Cop shoots unarmed person in the back

[Andrew]

So apparently there has been some rioting over the weeks about this.

Here is the video showing the cop shooting the person.

Looks like murder to me. Once again a bunch of cops are too lazy to handle a couple people, and decide to execute them instead.

Reminds me of the guy in Vancouver who was tasered to death by 5 cops. Instead of conflict resolution they just whip out their weapon of choice and end it immediately.

Of course the victim is black and the cop white, so that will cause all sorts of racial tensions.

[Dragoon Knight]

Murder?  Not a chance.  Even without being able to see the actual shooting clearly, or hear what's being said, there is practically nil chance that it was a premeditated attack.

Take the whole scenario into account.  How many angry people are jeering behind that camera?  You can hear the entire crowd clamouring, protesting loudly to "let him go".  There are three officers, if I counted correctly, and I'm pretty sure one of them looks to be calling for assistance on a shoulder radio.

What would have happened if things had begun to get violent?  If the detainees had decided that they didn't like being arrested?  What if others from the crowd went to help, overpowered one of the officers and got their hands on a pistol?

Moreover, what was the reason they were detained in the first place?  Were they drunk?  What prompted the officer to shoot him?

At most, this is bad judgement, in not taking the time to aim properly (or being able to use non-lethal force, such as a taser).  I don't see how anyone can think that the officer intended to kill the guy.

[SandChigger]

Oh, come on, Dragoon! Don't be a killjoy. It's more fun to jump up and down and decry the woeful <i>status mundi</i>! :P

(All those cops ... you KNOW they were nasty Kapeetaleests. Yust like Mooss ant Sqvirrel!)

[Dante]

Not premeditated perhaps, and probably not intentional, but certainly dangerously negligent. What I'd guess from the video is that the gun was supposed to be used as a threat, and went off because the officer in question was just a bit too twitchy in a volatile situation. So yeah, giving a gun with live ammunition to someone who can't take pressure, using said gun as a threat rather than a last resort, and hey, lets go the whole hog and blame a legal system that allows the use of live fire to begin with. Sounds like a nice little catalogue of errors.

[Dunenewt]

So apparently there has been some rioting over the weeks about this.

Here is the video showing the cop shooting the person.

Looks like murder to me. Once again a bunch of cops are too lazy to handle a couple people, and decide to execute them instead.

Reminds me of the guy in Vancouver who was tasered to death by 5 cops. Instead of conflict resolution they just whip out their weapon of choice and end it immediately.

Of course the victim is black and the cop white, so that will cause all sorts of racial tensions.

What happened to the officers involved then?

[SandChigger]

Had their "weapons of choice" spanked? :O

[gunner154]

I'd think they were trained to shoot a person in the legs to immobilise him...

[Dante]

They were pretty immobilised already.

[SandChigger]

So they shot them just to be sure? ???

[Dunenewt]

'Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again'

[Andrew]

Video taken minutes before man's death at G20 protest prompts probe

A person who was not part of the protest (walking home from work) got knocked down by police officer, and died shortly after. There is now video showing a police officer hitting the person and knocking him down.

He was obviously a threat to the dozen officers with his hands in his pockets walking away from them.

[Tatar Khan]

Video taken minutes before man's death at G20 protest prompts probe

A person who was not part of the protest (walking home from work) got knocked down by police officer, and died shortly after. There is now video showing a police officer hitting the person and knocking him down.

Well that is what happens when the Europeans have to protest by fighting against police, crash stores burn cars. The cops become edgy.

[Sneakgab]

Fighting against the police? stores broken into? cars burnt?

Now, I'm not calling you a liar Tatar, but I haven't heard about about anything like that. Well, to be honest, I don't really pay much attention to the news but from what I've heard the G-20 protests have been quite peaceful. Certainly nothing so extraordinary that the police should be so edgy. Well, I guess they could be edgy due to the terrorism fear mongering.

[Tatar Khan]

Fighting against the police? stores broken into? cars burnt?

Now, I'm not calling you a liar Tatar, but I haven't heard about about anything like that. Well, to be honest, I don't really pay much attention to the news but from what I've heard the G-20 protests have been quite peaceful. Certainly nothing so extraordinary that the police should be so edgy. Well, I guess they could be edgy due to the terrorism fear mongering.

Yeah they just broken down into all the bank branches around the main building where the summit was.

Than during NATO summit they threw molotov cocktails at police.

And in Europe it is enough o see your soccer team lose to start a riot.

[Andrew]

Tartar I agree that being tough against vandals is needed (those pillaging banks, and the ones throwing molotov cocktails at cops should be shot on site). But what this cop did was more work than necessary. The guy had hands in pockets walking away from cops. No threat. He wasn't wearing a mask or any hippie/anarchist stuff, so not an obvious vandal or threat. Hitting the guy would cause more problems than were present.

But you can't agree with police tactics. When there was a g20 (or nato, or north america) meeting in canada a year or two ago, undercover cops were in a group and had picked up rocks and were throwing them at cops, attempting to incite the peaceful protestors and give the police a reason to attack/take over space.

Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader

Video evidence of undercover cops dressed like anarchists, attempting to create anarchy to make protestors look bad.

[Sneakgab]

There are also many accounts of completely peaceful protest groups being ''kettled'' for hours for no apparent (justifiable) reason. The kettling was said to be done to provoke protesters into doing something that would justify violent action against them. Basically, it seems that the police are trying to put down the protests violently without looking bad.

Some would definitely venture that the western ''democracries'' who love to put themselves so loftily above less civilized states seem to go down to the same iron-fistedness as soon as they are under similar conditions (ie: ones where there are unrest) and that actually they are perhaps even worse.

I myself still have no view on the matter, because I have only bits of information here and there with which to come up with such a view.

So far though, it does seem there were many completely inexcusable police actions during the G-20 protests.

[Tatar Khan]

Tartar I agree that being tough against vandals is needed (those pillaging banks, and the ones throwing molotov cocktails at cops should be shot on site). But what this cop did was more work than necessary. The guy had hands in pockets walking away from cops. No threat. He wasn't wearing a mask or any hippie/anarchist stuff, so not an obvious vandal or threat. Hitting the guy would cause more problems than were present.

But you can't agree with police tactics. When there was a g20 (or nato, or north america) meeting in canada a year or two ago, undercover cops were in a group and had picked up rocks and were throwing them at cops, attempting to incite the peaceful protestors and give the police a reason to attack/take over space.

Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader

Video evidence of undercover cops dressed like anarchists, attempting to create anarchy to make protestors look bad.

Yeah you right about that, but I still expect the riot police in Europe being always on edge due to fact that demonstrations turn to riot and they get beaten up by protectors.

[nemafakei]

http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/2009/04/correcting-the-media-narrative-of-the-g20-protests-on-april-1-2009/

Just got back from a vigil held for the guy who died shortly after being beaten by Police last week. Two people I know very well got beaten up that day, one of them even had his cash card nicked by a policeman.

I've also seen accounts of coppers acting as agents provocateurs, despite which there was precisely no violence from any of the protestors against anyone - all that happened was that the front window of RBS got done in.

From April 1st, 122 were arrested. None of them police officers.

Yes, the police were 'on edge' - because they'd been armed to the teeth and the Met and the press had been scaremongering for a while. They might also have been 'on edge' because they were being told to basically imprison 5000 people for several hours and squeeze them.

[Sneakgab]

Ignoring the police on the ground for a moment, did the brass have a reason to think that the G-20 protest was going to be some kind of apocalyptic riot and thus have a reason to arm their guards to the teeth, order kettling, e.t.c?

If the answer is no, then shouldn't the brass have equipped the cops to give the impression that they weren't going into a warzone, taken care to speak against any scare mongering, not given unnescarily hostile and/or hostility provoking actions?

If they did expect some terrible rioting, shouldn't they have at least noticed that the protests were peaceful when they got there, and not proceeded to take fore-mentioned action?

[Tatar Khan]

Ignoring the police on the ground for a moment, did the brass have a reason to think that the G-20 protest was going to be some kind of apocalyptic riot and thus have a reason to arm their guards to the teeth, order kettling, e.t.c?

If the answer is no, then shouldn't the brass have equipped the cops to give the impression that they weren't going into a warzone, taken care to speak against any scare mongering, not given unnescarily hostile and/or hostility provoking actions?

If they did expect some terrible rioting, shouldn't they have at least noticed that the protests were peaceful when they got there, and not proceeded to take fore-mentioned action?

All protests start out peaceful, they get violent later. Well at least that how it seems in many parts of the world. So they would arm the riot police just in case.

So it starts out like this

Than this starts

[nemafakei]

"Than this starts"

Dunno what's going on in the rest, but the one which looks like it's from London is pretty clear: cops waving truncheons at unarmed protestors who are trying to keep their distance.

"So they would arm the riot police just in case."

So you're saying protesters should bring molotovs next time, just in case?

[Andrew]

"So they would arm the riot police just in case."

So you're saying protesters should bring molotovs next time, just in case?

What if protesters went to protests wearing riot police equipment, and being prepared for an attack by police? That way if police start doing bad stuff you and your group can protect yourselves from them?

I'm thinking gas masks, bullet proof vests, those shields riot police use. Is it illegal to "gear up" the same as police? Except maybe the guns. But have your billy stick and pepper spray?

Thus you could walk around town like you do any other day, but be more protected from police and anarchists? Is it illegal to do that on any other day?

[Tatar Khan]

"Than this starts"

Dunno what's going on in the rest, but the one which looks like it's from London is pretty clear: cops waving truncheons at unarmed protestors who are trying to keep their distance.

And the broken bottles behind them are just something that came out of nowhere

"So they would arm the riot police just in case."

So you're saying protesters should bring molotovs next time, just in case?

Well apparently they do. I don't think you can make a molotov cocktail on the spot. (unless they come to protests with the back pack of liquior bottles or other flamables in their back pack to turn them into explosive bottles). Than it is clear from other photos that the protestors are wearing gear on them and many have mask or scarves to hide their faces.

What it looks like it is just clear that some groups go there to battle with the police.

[Dragoon Knight]

While I can't condone any action on the police's behalf that was premeditated to induce violence, I'm not seeing any evidence of this.  The situation can be looked at in both ways - lots of people are claiming that the police and the media are part of an almost conspiritorial "cover up" of the way things went down that day.  Accusations are being thrown around everywhere, ranging from simple time differences to outright police-ignited violence.  Moreover, there seems to be the prevalent notion that it was all the police's fault and that the protesters are as innocent as the day they were born.

Again, I wholly disagree with the "kettling" method the police used.  There's no excuse for holding people against their will, without food, water or toilet facilities.  But I have to wonder, were they held in at all sides?  Could they have walked away from the protest?

Then there's this video being carpet bombed all over the internet, of protestors with their hands in the air, chanting "this is not a riot", being pushed back by police with batons and shields.  Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there's barely-restrained enmity towards the police in that crowd.  There's also a hell of a lot more protestors than there are police, and history has shown that (should something kick off) no amount of armour or shields will do a lot of good against the press of hundreds of people.

Breaking a bank window, chanting and refusing to move backwards doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.  The crowd seemed to be stubborn - why did no-one try to turn around and walk away?  Sure, some of it could be put down to the press of bodies, but the people at the front are clearly making no effort to submit to the police.  They are talking / shouting at them - I get the impression that they're the sort of people that go around quoting their rights to police, using "non-violent resistance", etc.  They get hit with batons to move them back, but does it deter them?  No.

On a wider scale, how did the police know that it wasn't going to be violent?  The days leading up to the G20 event were spent preparing for the worst case scenario, and you can bet your collective asses that if the police had been underprepared had violence erupted, they would be getting a lot more criticism.

On the day itself, I don't see anything that the police did that was out of hand, bar the "kettling" method.  All the other accusations of police incitement, or individual reports of brutality, are cases that will need to be looked at separately.  I fully support the notion of having an enquiry into the police's actions that day, but I hope what I've written above will give some of you pause to think just how "innocent" this protest was.

[Sneakgab]

''All protests start out peaceful, they get violent later.''

That's ok for arming, but when it comes to taking provocative action can't they at least wait for the ''violent later''? Honestly, if they're going to be ''pre-emptive'' about it, then isn't that just ridiculous? Pre-emptive is fine so long as it is defensive, I'm speaking about the offensive action.

''Could they have walked away from the protest?''

I think that by definition of kettling, they could not (though I'm not sure). If they could have walked away, obviously food and toilet issues wouldn't have been a problem. Just make your trip and return.

'' Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there's barely-restrained enmity towards the police in that crowd''

Well, you don't know about me... to me that seems like bollocks. But I can't comment on such a vague ''feeling'' type of thing like that just as you can't. In any case after being kettled, pushed back, threatened (any maybe even clobbered a tiny bit) some enmity is to be expected. Frankly, all but the front line seemed well behaved enough. I would say that ''barely-restrained'' is possibly above and beyond the call of duty.

''no amount of armour or shields will do a lot of good against the press of hundreds of people.''

What exactly is your point? Is that to say that whenever there is a large protest it is okay for the piloce to use whatever methods out of fear of... the very masses they are provoking? Not make sense...

WOAH! That ogre is scary, no way I'll beat it if it comes after me, so I better provoke it with offensive action that will be useless if it comes after me and will make it more likely to do so.

''Breaking a bank window, chanting and refusing to move backwards doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me''

Oh goodness... They were chanting! Breaking a bank window even! That sounds like stuff you gives kids a slap on the wrist for; breaking a window during an unruly ball game. Seriously, have em break a LEG, then you can them ''unpeaceful''. On the other hand, the police behavior was far more ''naughty'', involving KILLING people.

''The crowd seemed to be stubborn - why did no-one try to turn around and walk away?''

Er... turn around and walk away? I was under the impression that protests don't quite work that way.

Seriously, this is a protest. Chanting and the like is kind of part of the action ya know?

If the people retreat from the camp, their ability to protest is infringed upon and valuable are left unwatched. While preventing forward movement is fine, trying to push the protesters away from their designated place of protest is asking too much. As far as I know, there was nothing special about the place of protest, it's not like they were protesting in the summit room or anything; the summit should (and probably did) proceed normally. No problem (people being attack, summit no longer able to be held, people unable to attend), no reason to push back.

With all this under consideration, it would appear to the protesters that either

A: The police were just trying to piss them off.

B: The police were trying to reduce their protest by moving them elsewhere.

C: They were trying to break up and disperse the riot

All of those possibilities are completely unnaceptable though perhaps B and C are unrealistic. Could be other possibilities, but I don't see them right now. Take into account the fact that the crowd would feel decidedly less analystic and not come up with too many pleasing possible reasons for the police action.

To be honest, neither side might have had much reason to be picky about the location. If the cops had a problem with it though, they should have explained this to the protesters BEFORE they set up camp or had the area cordoned off before hand. The protesters didn't have much reason to hold their ground too stubbornly, but the police action is nigh inexplicable.

''On a wider scale, how did the police know that it wasn't going to be violent?  The days leading up to the G20 event were spent preparing for the worst case scenario, and you can bet your collective asses that if the police had been underprepared had violence erupted, they would be getting a lot more criticism.''

The important thing wasn't the preparement, but the action during the protesst. Kettling was unnescary, pushing back was unnescary, killing people who weren't even protesting was unnescary. The only reason the preparation was mentioned was an excuse for the actions: The cops were armed and briefed like they were going into WW3 so they acted like they were going into WW3. But all that means is that the fualt doesn't lie with rank and file but with the brass for not preparing the men properly ie: For a violent protest OR for a peaceful one.

''On the day itself, I don't see anything that the police did that was out of hand, bar the "kettling" method.''

Killing an uninvolved person and injuring several bystanders seems pretty out of hand.

All you have written to give me pause about the innocence of the protest is:

Seems to me there was some barely-restrained enmity. So you got some sense of hostility?

They broke a window, chanted and refused to move back. After being prevented from various neccessities and with possible reason to hold their ground. Take into account, protests are there for people to express things... is chanting so vile, that they aren't even allowed to protest that their protest is indeed a protest and not a riot?

As for breaking a window, who gives a @#$%. Unless this was some ''special'' or ''large'' window that doesn't seem like a big deal.

Funnily enough, what Tatar showed us gives us a bit of an idea of what a REAL riot or ''non-innocent protest'' looks like: Burning cars, assaulted police vehicles, broken bottles.

Not that I neccessarily take that as an indictment of those protests though, as I have not given the pictures a proper look due to their being no indication that they are related to the G-20 protests and are therefore irrelevant.