Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Rule of Man says "Yes, OK, but like we keep saying, next time try not to kill anyone."
APD has a baaaad reputation. This may hurt them in civil litigation, especially a jury trial.
Rule of Man says "Yes, OK, but like we keep saying, next time try not to kill anyone."
sten to the audio, he was pleading with them to "keep their word and not hurt him" as he was clearly picking up his belongings and giving up.
His "aggravated assault" was essentially his uneducated way of claiming his own self defense,
it appeared to me that he was saying if they attacked him he would kill them.
Listen to the audio, he was backpedaling.
If a man pulls a knife on a civilian, INGO says shoot.
If a man pulls a knife on a cop, INGO wants to side with the guy pulling the knife?
public servant said:I will ask you though, and honestly I can't tell from the video...if the guy still has deadly weapons in his hand, has he clearly surrendered? Not in my opinion. Until those weapons are out of reach and you're flat on the ground, face down, hands out to the side, you're still a threat.
BogWalker said:If a man pulls a knife on a civilian, INGO says shoot.
If a man pulls a knife on a cop, INGO wants to side with the guy pulling the knife?
nakinate said:All the armchair quarterbacking in this thread is fun. So many people with zero or limited experience with the law or enforcing it are telling professionals they are wrong. I have no dog in the fight, but the professionals are the only one who have remained consistent in their responses throughout this thread.
But he was on that land illegally and had been given three hours to resolve the situation. The police had to do something. Distracting him with a non-lethal grenade and sending a trained dog who likely wouldn't have killed him were decent options.I don't speak for all of INGO.
But if you throw a grenade at someone and sic your dog on him and he pulls a pocketknife out of his pocket, I don't say 'shoot'.
Not saying that. Just saying that you should know the law and try to understand their viewpoint before you start a flame war.I know, right? Only cops should be able to criticize the actions of other cops.
What's one more dead homeless guy? At least he's not cluttering up the landscape any more with his ridiculous attempts to stay alive.
Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?Boyd had no right to self-defense.
Because when you are illegally on someone else's property and refuse to leave after being given THREE hours to comply you have decided that breaking the law is more important than the right to liberty or self-defense.Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?
nakinate said:But he was on that land illegally and had been given three hours to resolve the situation. The police had to do something. Distracting him with a non-lethal grenade and sending a trained dog who likely wouldn't have killed him were decent options.
Not saying that. Just saying that you should know the law and try to understand their viewpoint before you start a flame war.
Also, if Boyd were so concerned with attempting to stay alive he would not have threatened the lives of other humans and wielded multiple knives to back that threat up.
He was laying down on the ground to surrender. That much is clear. I think his bullet-riddled body was having a hard time moving his hands to let go of the little knives.
"Little knives"? Seriously? I can't kill or inflict serious bodily injury with a "little knife"?You don't really have to speculate. You can see it and hear it from the exact perspective of the shooter.
He was laying down on the ground to surrender. That much is clear. I think his bullet-riddled body was having a hard time moving his hands to let go of the little knives.
He was surrendering, both verbally and physically. Why argue for 3 hours and then escalate things as soon as he finally de-escalates them!? It makes absolutely no sense.
What I don't understand is a man getting shot in the back when he was clearly on his way to the ground to comply. I don't understand that. If one 'professional' would just say "I wouldn't have shot him in the back" then I think this discussion would have been over long ago.
You don't know us.I bet they also considered him to be subhuman and felt no remorse killing him. They were waiting for an excuse and you know it. Half of you would've yelled "booya" too. It is disgusting. Glad to see the one lawyer in bed with the cops every time one of their brothers bags himself a live one. Booya!