WATCH: Phoenix Cops Kill Man after Responding to Noise Complaint over Video Game

You're watching the contact officer's footage, you must only watch the cover officers.

 

1. You cannot compare the law in a free and democratic society to that in a racist dictatorship.
2. So it was the 30s now? Do you have the minute of the meeting?
3. Because of Regnans in Excesis, once that was gone (only in the late C18th) it was the same for them.
4. Britain disestablished the church in 1830, within living memory of Catholics burning Protestants to death in a barn in an act of sectarian mass murder.
5. No it doesn't, from the cover officer's point of view he's bringing it around towards the contact officer.
6. Because cocaine and heroin and many times more addictive than tobacco and alcohol?
7. So by passing a law to prohibit a dangerous substance you are responsible for those who wish to make money off the ban and kill one another to do it?
8. So if your neighbour asks you to turn down your video game the way to solve this dispute is confront him with a gun in your hand?

 

No it was deliberate but justified, nothing to do with IQ, anyone would have acted the same way. Didn't you watch the footage?

 

Didn't you watch the footage? Didn't you see him bringing the gun around towards the contact officer?

 

As opposed to a 'bad' dictionary?

 

When they start pointing it at them, yes!

 

Which the contact officer can see, the cover officer sees him bringing it around towards the contact officer.

 

I am watching the cover officer's body cam footage, and it is exactly as I described, and not as you claim.

 

I see him submitting and not looking like a threat when the gunman police officer shot him from behind.

 

*complying

It's a better word for the situation.

 

Are you the gunman police officer in the video?

 

The murder victim did not at any time point his weapon at anyone, and you know it.

 

How clever of you to figure that out.

 

It has to be either that or one of those types that buries their head and lies for their abusive, trigger-happy coworkers. Unconsciousable.

 

The law in question is one of many that makes the USA NOT a free society, as its appalling atrocity of mass incarceration proves. So yes, I definitely can compare that law to the law in a racist dictatorship. And I did.

It was also the 1930s in the proof I provided for you.

Thank you for agreeing that your claim was baldly false.

False. The Queen is still head of the Church of England.

But 15 years BEFORE English Protestant landowners murdered a MILLION landless Irish Catholics.

No, that claim is false, as everyone else reading this thread has informed you. Everyone in the world who has seen the cover officer's body cam video can see that the murder victim was crouching down to place the gun on the floor, not bringing it around towards the contact officer, when he was suddenly murdered without warning.

Your claims all continue to be objectively false. Nicotine is known to be more addictive than cocaine or heroin, and in any case, addictiveness is not the same as harm. I repeat: alcohol is the only commonly used drug whose use, not prohibition, is associated with violent crime.

That is correct. Many substances like alcohol are dangerous, but we do not prohibit them unless they constitute a clear danger to society -- like poison gas, high explosives, radioactive isotopes and biohazard materials -- because people have a right to liberty. Those who gratuitously violate others' rights, creating duress that leads them to commit crimes, are guilty of provoking and abetting those crimes.

If he is the kind of stupid, vicious, lying sack of $#!+ who would make a false 911 emergency call purely in order to provoke a guns-drawn police intervention over the video game, then yes, answering a knock at my door with a gun in my hand might be prudent. Of course, there is more than one kind of stupid, vicious, lying sack of $#!+ who might be at the door.

 

Yes I do but the cover officer doesn't. Watch it again.

 

Yes it was, wasn't it?

 

Or a person who judges on the facts and has empathy with the police officer?

 

1. The US is one of the freest and most democratic societies on earth as every survey and poll proves.
2. Humour us, give us the proof again.
3. Thank you for accepting my facts are right.
4. Quite true but she is a constitutional monarch in a society with religious tolerance, equality and freedom, ALL of which is the result of the Glorious Revolution, it did for British civil and religious rights what Magna Carta did for human rights. The established church ended in 1830, in the Irish Republic, well that's still a work in progress.
5. Really? When did that happen? Because the famine affected all of Britain and Europe and we were no different from anywhere else, the Irish Catholic Nationalist MP/Lord millionaire landowner sipping champagne in the Palace of Westminster is not being oppressed by his Protestant English/Scottish/Welsh peasants who are starving to death in the gutter. Nor did he deliberately introduce the potato blight to wreck the harvest?
6. You're not empathising with the cover officer, put yourself in his shoes and see things only from his viewpoint.
7. So why aren't people high on nicotine out there committing violent crime? Because nicotine does not give you the crazy high that leads to mental health problems and violence. Out of the percentage of alcohol users how many commit violent crime?
8. So it's the guy who passes the law rather than the guy who chooses to break it and spray the streets of Chicago with his MAC-10 that is to blame?
9. Or maybe he should have just turned down the video game? Unless the neighbour had actually threatened him there is no justification here. Arguably calling the cops was the responsible thing for him to do rather than trying to confront him personally.

 

I think that numerous people have both judged the facts and expressed empathy for LEOs but it doesn't look like anyone contributing to this thread agrees with your assessment.

Does it mean anything to you that you are the only person to see movements that the victim did not make?

I've lost track of the number of times I've looked at this tragic video and I only see the victim immediately complying with the Killer and his partner.

I'm all for giving a soldier or LEO in a stressful situation the benefit of the doubt on borderline cases but this killing was entirely unjustified.

Thanks,

 

No, get some friends and recreate it, even film it. Do it once where he's putting the gun on the floor and once where he brings the gun around to fire at the contact officer, you'll find they look identical.

 

This thread still going!! Anyone know what happened to the cop murderer?

And RRob - the twisting of logic and things you must see with your own eyes is phenomenal. As another poster asked, was the police officer you? Or maybe a friend?

I have watched this thread for a while and it makes me dizzy, slightly sad and confused with the mental contortions needed to say this was anything else but a unneeded killing

 

No, your claims continue to be objectively false. I tried it, and bringing the gun around to fire at the contact officer required raising the gun, not lowering it, and did not involve crouching down as the murder victim did. Your claims are just flat, outright false as a matter of objective physical fact, and everyone who has watched the cover officer's body cam video knows it. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

 

I at least got a friend to watch the video a couple of times but he thought that it was so obvious that the killer was in the wrong that he felt disinclined to go through the gunplay exercise. (I don't have any toy guns)
Really, RRob, no one seems to see what you imagine you see. Isn't it time to just be reasonable......Rob?

Thanks,

 

I've been waiting for someone to address that clearly erroneous adjective.

It sickens me that ANYBODY can rationalize sanctioned murder.