In this case the violent criminals were wearing uniforms and badges.

who are you trying to convince of this? Certainly not me, I've read the reports, while some details are sketchy , others are not, like the fact the guy was a violent criminal.

things don't have to be either or.

He ran away, as a police dog was let loose on him. He didn't even try to hit the dog.. He ran. You have no clue what he did prior to ending up in that situation nor do 99% of the cops whom were there. They acted as a death squad based on information gained from a radio. Maybe the guy is a killer, a rapist or a father of 3 whom got scared because he had had other bad run in with the police.

Now he's a dead guy shot by the police while holding no weapons. His crime was running away. It doesn't matter what he did prior it mattered only what he did the moment the police decided to shoot him. That decision was made because he ran away. Meaning his death sentence was carried out because he ran away. Anything else is not relevant, because it's speculation as the shooting officers did not, nor could not possibly of had all the facts. They shot a guy whom was unarmed because he ran away,

I'm not talking about information gained after the fact. I'm talking about the information those cops acted on at that moment,

I'm not defending the police, but to state there is a conspiracy among law enforcement agencies to repeatedly shoot a suspect until he is dead to avoid an argument over the shooting casts other arguments you make into the nutso category.


.

Anyone whom can try to justify the police shooting unarmed people makes it into the nutso category with me.

Nice dodge.

wait, you tell me I have no clue then proceed to make assumptions and conclude death squad becasue you do have a clue? aND then you put parameters on what's relevant or not so you can also conclude his crime was simply running?

No I'm telling you that at that moment in time, the shooting officers had no proof of what he was accused of doing. They had only speculation of what was told to them over the radio and it's usually only radio codes at that with very little detailed information. I'm telling you that it doesn't matter what the guy did prior to ending up there, that is for the courts to decide.

The only information that should be taken into account at the time he was gunned down, is what he did at that moment to cause the officers to shoot him. Clearly it's shown that the crime he was shot for, was "running". You can try to claim he did this and that before hand but that is all speculative. That is how our laws are supposed to work.. However in this case and many others the police just act as judge, jury and executioner because they get away with it.

no, he was shot because he escalated the sitatuation to be out of control and confusing.

I'm not trying to claim he did this or that, as you describe, in fact, I'm one of the few here trying to stick to the few facts that are indisputable here.

anyone who thinks the only recourse for the police was to shoot this guy dead needs their head examining. It's not even a little bit ok.

surprised you're going the insult route so quickly on this. not to mention inaccurately couching my view to be the only recourse was to shoot the guy dead.

Running. He was shot for running while unarmed. You can use any descriptive words you like, but he was running away.

he was shot while running towards a crowded beach after committing a criminal act, and fighting with authorities while brandishing a deadly weapon, and taking cops on a pursuit and failing to do as he's told by an overwhelming force of cops.

let's at least be clear on the facts. We might disagree on how this ended, but we can certainly agree on what's known.

easy tiger, wasn't insulting you, nor talking directly to you :thumbsup

Actually he was an armed robber on the lose, fleeing police for 30 minutes. Right or wrong, get the facts straight. He probably shouldn't have been shot but this wasn't a guy walking down the street minding his own business either.

who were you directing it towards? I'm one of 2-3 posters, tops, in this thread that has the viewpoint that you think requires a head examination. Heck I may be the only one.

Why not? The police/FSB here doesn't shoot at you if you run away. Russia is not the Wild West, comrade :winkwink:

About cookies... March 8 in scary and repressive Russia. Transport police stops female drivers to give them a flower:

http://cs406219.vk.me/v406219255/70f9/L41zPirgIgA.jpg

Yes, I know that Russian police are very corrupted motherfuckers. But they are our motherfuckers. We all live in a same country and we do understand each other. The society is not ideal, but police in Russia doesn't shoot at civilians.

Again, while it maybe found to be true, that is for the courts to decide. At that moment all information the cops have is speculative. Shooting someone is not justified by their past actions, it's justified by what they did at that moment.

He was running away with no weapons in his hands. You can argue all day about what this guy did previously, but again in this country that's for the courts to decided. The cops are not the jury or the judge but they sure have become quite the executioners.

Knock knock:
Who's there?
KGB
KGB who?
Blam blam, we ask the questions!

haha, I read all through, and just posted at the end of the read, I'm flitting between tasks, so didn't really pay attention to who said what, or reply in detail, hence the 'pokes head in, gives generalized opinion, goes back out'.

So I wasn't talking to anyone really, just throwing a quick comment in. I might get more detailed if I have some time in a bit, and the inclination :)

ps, as you said, you *haven't* said you thought that was their only recourse, so your viewpoint isn't one that I think leads to you needing your head examined.

pps in general, all this 'violent, fleeing, towards a crowded beach' etc, is inflammatory speak, and designed to justify their actions, which no way can they be justified.

They had the guy surrounded for 30 minutes, armed police surrounding a vehicle... how is it not possible to overcome and apprehend the guy? I get they don't know if he had any fiearms while he was in his car, but what, they covered 3 sides, and went 'oh fuck, look, there's an escape route he can take by foot, d'oh! quick, shoot him'?

Exagerrated to make a point obviously, but wtf, however many officers there, and they didn't know how to drop the guy when he left the vehicle without shooting him dead as he ran off?

ppps the guy may well have deserved to die for being a piece of shit scum, and I'm not defending him per se, but not the way it went down.

My points are, the police don't conspire nationwide to shoot a suspect until dead so there is no conflicting stories and this wasn't an innocent man walking down the street as you are trying to convince people.

.

Once again. Police in Russia doesn't shoot at civilians, because they (policemen) are also sons/daughters, fathers/mothers, husbands and wives. I believe the EU citizens do understand what I'm talking about, but I have serious doubts about the US guys though...

Yes but... Some of the officers were down at the beach and completely unaware of what was happening. All they knew is that a gun fight had broken out and they responded.

appreciated.

November 30th, 2013 -- Khabarovsk bloggers posted a video of a Russian police officer shooting a bully outside of an internet café. The lieutenant reported to the scene after a call regarding two drunken brawlers who were smashing windows of nearby shops. When the police arrived, they were met with resistance. Police attempted to scare away the suspects with warning shots, but when ineffective, they shot the man twice in the chest and once in the leg. The suspect died at the scene.

for the *most* part, I think non-US people just don't get the US view when it comes to things like this. Same as the US people don't get the viewpoint of those in countries where guns aren't such a part of everyday life. Much like women and men are vastly different in their views, behaviour, thinking, and so on, and neither is 'right' or 'wrong', we're just very different.

For my part, I just can't comprehend the thought process that says something like this is justified, or the processes that make 'reasons' for this as an acceptable outcome, no doubt just like those with the opposing view not being able to see how us on this side of the fence can't see how it's justified.

I'm biased anyway, because I have problems with authority, and especially the old bill and how they think they *are* the law, instead of being there to detain lawbreakers, and let the actual laws deal with them, but I'll admit to being very glad I don't live somewhere that this sort of thing happens fairly often, and a large number of people think (are conditioned to think?) it's ok. And that's not intended as a slight on americans, or your country, the same way I'm glad I'm male and not female isn't a slight on females. (well not much in the example of male/females :winkwink: )

Is that a common thing in Russia? Hasn't the shooter was suspended for that? He can't get away with it, if the man who he's shot was unarmed. I'll tell you a secret. Even in Russia there are maniacs among police. A few years ago (in 2009), one crazy police officer has killed 2 and injured 7 citizens. This story has an unbelievable resonance in my country (its even on Wikipedia now) because it's extremely rare when a policeman kills civilians. Now this bastard serves a life time in a prison. This is how it works in Russia. I can bring you a lot of youtube videos of the US police killing American citizens, but you will barely digg a couple of such videos for Russia. And please don't tell me that's because Russians do not have as many mobile phones with cameras or dashcams as Americans do.

you said unequivocally that russian police don't shoot people. That piqued my curiousity so I did a quick google and it seems that the police do shoot people there. I wasn't comparing US to russia, and see no reason to do so.

That my post was not addressed to you. There are maniacs in any country, but in Russia, policemen shooting at civilians go to prison. You won't be shot down for running from a police officer or for telling him "fuck you". Arguing with police is a kind of national sports in Russia :)

I wasn't criticizng you for comparing the 2. and I would have to be in a really fucked up dead end situation to say "fuck you" to a cop, certainly the 2 cultures are vastly different.

In non-free and non-democratic Russia "fuck you" is violation of an administrative (non-criminal) code. You can be fined or even arrested for 48 hours, but course you can't be killed for that.

http://rlv.zcache.com/protect_serve_..._8byvr_512.jpg

http://viralsurvival.com/wp-content/.../longbeach.jpg

:stoned

ADG

seems to me the people being served and protected are the beachgoing families that were spared being involved in this.

to protect and serve the criminals doesn't make sense to me.