This Cop Is Getting $2,500 a Month Because Killing an Unarmed Man in a Hotel Hallway Gave Him PTSD

The post I responded to made no mention of circumstances.

 

The cop is a murdering coward. Nobody forced him to become a police officer or to shoot an innocent man. He made those decisions all by himself.

 

So you support the murder of innocent civilians by government agents. Good to know.

 

Not all just those they have reason to and in situations they have reason to how did you make your hyperbolic leap in logic there.

 

Carrying a gun does not make you a threat to police officers. Carrying a gun with hostile intent makes you a threat to police officers. And it's the responsibility and duty of the officer to accurately differentiate between the two. Officers who cannot or will not make the effort simply have no business being in law enforcement.

 

Your idea of "reason" appears to be nothing more than the mere presence of a firearm.

 

It's obviously murder.

 

Why was he treated as a "suspect" in the first place? What reasonable suspicion existed to believe a crime had been committed or was about to be committed?

These officers exercised gross incompetence at every juncture of the operation.

 

Right I'm just saying for all involved I don't see the implemented procedure as being the most effective. Seemed like one guy covers threat other handcuffs

 

I think he probably is a coward. I also don't think he's a "murdering" one.

Why shouldn't he have? I probably agree, but what to know why you think that.

I don't think he made the decision to shoot an innocent man.

 

He killed an innocent person intentionally. That is murder.

Huh?

Was he possessed by an evil spirit or something?

 

I'm all for good cops and defending them but I'm not just gonna side with a cop just cause and basically what you wrote is how I feel about the situation.

The guy was fnin sobbing how many hardened criminals do that? And I still don't see how having him crawling to them would be more effective than the suspect lying flat on his stomach and one officer covers while the other cuffs him. That's the only way I've seen it done and seems to be sop while crawling doesn't

 

Isn't it interesting how untrained civilians are expected to remain perfectly calm and obedient while trained police officers are allowed to fly off the handle at even the slightest provocation?

 

I'm not convinced he did that, but you and I may be interpreting those words differently. Are you claiming that he intentionally shot and killed a person who happened to be innocent, or that he intentionally shot and killed an innocent person?

I'm asking why he shouldn't have become a cop.

No, I think that if he knew for a fact the man was unarmed he wouldn't have fired.

 

I spent seven months in Iraq patrolling the Sunni Triangle. 50% of the Iraqis I encountered on a daily basis were armed with AK-47s. You know how many of them I shot? ZERO. You know how many of them I pointed my rifle at? ZERO. You know how many times I threatened to kill them? ZERO. So why are police officers in America such trigger-happy cowards? Is America more dangerous than the Sunni Triangle in 2007? Do Americans realize that my marine infantry squad treated Iraqis with more respect than police officers treat American civilians?

 

Oh please dude, I know a little bit about American military history.

If you're pointing a gun at somebody, and you think that they're reaching for their own weapon, you're going to shoot.

 

He shot and killed an innocent person intentionally. There is no interpretation necessary. Those are just the facts.

Because he's obviously not qualified.

He decided to kill that man. That his decision was based on false and incomplete information doesn't alter the fact.

 

That's an ambiguous statement. I'm asking you to qualify.

How, exactly, would you test for that?

No, it doesn't alter that fact. It does alter whether or not he's to be seen as a murderer.

 

I mean I understand that in certain situations the only decisions to pick from are bad ones for police officers so I tend to go case by case but this cop seems to be a minimum woefully undertrained for the situation and honestly I'm not a huge fan of the cops looking like infantry imo all decked out in tactical gear for a situation they aren't sure of.

I do also agree the there seems to be a systemic failure of weeding out officers without the mental skills to properly protect and serve. Is that because of Union and judicial shielding there own or is it not enough oversight?

Idk but you'd think there would be better measures to insure that people just looking for a powerful position are weeded out

 

You don't know squat.

Virtually every military-aged male I encountered in Iraq was armed with an AK-47. They didn't need to "reach" for anything because it was already in their hands most of the time or slung over their chest. Yet I didn't shoot any of them, didn't point my rifle at any of them, didn't threaten to kill any of them. My experience in Iraq showed me just how much disdain police forces have for American civilians.

 

Police unions are a huge part of the problem. But the bigger problem is the prevailing sentiment among a large percentage of the population. Specifically, they value security and authority more than they do liberty. Just look at all the lame excuses being trotted out by the people on this forum. They have no idea what they're talking about either. None of them have any experience in this field yet they defend the indefensible because they've been programmed to revere authority.

 

Oh sure, American soldiers treat native populations in occupied countries more kindly than American cops treat American citizens. Get real. I recognize huge problems in American policing, I think it's among the worst in the developed world, but this bizarre talking point you pulled out of your ass is just nonsense.

First of all, I don't believe that they were brandishing the weapons unless you were in some kind of situation in which everyone is brandishing weapons. Imagine a tense arms deal, for example. Second, this is a completely different context. Somebody holding an assault rifle in their hands in an American hotel would be completely different from somebody holding an assault rifle in their hands in the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

What woild disqualify him from being a cop?

How about the fact he wrote "You're ****ed" on his service weapon, ferchristsakes...

 

I see a lot of preconceived notions and not much ability to look at things case by case. It's not all or nothing where if you critize one cop that means there all bad or if you defend one cop that means your for any action a cop does.

I really don't see this cops procedure as being the safest and I would if the family could've sued the department if it was found out he used improper procedure?

 

Seems like someone who knows"a little bit about military history" knows jack squats about the Sunni triangle..