Cops TV crew memeber killed in shoot out

I can't remember how you're supposed to act when you come across an American cop, is it play dead or try and make yourself look big?

My name is URL wrote: »

Why are people completely overlooking the fact that police shot and killed an innocent man in the process of trying to take down a fleeing suspect? =/

Just for comparison, do you feel the same level of outrage when an embedded journalist gets killed in a war zone. Frankly, the word innocent is a bit loaded when it comes to people carrying out this type of active participation 'journalism'. The crew become participants in whatever scene is played out, really was only a matter of time before one got caught in the crossfire.

As to the airsoft pistol, what's to stop you dipping the muzzle of a real gun in orange paint? The cops can't reasonably be expected to not react to any form of potential gun raised at them.

MadsL wrote: »

Just for comparison, do you feel the same level of outrage when an embedded journalist gets killed in a war zone. Frankly, the word innocent is a bit loaded when it comes to people carrying out this type of active participation 'journalism'. The crew become participants in whatever scene is played out, really was only a matter of time before one got caught in the crossfire.

Bollox it is. He was an innocent civilian. It could just have easilly been a member of the public not involved in any way. Police shot and killed him.. that's fact.

How many embedded journalists have been killed by friendly fire?

A warzone is a whole lot different to a convenience store robbery too. For what purpose do police open fire on a suspect? To save the lives of others immediately present and in danger.. that's it.. there's no greater end-game like there is in a war or conflict.

Claiming thet they seen a muzzle flash too. What a load of absolute shite.

Great logic in this thread. Man committing armed robbery and pointing a gun(albeit airsoft gun) at cops. But he's not the bad guy, the cop is.
The cop should leave and armed man run away? So he can rob/kill someone later? OR maybe jump in a car and force the driver to be his getaway driver.

I know it's great to shout F**k the police like you're 2pac or something. But be logical. The cops wouldn't know if it's a fake, they need to assume its real. They are always on edge cause people do try to kill them(2 cops in vegas were shot dead while eating lunch last April/May). There's been a lot of gun rampages in the US that have killed many innocents, can you imagine if the news story went: "The guy who just shot 12 innocents in a mall earlier shot at officers but when they saw he was exiting the area, they thought it ok to leave him go."

MadsL wrote: »

Frankly, the word innocent is a bit loaded...

+1

My name is URL wrote: »

Bollox it is. He was an innocent civilian. It could just have easilly been a member of the public not involved in any way. Police shot and killed him.. that's fact.

If a member of the public heard a commotion and ran into the area to get a good look, knowing fine well there was risk of gunfire, then I similarly would not call them an "innocent man", I would not call him guilty but innocent to me has connotations of being completely unavoidable, making out like he was a bystander in the shop by pure chance.

It didn't surprise me in the slightest that it was "overlooked". Journalists in warzones was also the first thing I thought of when I heard it, dunno how you can describe it as "a whole lot different"

innocent
ˈɪnəs(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
1.
not guilty of a crime or offence.
"the prisoners were later found innocent"
synonyms: guiltless, guilt-free, not guilty, blameless, not to blame, in the clear, unimpeachable, irreproachable, above suspicion, beyond criticism, without fault, faultless;

2.
not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.
"an innocent bystander"


2.
a person involved by chance in a situation, especially a victim of crime or war.
"they are prepared to kill or maim innocents in pursuit of a cause"

Oh so the policy should be, if your not sure what he is pointing don't shoot just laugh, and that goes for all the Bank staff and shop staff during a robbery. I'm actually surprised he actually got a round off before he was shot!

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

I can't remember how you're supposed to act when you come across an American cop, is it play dead or try and make yourself look big?

Lol, this is very funny,

The robber got what he deserved. He was robbing a store, pointing a gun at people. Saved the taxpayer a lengthy and expensive trial and he ain't robbing anybody else.

As for the journalist - occupational hazard - should have gotten a proper job instead of this so-called journalism. Those people are only slightly above ambulance chasers and just below cockroaches in the 'necessary-for-humanity-scale'

simplybam wrote: »

As for the journalist - occupational hazard - should have gotten a proper job instead of this so-called journalism.

What an incredibly dickish post. What would a 'proper job' be if working on one of the most watched tv shows of the last 30 years isn't one?

Those people are only slightly above ambulance chasers and just below cockroaches in the 'necessary-for-humanity-scale'

And where pray tell, do you sit on that scale?

MadsL wrote: »

You have a very high expectation if no bystander gets involved, ever.

I don't expect there never to be bystanders that get hurt or worse. I also don't expect for people to automatically reach the dismissive conclusion that 'shit happens' whenever one is either.

What do you make of the claim that police saw muzzle flashes from the guys gun?

Terry Lloyd for one.

Terry Lloyd wasn't an 'embedded' journalist. He was working independently.. furthermore an inquest found that his killing was unlawful.

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't expect there never to be bystanders that get hurt or worse. I also don't expect for people to automatically reach the dismissive conclusion that 'shit happens' whenever one is either.

So you have an expectation that there will be a certain level of harm, what level do you multiply that by when the 'bystander' is chasing cops involved in a shooting with a camera. By how much do you apply that multiplication when they follow the cops 7 days a week hoping for exactly this kind of footage.

This isn't dismissing the tragedy, it is simply recognising that sooner or late your luck runs out. I think that is more honest than faux outrage.

What do you make of the claim that police saw muzzle flashes from the guys gun?

No idea. Cops lie from time to time, or perhaps in the heat of the moment saw a reflection of light from the camera lights.

Terry Lloyd wasn't an 'embedded' journalist. He was working independently.. furthermore an inquest found that his killing was unlawful.

Just hairsplitting now, you claimed no war correspondant was killed by friendly fire, now you are simply trying to discount the one I mentioned. Poor. Must do better.

MadsL wrote: »

Just hairsplitting now, you claimed no war correspondant was killed by friendly fire, now you are simply trying to discount the one I mentioned. Poor. Must do better.

Where did I claim that? Link please!

I specifically mentioned embedded journalists, because the post of yours that I was responding to specifically mentioned embedded journalists

MadsL wrote: »

Just for comparison, do you feel the same level of outrage when an embedded journalist gets killed in a war zone

My name is URL wrote: »

How many embedded journalists have been killed by friendly fire?

If focusing on and questioning a main tenet of your argument is 'hair-splitting' in your eyes then why even bother making the argument in the first place?

thank god the idiot police don't have guns here.
imagine the carnage with trigger happy culchies.
'you there,what's in your hand .....
my pho BANG!!!