officers say, ‘Gun, gun, he’s got my gun!’ before police fired multiple shots.” An investigation into the shooting has already begun and it probably won’t be long before leading lights such as Don Lemon are on the ground in the City of Angels bringing you all the latest developments. It will no doubt be a bumpy ride.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Despite all the hype this video does not show us enough at first viewing to have an considered opinion. It may or may not be a good shoot.

    • Concur. You really can’t tell.

      But the officer who allegedly lost his gun is identified as he appears to be putting something in his holster later in the video. Stay tuned, as Al Sharpton and Eric Holder swoop in in three… two… one…

    • TTAG – PLEASE POST the version of video that shows the man who was shot standing and violently swinging punches at the cops. This video cuts that part out.

      Like this one:

      • Because standing and taking a swing warrants a summary execution. The only thing that is relevant is whether he was armed. Naturally, there is a no gun in sight, except in the hands of the government executioners.

        • You can be killed with a single punch, kick, tackle, choke hold, etc or by the resulting fall, disorientation or stumble afterward.

          As none of us were at the scene were acting as LEOs who shot the homeless man, opinions are conjecture. We certainly don’t have the same information the LEOs had when the homeless man was shot. I do not know if the action taken was the right thing to do.

          Note, I didn’t say anything about “justified”.

        • I love how when cops murder someone, everyone talks about waiting how only the killers have the information so we should wait for the killers to investigate themselves (LOL), but when a cop is killed, everyone loses the shit and calls for a lynching even though they have zero information.

          In any case, multiple witnesses have already come forward on this shooting saying the man was unarmed, but no doubt the LAPD will rubber-stamp this as justified, as always.

        • If he did grab the cop’s gun, then it could be justifiable.
          But nobody’s asking the important question: were they justified in arresting him in the first place, or were they harassing a man?

        • “The only thing that is relevant is whether he was armed.”

          Bull CRAP.

          Being armed has very little to do with the justification for deadly force by either police or non-LEO citizens.

          The actual criteria are “ability, opportunity and jeopardy” regarding a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

          NOTHING in the legal (or moral) justifications of the use of force to protect oneself requires an assailant being “armed.”

          I suggest you actually educate yourself on the topic before continuing to so grossly misrepresent facts and demonstrate ignorance of a very serious topic.

          My source of information: A heck of a lot of reading on the subject, formal training from attorneys and actual testimony in homicide trials where ‘self defense’ was at issue.

        • Please, use the provided video to infer any sort of threat from a man lying on the ground.

          In fact, the shooting started when the piggies claimed the homeless man was armed, that is the claimed “threat”. But from the same video, one can see the cops are lying, as always.

        • Where on earth did this horseshit about using a gun only being justified if the assailant had a gun, come from?

          Have you ever seen the damage blunt objects can cause (much less a knife)? And blows to the head even from fists can be lethal.

          Utter, complete, intelligence failure.

        • That’s what the cops have batons, mace etc for.

          A random guy in the street, I wouldn’t hold it against him if he shot and killed someone who swung at him. He’s not a trained professional; but police officers are. People just forget what they’re trained for (or supposed to be trained for). It’s not shooting people! It’s subduing people by the minimum amount of force necessary to do so safely, and “safely” here means all parties involved.

        • “Please, use the provided video to infer any sort of threat from a man lying on the ground.”

          You keep bringing up “unarmed.” That’s what I was addressing. “Unarmed” is irrelevant.

          Now that “unarmed” is out of the equation, you move the goalpost to ask about the threat he poses. That is the true question and should have been the only question all along.

          I’m not commenting about this video or this shooting one way or another. I was simply pointing out your claim of “unarmed” is an immaterial tangent to the discussion.

          I suggest you study the laws of self defense (including regarding law enforcement) and study logic before you continue attempts at trolling this site. And, another hint…no one here is going to take you seriously by referring to cops as “pigs” no matter what they might think about cops in general or these cops in particular.

          That particular phrase is another fallacy:

      • What I see in this video is a guy who doesn’t know how to fight flailing his fists until he gets taken down. Then he starts to grab the “black” policeman’s holster. The “black” policeman starts to yell something like, “He’s going for my gun! Gun! GUN!” Which makes the “white” officers pull theirs and start shooting until the homeless man is dead. As the “black” policeman was getting up it appears he is re-holstering his gun.

        The problem here is the “black” policeman has no clue on how to do his job. He had his gun in his right hand and his stick in the left hand. He then drops his stick for the women to pick up as he is re-holstering his gun. He moves toward the flailing homeless man as he leaves himself open to a punch. After he takes down the homeless man while his attention is on his stick, which is now in the womens hands. While the homeless man is on the ground he tries to remove the gun from the “black” policeman’s holster. When the “black” policeman notices he starts striking the homeless man instead of retaining his gun. Then he starts yelling about the homeless man going for his gun instead of controlling his gun and getting away from the homeless man. The “black” policeman calls for the other officers to shoot the homeless man when he yells, “GUN! GUN!” He gets up, while re-holstering his gun, after the homeless man was shot dead by the “white” policemen.

        From what I see on the video it appears the homeless man never really had the gun when he was shot. However, he did try to get the gun out of the “black” policeman’s holster. The large “white” policeman appears to be trying to shoot the homeless man in the head after the “black” policeman yells about his gun. The other two “white” policemen shoot after the large “white” policeman does, which appears to have been after the homeless man was already killed by the large “white” policeman’s bullet.

        We all know that police are conditioned to kill when they hear the command, “GUN!” They don’t think, they just shoot until the target isn’t moving anymore, sometimes they don’t stop until they run out of ammo. Obviously this is not acceptable. You cannot have people who don’t think in charge of a weapon. You cannot have police following along just because they hear a command that they have been conditioned to kill after hearing. This is how many people die when they didn’t have to. Your supposed to be peace officers, not an execution squad.

        Retaining your weapons is priority number one in such a scenario. If you cannot retain your weapon/s, (maybe) it’s best you don’t carry any. You have to learn more than how to pull a trigger or yell “gun.” Your ineptness gets you or other people killed. Don’t blame anyone else for your low standards, it’s your fault for not improving.

        In this video you can see some police working on controlling an individual. Notice at 2:46 one of them forgets about his gun. If the “suspect” wanted to go for it he could have.

        It’s not easy being a peace office, but don’t cop-out. You wanted the responsibility, now deal with it.

  2. The guy that uploaded this cut off the beginning that would put more context.
    But it seems by the very sudden reaction of the police that the guy got hold of or otherwise had a gun. I seriously doubt that after all that effort to subdue an apparently deranged subject that they would just decide to shoot an unarmed man.
    The police body cameras will tell the rest of the story.

    • it would not surprise me if the body cam footage was regretfully erased by some nameless technician/intern.

        • If Lerner were smart, she would be rehearsing her answers to the questions she’s gonna be answering on the witness stand for her trial.

  3. Can’t really see what happened, Did the guy surrounded by cops beating him have a gun? Did he snatch a gun from one of the officers? Did he think that he had the right to defend himself while resisting arrest and being beaten by multiple cops?

    • Apparently he thought he had the right to resist being detained even though he was a suspect in a robbery.

      • Ah. Civilians are supposed to use clairvoyance to figure out they’re suspects.

        Actual claim: all civilians are suspects, all the time, to be harassed by cops at will.

        • No, but if you’re going to resist detainment you better be psychic so you know if the police have reasonable suspicion or not.

        • The definition of reasonable cause is something to be concocted after the fact for the report. This is the result of pro-police jurisprudence from the courts. Shocking, a government lawyer will always rule in favor and give more power to government thugs.

    • One of the officers says something like “he has a gun”, but there was no other gun as determined after the fact.

      It actually got me thinking… of late, it seems that pretty much any such shooting involves a police officer claiming that they “thought” a suspect had and/or reached for a gun. Now this may well be true, especially for the more paranoid officers. But on the other hand, if a cop was to shoot a person knowing that they were unarmed (but for whatever reason deciding that it’s the best course of action – e.g. to avoid the risk of being injured by going into a brawl with a baton), knowing that video and/or witness testimony is going to be reviewed later – they could in fact just say “he has a gun” randomly, just to make it look like they had such a suspicion in retrospect, should it come to a grand jury.

    • It is claimed that while the cops had the suspect on the ground (~3 police officers) he reached for one of their guns when another officer opened fire.

  4. It’s ok a black cop shot a black guy. MSM is well versed in sweeping incidents such as these under the rug.

  5. I listened to this video and another like it very carefully. It sounds to me that at least one of the officers says something to the effect that the deceased either had a gun or was ordered to put it down. Apparently he was a suspect in at least one robbery.

    If this is true – that he had a gun and/or failed an order to drop the gun (or pointed it at one of the officers) – then it may be concluded that it as a justified shooting.

  6. If the police did not have guns ………

    Why don’t we keep stats on number of civilians killed and wounded by the police? ……..could it be that we don’t want to?

    Could or not have been a “good shoot”. At least they all went home.

    Like I said, fear the police, they will kill you, or better yet give them some TRAINING!

  7. A black officer shoots a black suspect. Whats Sharpton going to do now? Classify the officer as mostly white with darker shading…

    Love the “sellout”comments from the crowd. Officers went confronted with suspects of the same race should always allow the suspect to harm them. Morons.

  8. Why wasn’t the taser working? It sounded like they kept it going for a while. Also, how did he reach for a gun while being shocked and beaten?

    • Because non-lethal force, like lethal force, is never 100%. Folks beanbaged, tasered, OC spray, etc can still put up a hell of a fight.

    • Contrary to popular belief tasers arent foolproof. Most of them depend on two prongs getting in contact with the body. Heavy clothing, objects in pockets, the angle of the shot and other such factors can stop that from happening. If the prongs impact too close to each other then the current won’t work to full effect, if at all. If one of the prongs gets dislodged, which is easy in a struggle, then the circuit is broken and the taser will have no effect. Even though it sounds like the guy is getting shocked there’s a good chance it wasn’t being effective. You can also remove the prong cartridge and do a contact tase, i.e. putting the taser against the person and pulling the trigger, but in a struggle you run the risk of shocking another officer and again, if the taser does not contact the body then all the taser will do is make noise.

      • But 4 cops on one guy, with a taser deployed (you can hear it), they still are unable to gain control of the suspect and one officer loses control of his weapon and they shoot him 5 times?! This just doesn’t seem right.

        Being a cop is an extremely hard job but that’s where the training and judgement come to play. The LAPD trains officers for this scenario all the time, right? They had a suspect wildly swinging and acting crazy (a pretty ineffective threat VS 4 highly trained officers) but they unload on him like he’s a terrorist. Sometimes I wonder how many officers deep down inside just want to fire their weapon in the line of duty so bad (mall ninja syndrome) it clouds their judgement. A type if “hair-trigger” mentality

    • I’m a little confused why they didn’t use the taser in the beginning. Instead of wrestling and beating the guy (resisting or not), just tase him, roll him over with your foot, place handcuffs. Easy. Why make it hard?

    • The “zapping” sound occurs when the Taser does not have a good connection. That could be the result of a clothing disconnect, miss, or inability of the Taser probes and the charge to sparkgap through clothing.

      • I understand what you’re all saying and I tend not to be a bleeding heart, but a part of me wishes that it never came to this, especialy if the man was mentally ill

  9. I’m withholding judgement…hope there are multiple angles of body cam video…hope it is released before the riots start.

  10. One less bottom feeder off the streets for a few buck’s worth in bullets. What’s the problem here?

    • Well, we’re not sure yet. That’s the problem. A man is dead. That’s a fact. He was shot dead by agents of the state acting in your name and on your dime. That’s also a fact.

      Depending on what other facts exist in this case, that is, whether the deceased posed an immediate and grave threat to the officers or others, determines whether we have a big problem here or an unfortunate situation.

      If you’re OK with sidewalk summary executions based on the mere undesirability of the deceased, then you should review the comments of various antis regarding their views on firearms owners and what ends they should meet. You might gain a renewed respect for civil rights in general and due process in particular.

      • “If you’re OK with sidewalk summary executions based on the mere undesirability of the deceased, then you should review the comments of various antis regarding their views on firearms owners and what ends they should meet. You might gain a renewed respect for civil rights in general and due process in particular.”

        Jonathan — Remember my comment on Saturday? This is what I was talking about. Well said.

    • The problem here is that any idiot can troll on the internet. As proven by your excellent example here.

    • No problem at all if you think the King’s men have the right to summarily execute peasants. If you think government employees should be restrained in their interactions with citizens then there is a big problem.

  11. About two seconds before the shooting you hear clearly and loudly “Drop the gun!” “Drop the gun” “Drop the gun”

    I’d argue that the officer who lost control of his weapon should probably be disciplined, but that’s about it. Dude grabs your gun as a police officer, you shoot. End of story.

    • If that’s the case, then perhaps simple discipline isn’t sufficient. Yes, grabbing an officer’s sidearm is a serious crime and a dangerous act which can result in death for the assailant, as we’ve seen before and again here.

      Nevertheless, the root cause is that officer’s handling of his own sidearm. If he deployed it unnecessarily and prematurely, removing it from the relative security of his holster and rendering it vulnerable to an attempt to take it, then the officer would be the one who put himself, other officers, and bystanders at grave risk of serious injury.

      If he deployed it appropriately and the situation just went south, well, that’s the job and stuff happens. So it all really hinges on the circumstances of what exactly happened to determine whose actions were reckless or negligent and what punishment, if any, is in order.

    • Stephen,

      I listened to the audio a couple times and I am pretty sure one of the policeman is yelling, “Drop my (rather than ‘the’) gun!” repeatedly.

    • The guy that grabbed one of the officers’ nightsticks is lucky he didn’t get shot as well. According to the LAPD use of force policy, deadly force is authorized in order to prevent serious bodily injury, something a nightstick can inflict.

      • God forbid the victim use force to prevent serious bodily injury being inflicted on him by said nightstick.

        Oh wait, civilians have no rights when assaulted by the King’s Men.

        • “God forbid the victim use force to prevent serious bodily injury being inflicted on him by said nightstick.”

          The thing that you are missing in making this comment is an understanding of time in violent encounters.

          If there is a real threat of serious bodily injury and that threat is imminent (ie, that ‘ability, opportunity and jeopardy’ are all present), there simply is not time to play games.

          This is true whether the person being attacked is a cop or not.


          Imagine you are walking home from baseball practice with a bat in your hand. Some runs up to you shouting and grabs your bat and plants their feet (ie, not a grab and run).

          You are also carrying a firearm. Do you think you’d be justified to shoot the assailant?

          If so, how is that different from someone grabbing a cop’s nightstick?

          If not, why not? What do you think you need to wait for…and more to the point of long do you think you need to wait to see if he is going to beat your brains right out of your head?

          Action is generally faster than reaction. Waiting for the change-over from “imminent” to “absolutely certain” is a losing proposition very nearly 100% of the time.

        • God forbid the victim use force to prevent serious bodily injury being inflicted on him by said nightstick.

          Except that the “victim” wasn’t getting any attention from the cops until he tried to pick the stick up off the ground, where it was no threat to him at all. So he can’t have been trying to “prevent serious bodily injury being inflicted on him by said nighstick”

          More logic and intelligence fail.

        • Being in the mere presence of a cop is mortal danger to a civilian. This video proves it, cops should be preemptively dispatched for civilian safety.

          “Except that the “victim” wasn’t getting any attention from the cops until he tried to pick the stick up off the ground”

          So when the victim was surrounded by six pigs and ordered to obey, that’s not considered “attention”? Much hilarity.

        • This particular discussion thread was about the individual who grabbed a dropped baton off the ground, not the man who was shot.

          Lack of reading comprehension: much hilarity.

  12. A deputy shot a 17 y/o in Lansing MI this AM during a traffic stop. Not sure which how long before we hear hands up don’t shoot….

  13. Maybe this was a good shoot; the footage doesn’t show exactly what happened. But Law Enforcement has eroded my trust in it enough that cops no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.

    • That’s where I stand on this, too. After a few viewings of the longer version of the video, I’m not seeing clear and convincing evidence of either a good or a bad shoot. I need more information that only a full investigation can provide.

      To the officers’ credit, though, I liked their alertness and response to the kid who picked up the dropped night stick. That punk was gearing up to deliver some blows.

      I also liked their crowd control effort thereafter. Highly charged environment, but they kept their cool and kept the crowd under control, unlike the obscenities and assaults which their counterparts resorted to in Ferguson.

    • “But Law Enforcement has eroded my trust in it enough that cops no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.”

      This is well point and the crux of the real problem we are facing.

      In the ideal world, the cops would be so clearly on “our side” (protecting rights, not violating them) and so strong in policing their own that it would take at least a little “convincing” in near-ambiguous cases.

      I want to believe cops are the good guys. I was raised to believe that. No-knock / no announce erodes one huge percentage of “good will” and questionable shootings that go unpunished go a long way to erasing the rest.

      Oath Keepers restores some balance, but they need to be far more visible in their stance.

      • + a couple of godzillion.

        We need a return to the concept of “peace officers” instead of “enforcers” of arbitrary malum-prohibitum laws.

  14. What level holsters are the LAPD required to use? Seems to me it would be pretty hard to get a gun with a level 2 or 3 holster while being pinned by multiple cops.

    • “Seems to me it would be pretty hard to get a gun with a level 2 or 3 holster while being pinned by multiple cops.”

      Pretty hard is not impossible.

      Retention is, in my observation, as much about the hand-to-hand skills of the defender as it is about the holster. Like any “tech” solution to a problem…relying on it 100% is a recipe for disappointment. And, sadly, for disaster in most cases.

    • A retention holster will slow someone down but you can’t depend on it. If someone is trying to get your gun out of your holster you need to do something to stop them besides hoping they’ll fail.

  15. Love all the arm-chair quarterbacking going on here, go on a ride along and experience what cops experience and then complain about police brutality, better yet don’t call the cops next time you need someone to keep the peace because you can’t be civil while exchanging kids with your EX. And don’t call 911 back taking a call taker off a real emergency because you want to complain that it has taken officers more than ten minutes to get there. My money is on you won’t do this, in fact my money is on this is just another example for you to hate the popo, until you need them of course. Don’t believe me, can I check your address for how many times you have called 911?

    • Government employees armchair quarterback citizens everyday of the week. We have every right to judge the actions of government employees. They work for us. We have every right to set the conditions of their employment. Don’t like it? Find honest work. Most cops might almost be qualified to pick up cans off the side of the road.

    • For starters, by your own admission, violent events happen out there in the city where regular people live. That is, regular people already know what the police see on a given shift, because regular people are the subjucts of those calls.

      Moreover, if anyone wants to see more violence, they needn’t spend a whole shift on a police ride along. They can just drop by a typical cop’s house and watch him beat the crap out of his wife. Between the department covering up or looking the other way, and federal law granting a nice little firearms ban carve-out for domestic abusers who are cops, there’s a charming culture of domestic violence rampant among police.

      None of that matters here, though, as people are free to view the video and voice their opinions no damn matter what you say or do. Calling out a bad cop is not the same thing as rejecting the entire concept of peace officers, no matter how hard you try to browbeat people into silence.

    • I wouldn’t call the police until I had the situation taken care of anyway. Only called 911 once, years ago. Took the deputy 4 hours to get there. The man beating a woman by the side of the road had departed long, long before that. The neighbors took care of the problem themselves… as usual.

      The police, any kind, have ZERO obligation to defend, assist or protect any individual. They have zero liability if an individual is injured or killed because of their inaction.

      Now, why in hell would I want to call them?

      • 99% of the time, that’s how it will be. The cop will respond after the event is over. They’ll make sure you weren’t the bad guy, and if the bad guy is still breathing, they cart him off to a cage. (Even in a nation without a bunch of BS laws that can trip people up, e.g., getting arrested because the cop saw a joint, that would be true.)

        It’s a good thing they aren’t obligated to prevent crimes (other than whatever benefit comes from deterrence factor from fear of being caught afterwards), or we’d all be under constant surveillance so they can fulfil their obligation.

    • You can look up any address I’ve ever lived at, but you won’t find any 911 calls made from any of them. I’ve never initiated contact with the police, and the only “official” interactions I’ve ever had with cops are a couple of speeding tickets over the years. Will you give me permission to criticize the police now?

  16. Here is a video with more of the beginning.

    You do see the homeless man swinging wildly and the other one pick up the stick. It is very possible the homeless man grabbed the gun, but I still can’t say.

  17. Time will tell as to whether or not this is a “legal” shooting.

    However, how would you judge the situation if the four armed men were not sanctioned by the state? If it’s any different then how you see the actual situation, you should ask yourself how something unlawful or immoral for one person can somehow become legal and righteous for a different person?

    Morality is not relative.

    • What an insanely foolish comment. Of course the actions are viewed differently because they are, by virtue of their job, sanctioned to engage in behavior that a normal citizen is not. Your comment could just as easily been along the lines of, “How would you feel about that footage of a US soldier shooting the enemy if he wasn’t wearing a uniform?”. Morality isn’t subjective to be sure, but to equate LEO’s doing their job to your average citizen engaging in the same behavior is inane to the nth degree.

        • The chain of causation versus the point of law giving police officers the option of lethal force.
          The point being that guns shouldn’t even be thought of being drawn against a so far unarmed citizen; proven, that them being drawn directly caused their subsequent use.

        • You should have made it more obvious you’re one of those, “the state has no authority over me” types who refer to anyone who disagrees as, “sheeple”. I wouldn’t have wasted my time.

      • Translation: one’s government employment status decides his morality.

        Well said, by someone who has completely outsourced his morality to the government. 🙂

      • We are supposed to be living under a system of delegated powers. All power comes from the citizen. We cannot delegate power to bottom feeding government employees unless we also have that same authority. Otherwise it is time for a new revolution.

        • So, in essence you’re saying you should have free access to any military base, including the nuclear launch silos and key rooms. In addition you should have the power to pass legislation and sign said legislation into law. You should also have the power to preside over a criminal law proceeding and make judicial rulings, including the sentencing of criminals. After all, these are all powers of certain public employees. If you say no to any of these then you admit your entire statement is a load of rubbish. Seriously, it’s this kind of extreme thinking that empowers anti-gun activists. Common sense isn’t only lacking on their side unfortunately.

    • If they weren’t state agents they would have no reason to confront a robbery suspect after the robbery has completed, so there’s a difference right there.

      • In most states citizens have every right to arrest felons and other criminals. We just pay thugs to be cops so we can actually be doing productive work.

        • No, you do it because the only courage you have is behind a keyboard.

          Stop whining about your ‘better things to do’ and prove you’re better than the people doing it now.

        • By definition people in the private sector are more productive than cops, simply by not harassing, assaulting and murdering people for a living.

      • If the robbery victim hired a private firm to investigate the robbery and they behaved in this manner, they would definitely be arrested and jailed, pending further investigation, and would very likely be charged with and tried for murder.

        The authority to investigate a crime does not relieve the investigator of the moral responsibility of his actions.

  18. I heard a single shot, then a flurry of shots. If the suspect had a gun, did he fire the single shot?

    • Can’t tell from the video, but I’m sure it will come out. Usually when one shot is fired, everyone else joins in. That’s pretty much human nature.

  19. Too much dependence on tasers that require both prongs to be in contact to work right. Solution? Cattle prods. My uncle had a couple for his cows. About 3 feet long, solid as heck, with six d-sized batteries inside. Anything that will make a 1000 lb steer move like its ass was on fire should be able to move a homeless guy. Bonus in that if the batteries ran out, you could beat the beejesus out a guy with it.

  20. God help me I’m with blain the troll on this one…be careful out there Accur81.

  21. Homeless man. Quite possibly mentally unstable or on drugs or both. Suspect in a robbery. Glad the cops had to deal with him and not me. Here in CA I would have been unarmed cept for my kershaw and that would have got real ugly real fast.

    What I really got from this video is that that one motherphucker needed to have his mouth washed out with soap.

    Did the cops have the right to approach and question the homeless guy? Did George Zimmerman have the right to bird dog Trayvon Martin?

    I’ll wait and see what the investigation shows.

    • I like how your primary concern isn’t the potentially extrajudicial murder of an unarmed man (after making totally baseless assumptions about his mental culpability and swallowing police propaganda wholesale), but some bystander using bad words, even though the pigs are infamous for using blue language.

      Pro-tip: you could just *not* harass a homeless guy then you wouldn’t have to “deal” with anything. Shocking, eh?

      • You’re making assumptions by saying they were “harassing” a homeless guy. It’s possible the police were called there for a very good reason. You can neither condemn or defend these cops based on the current information.

        • On the contrary Enox, they were cops so they MUST have been harrassing the guy.

          Note that if one talks this way about, say, people of a certain skin color, they are racists. But it’s okay to prejudge (the root word of “prejudice”) cops.

        • Cops are government thugs, their job is harassment and violence in service of their political masters. Ergo it is reasonable to assume all police interaction to be harassment.

        • Cops are government thugs, their job is harassment and violence in service of their political masters. Ergo it is reasonable to assume all police interaction to be harassment.

          There is not enough evidence to know the context of the encounter, yet, and the guy trying to pick up the nightstick wasn’t defending himself from jack, unless you’re wearing BlainGoggles, then it’s always the cop in the wrong.

          I may well end up condemning the cops once I know more. Only a bigoted ass would assume such based on what we know now.

          You’ve just moved yourself into the “too fvcking bigoted to be reasoned with” column. Have a nice life.

        • As always, pig fellaters give the piggies a pass for harassing innocent people, then blame the victim for resisting. Absolutely pathetic.

      • Blain, did you used to comment here under the handle “totenglock”? No matter. It’s obvious you’re a troll who doesn’t mind being thought of as retarded.

        You have set a record with me. I’ve never had anybody casually bring up sex with corpses in a comment section. You take the cake in low class.

        If i refer to or answer you in the future you will simply be “sex with a corpse guy” to me.

        Have a lost life bro. 🙂

      • So anyone who asks for more evidence before condemning the cops is a “piggie fellator” according to Blaine. That’s some persuasive debating right there.

  22. Video doesn’t have the angle to show what happened. I hope a better one is released. The fact that one of the cops started warning that the guy was trying to get his gun to telling the guy to drop the gun suggests to me that the guy was doing just that. You can hear a taser being attempted but obviously it was ineffective. Some moron woman caused even more problems by grabbing a baton.

    Sounds like a lot of stuff went wrong there.

  23. Wow, look at all of the use of force and law enforcement experts. Are any of you guys hosting any training or seminars?

  24. Listen from 0:08 onwards…. “Drop the gun” can be heard several times. Can’t see much less beyond that but if the individual had a firearm and was starting to bring it up — pretty much a textbook justifiable homicide.

    Question is: how did he get the weapon? Was one of the officer’s weapons not properly secured? If that’s the case, not going to be surprised if there are severe consequences for that officer.

  25. TTAG: Please post the full video of the suspect swinging at the officers and the suspect in the skinny pants, picking up a blunt weapon, as well as the security camera footage.

  26. Daniel Zimmerman, why don’t you show the full video? You know, the one where the dead loser is taking on 6 cops before merely trying to take a gun from one of them?

  27. That was an assassination folks. We can’t see if there was a struggle for a weapon from this video. But the weapon should not have been out of the holster in the first place.

    The police have a whole range of pain compliance tools and methods.


    • I don’t think the police in general actively go looking to kill people – it tends to look really, really bad. That said, from what we can see in the video, I think I can agree that there was a severe failure in the officer keeping their gun secure and in the officers securing the individual. Why wasn’t OC used? In the background, it sounds like a taser was used, but apparently to no effect? Very confusing incident.

  28. To be fair and impartial, it is impossible for me to tell from the videos whether the deceased did get control of an officer’s gun or not. I suspect everyone else can’t tell either.

    People opining about whether the cops were murderers or the deceased was a scumbag seem to be projecting.

    • If someone is trying to kill me, I’ll be doing my best to get my hands on the weapon available at that instance. It works for rape victims quite a lot… Far more frequently the BG’s gun is used against him than the would-be victim’s gun being used against the victim…

      Whether he went for the Cop’s gun, or not, is not the matter. Whether he had a justified reason for doing so is what matters.

      I practice with the retention holsters used by my local cops for just this reason. I’m at least going to take one or two of them with me. It’s a foregone conclusion that when a cop attacks, he intends to kill. Their chances of getting away with it if their victim lives are much smaller. Part of the reason most cops get into the job is because they want to get away with murder… This is why Guv hires psychos.

      It’s not that cops are sh!t. It’s that sh!t is hand-picked for the job by much larger turds. The only difference between the ones behind bars, and the ones who put them there, is the press coverage.

      • your post would probably make great evidence against you in a first degree murder trial. and i don’t have any respect for anyone who practices to try to remove a cops gun from and retention holster and use it against a cop – it’s paranoid, egotistical, and just plain stupid.

  29. It sounds to me that the homeless guy grabbed an officer’s gun and didn’t put it down when asked and was then shot for it.

  30. The most important part of this story is missing from the videos. WHY were they(cops) there?

    • EXACTLY THIS! The cops very well could have been the aggressors and the man was doing nothing more than defending himself from them. SOP; kill him and fix it in the report.

      I’m not saying that’s what happened, but why is this not even being considered? With Guv hand-picking deranged sociopaths to be it’s pawns (cops), this needs to be explored. Cops are not automatically good people just because they’re cops, almost always the contrary is true.

  31. Woah, back this train up… Did the officers have any just cause to be after this guy in the first place? Are we so quick to dismiss the possibility of him being railroaded and that this was nothing more than self-defense for which he was executed for attempting?

    Cops are not angels. I’m not here to assume one way or the other, but that fact that no one is willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, these are evil cops that deserve to die…

Comments are closed.