LBPD are Killers!!!! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 05-08-2014, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Something is very clear and you state it and I've been harping on it. OUt of control criminals who defy authority do not get to escalate situations here. It doesn't matter if the pursuit was high speed or not. Nothing else matters, if a violent criminal commits a violent crime, fights with authorities, takes them on a pursuit, defies them more, and then runs like a crazed lunatic towards a public beach full of people that guy will get shot.

it's not rocket science.

And not to mention this could very well be suicide by cop.

Why did you wait 6+ days after experiencing this event to post about it?

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

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

crockett · 05-08-2014, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

He was a violent criminal escalating a violent situation and expanding it both across time and distance, defying an overwhelming contingent of law enforcement and running like a crazed violent criminal towards a beach full of families.

He's dead now and that's a good thing.

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,

L-Pink · 05-08-2014, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

They shoot them 20 times, so there is no apposing argument to what they claim happened.

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.

.

crockett · 05-08-2014, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

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.

L-Pink · 05-08-2014, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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

Nice dodge.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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 ended 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 hold 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,

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?

crockett · 05-08-2014, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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, hurry 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.

Jel · 05-08-2014, 08:12 AM

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.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

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.

crockett · 05-08-2014, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

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

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

Jel · 05-08-2014, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

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

L-Pink · 05-08-2014, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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

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.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

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

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.

just a punk · 05-08-2014, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Or go to Mother Russia where KGB serves milk and cookies.

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

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

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.

crockett · 05-08-2014, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

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.

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.

L-Pink · 05-08-2014, 08:39 AM

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

Jel · 05-08-2014, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

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?

Jel · 05-08-2014, 08:42 AM

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.

L-Pink · 05-08-2014, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

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.

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.

.

just a punk · 05-08-2014, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

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

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...

Rochard · 05-08-2014, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

They shoot them 20 times, so there is no apposing argument to what they claim happened.

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.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

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?

appreciated.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

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 doubt about the US guys though...

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.

Jel · 05-08-2014, 09:12 AM

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

)

just a punk · 05-08-2014, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

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.

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Is that a common thing in Russia? Hasn't he been arrested for that? I'll tell you a secret. Even in Russia there are maniacs among police. A few years ago, 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 prison time in jail. 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 few 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.

just a punk · 05-08-2014, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

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.

just a punk · 05-08-2014, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

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.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-08-2014, 10:52 AM

Quote:

An official police statement regarding the incident read, ?The suspect failed to surrender and after officers observed him reaching for his waist band, an officer-involved shooting occurred.?

The video clearly refutes the official story, as Conoscenti?s hands are nowhere near his waistband and are clearly empty at the time of the shots.

?Reaching for the waistband? is a standard trope in American police newspeak, invoked mechanically whenever the police shoot someone who was unarmed.

One 2011 study reported by the Los Angeles Times found that almost half of ?waistband? shootings involving Los Angeles county sheriff?s deputies involved unarmed people.

The ?reaching for the waistband? story takes advantage of the fact that the police themselves are usually the only surviving witnesses to such shootings. In the rare cases where a video surfaces, a glimpse is offered of the ugly reality.

After the ?reaching for the waistband? story was exposed as false in relation to Conoscenti, officials replaced it with an equally dubious story: that a police officer fired a ?non-lethal? bean bag at Conoscenti, which other officers misunderstood as live fire.

Quote:

After the shooting, one of the onlookers can be heard repeating, ?Are you kidding me?? Around a minute and a half passes before anyone approaches Conoscenti?s body after the shooting, to the dismay of the onlookers. Then police officers can be seen approaching, and instead of providing first aid, they roughly handcuff Conoscenti.

ADG

dyna mo · 05-08-2014, 11:21 AM

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.

05-08-2014, 08:12 AM	#60
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	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.

05-08-2014, 08:39 AM	#69
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Knock knock: Who's there? KGB KGB who? Blam blam, we ask the questions!

05-08-2014, 08:42 AM	#71
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	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.

05-08-2014, 09:12 AM	#77
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	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 )

05-08-2014, 11:21 AM	#84
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,404	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.