• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Need a Confirmation, Police in North Miami shoot black man assisting a patient

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Hard to imagine an ND if he fired three times.

The statement by the cop doesn't sit well. "I did what I had to do in a split-second to accomplish that, and hate to hear others paint me as something I'm not."

I don't know what people are calling him ... but if he's arguing that he's not something that people are claiming he is then he has a big fact issue .. as the video speaks for itself and his musings are too self-depreciating to be considered of any value.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Looks like either an ND, or terrible aim, or both.

This isn't malicious. Just gross incompetence.

Handcuffing the innocent victim, however, is something beyond stupid, at least.

What is nigh unto criminal though, is how the incident is being reported by the media. KSL in Utah had a report (probably off the AP or Reuters wire) with a headline and opening paragraphs that talked about police shooting an unarmed, innocent black man lying on the ground with his hands up. Only toward the bottom of the ~10 paragraph article was their any indication that the shooting of the innocent person was unintended.

The bullet does the same damage whether intentional or not.

But from a media that makes distinctions between regular assault and "hate crimes" the lead-in whenever a minority is a victim, the double-standard in reporting on the difference between intended and ND is more than just spin. It is downright deceitful.

Get the cop off the force. Charge him with reckless endangerment and kidnapping (for the completely unnecessary handcuffing). And then look at why his fellow officers allowed an innocent and injured man to be and remain handcuffed for 20 minutes.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
It is because the mentally ill man was accused of carrying a gun openly. Again the police response to a MWAG backfires.

And how did casual observers know he was mentally ill? Consider the innocent victim was trying to coax him back into the care facility from which he had wandered, I have to presume the man was acting out in some fairly significant way.

If someone honestly believed he was armed, while acting out significantly, a police response to a MWAG call is entirely appropriate. There is a huge difference between someone OCing in a holster while normally going about his business, and someone with a gun in hand (or so someone thought) behaving so irrationally that another person is trying to calm him and get him back to the nearby psych hospital.

Certainly we don't expect cops to ignore such things until after the person starts shooting.

Of course, if someone lied about the gun (perhaps in order to get faster police response) that should be heavily prosecuted.

And once on scene, it would be nice not to have the highly trained cops having NDs or missing their target by enough to hit innocent victims lying 2 yards away.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
And how did casual observers know he was mentally ill? Consider the innocent victim was trying to coax him back into the care facility from which he had wandered, I have to presume the man was acting out in some fairly significant way.

If someone honestly believed he was armed, while acting out significantly, a police response to a MWAG call is entirely appropriate. There is a huge difference between someone OCing in a holster while normally going about his business, and someone with a gun in hand (or so someone thought) behaving so irrationally that another person is trying to calm him and get him back to the nearby psych hospital.

Certainly we don't expect cops to ignore such things until after the person starts shooting.

Of course, if someone lied about the gun (perhaps in order to get faster police response) that should be heavily prosecuted.

And once on scene, it would be nice not to have the highly trained cops having NDs or missing their target by enough to hit innocent victims lying 2 yards away.

Charles

sorry mate, do you think the nice LEs responding could have approached the two to discuss and ascertain the mental status of both individuals...oh wait...no scopes on the big guns brought out to see what is in hands of the autistic young man?

how does an autistic young man's "acting out" verse normal halting movement pattern coupled with lack of cognitive speech resemble someone who is 'acting out' while say high on substances.

sigh...

ipse
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Its a miracle those two gentleman are still alive.. I read on another board that the officer that fired the three shots and missed is a Swat officer...

However its not confirmed...

Regards

CCJ
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
the good commander should 'retire' take his benefits and get a consulting position with ???? making big bucks.

ipse
 

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
Watched this on this evening's news. The spokesman stated that the 4-year SWAT veteran "did everything right". Not hardly. In the clip, the only close-up shot of an M-16/AR-15 I saw had iron sights. At that range, even I could have hit my target; but then the spokesman stated that they were shooting to protect the man lying down. If a SWAT guy is that bad a shot, and has that bad judgement, he needs to be fired. If ever I am in that position, leave me alone, do not try to protect me. I'll take my chances against a toy truck.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Watched this on this evening's news. The spokesman stated that the 4-year SWAT veteran "did everything right". Not hardly. In the clip, the only close-up shot of an M-16/AR-15 I saw had iron sights. At that range, even I could have hit my target; but then the spokesman stated that they were shooting to protect the man lying down. If a SWAT guy is that bad a shot, and has that bad judgement, he needs to be fired. If ever I am in that position, leave me alone, do not try to protect me. I'll take my chances against a toy truck.

I remember something about know your target and what is beyond! Seems there could have been SEVERAL options of shooting positions where the sitter could be easily targeted and the one laying would have been at somewhat less risk.

DO NOT Read the above as support for shooting ANYONE in this case as provided in the video.

ETA: Seems to me that the LEO's penchant and training to "Control the scene" for officer safety interferes with the act of LISTENING to those one is attempting to control. If the focus is towards absolute control then one is not listening to "suspects" but planning on how to control! This seems to be happening all too often!
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Watched this on this evening's news. The spokesman stated that the 4-year SWAT veteran "did everything right". Not hardly. In the clip, the only close-up shot of an M-16/AR-15 I saw had iron sights. At that range, even I could have hit my target; but then the spokesman stated that they were shooting to protect the man lying down. If a SWAT guy is that bad a shot, and has that bad judgement, he needs to be fired. If ever I am in that position, leave me alone, do not try to protect me. I'll take my chances against a toy truck.

You'll be sorry !
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Talk trash about the BLMers targeting cops all you like. They're getting it right. Domestic Terrorists, you say? Isn't that what Christians are? All gun owners? Wake up... They came for the... Oh f*ck me, you'll be reading Niemoller as they knock on your door and still not do anything about it... You are the hangman's greatest ally.

This bullsh!t is EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment exists.

What is the point of having a Right to Keep and Bear arms, if you do not logically follow up by Doing something with them...? Do you think this Right exists so you can hang it over the fireplace and talk about how cool it is? What, exactly, do you think the 2nd Amendment is for, if not targeting and killing the traitors and tyrants in our own government? The people who wrote it flat out said so! As much BS comes out of the BLMers, this part they're getting right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Tho, personally, I think it more fitting to hang them; whatever gets the job done is good by me.

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!
What do you call 100 politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!
What do you call 100 cops at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!

Anyone who fights back is going to be called a "domestic terrorist."

First they came for the BLMers
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a BLMer
Then they came for the Christians
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Christian
Then they came for all remaining Gun Owners
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Gun Owner
Then they came for the Forum Moderators
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Forum Moderator
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

I'm not saying that someone needs to start sniping cops in North Miami. But, if someone did, I would not be surprised, I would have no pity, and I'd be damn proud to shake that person's hand.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
You are right about the intention of the second amendment, and the men who fought Britain were terrorists by today's definition. That does not mean I condone it though.

Trying not to break any rules the second amendment was NEVER about self defense from the people. It was about protecting liberty from tyrants whether it is our own government or foreign governments. It has absolutely nothing to do with sport shooting, hunting, or IMO conceal carry for self defense. Unless that self defense is from the government.

What it is about is liberty, and guarantees of the rights to maintain that liberty by any means. The fighters during the revolution broke the rules, they could not win without breaking the rules. I still cannot condone shooting at any innocent person.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
You are right about the intention of the second amendment, and the men who fought Britain were terrorists by today's definition. That does not mean I condone it though.

Trying not to break any rules the second amendment was NEVER about self defense from the people. It was about protecting liberty from tyrants whether it is our own government or foreign governments. It has absolutely nothing to do with sport shooting, hunting, or IMO conceal carry for self defense. Unless that self defense is from the government.

What it is about is liberty, and guarantees of the rights to maintain that liberty by any means. The fighters during the revolution broke the rules, they could not win without breaking the rules. I still cannot condone shooting at any innocent person.

Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette ?

You do not condone what the founding fathers did during the revolution? You did not actually post that ... did you?

But then you say we have the right to defend ourselves from our own gov't.

I think you need to re-think your ideas.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette ?

You do not condone what the founding fathers did during the revolution? You did not actually post that ... did you?

But then you say we have the right to defend ourselves from our own gov't.

I think you need to re-think your ideas.

I don't condone it for the present day. I was not alive during the revolution, and I might have a completely different opinion at that time in history.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette ?

You do not condone what the founding fathers did during the revolution? You did not actually post that ... did you?

But then you say we have the right to defend ourselves from our own gov't.

I think you need to re-think your ideas.
He's censoring himself due to the cognitive dissonance within the forum/staff.

I did, as well.

All the rattlesnake bumper stickers in the world won't hold it together if this is how easily these "patriots" can be broken.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You are right about the intention of the second amendment, and the men who fought Britain were terrorists by today's definition. That does not mean I condone it though.

No, they would not be terrorists by today's definition. Traitors, yes. Terrorist no. They did not target innocent civilians. They targeted legitimate military personnel and installations. That is the key difference.

Trying not to break any rules the second amendment was NEVER about self defense from the people. It was about protecting liberty from tyrants whether it is our own government or foreign governments. It has absolutely nothing to do with sport shooting, hunting, or IMO conceal carry for self defense. Unless that self defense is from the government.

Your view of the 2nd amendment is too narrow. If you believe what you post, then your daily carry of a gun is not an exercise of the 2nd amendment. You are not "bearing arms" against the government on a daily basis. You are bearing arms against common criminals. Defending your life, the life of a productive member of society, and helping to keep the criminal element at bay in the process is the most common means of maintaining the security of the free state. While the Constitution tells us the how it is the DoI that tells us many of the whys. One of the charges against King George was leaving the state "exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within." Methinks the criminal element running amok is a lot more common convulsion than is outright rioting en mass.

Hunting and "sport shooting" are not directly part of the 2nd amendment. But firearms are not much use without a little practice. The well to do could afford to sport shoot. For the less affluent, I imagine the possibility of some food on the table with each shot taken made the cost of the shot a lot easier to bear.


What it is about is liberty, and guarantees of the rights to maintain that liberty by any means. The fighters during the revolution broke the rules, they could not win without breaking the rules. I still cannot condone shooting at any innocent person.

They broke the rules of warfare by fighting what we would today call a guerrilla war. They did not target innocent persons. In fact, one rule they broke was targeting officers rather than just lobbing volleys at the cannon fodder of conscripted enlisted. In a moral scale, going after the guys who give orders by choice is a lot better than going after the poor sap pressed into obeying orders he may not want to.

You are correct, that today's assassinations of beat cops cannot be justified by anything from Revolutionary History. Those who would claim otherwise are starting down a very dangerous road.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Patriots subjected Loyalists to public humiliation and violence. Many Loyalists found their property vandalized, looted, and burned. The patriots controlled public discourse. Woe to the citizen who publicly proclaimed sympathy to Britain.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/11b.asp
History is filled with stubborn facts. Being from SC I am aware of what Patriots did to Loyalists in SC. There remains a Loyalist Plantation in my family. They put on a great July 4 picnic on the Black River.
 

Taypo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
51
Location
DFW
I'm not saying that someone needs to start sniping cops in North Miami. But, if someone did, I would not be surprised, I would have no pity, and I'd be damn proud to shake that person's hand.

You'd be damn proud to shake the hand of someone shooting at cops?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
History is filled with stubborn facts. Being from SC I am aware of what Patriots did to Loyalists in SC. There remains a Loyalist Plantation in my family. They put on a great July 4 picnic on the Black River.

Anyone who has studied history knows that the patriots did horrible things to the British subjects who supported the king. That is no different than a terrorist today who does horrible things to people who support their government. They hanged loyalists who were not military combatants, if that is not terrorism I don't know what is. The British also did much the same, just like our present government does today and calls it collateral damage.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
History is filled with stubborn facts. Being from SC I am aware of what Patriots did to Loyalists in SC. There remains a Loyalist Plantation in my family. They put on a great July 4 picnic on the Black River.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHY14OVk7r0

I heard that there are also Irish Plantations too. They should be careful...nice Irish song above....but who needs a AR, right?
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
You'd be damn proud to shake the hand of someone shooting at cops?
Let me set forth your attempt to put words in my mouth, and expound.

I'd be damn proud to shake the hand of a person shooting at murdering traitors who wear a badge and uniform.

Any old cop at random? No.

But, if you were part of a demographic that the cops were clearly targeting for bloodsport, you might see things differently.

It's about individualism. One tribe, group, delineated demographic, etc., does not, in fact, have the right to go killing any other members of another such group indiscriminately. But, cops are doing exactly that, so, if you're part of what they're targeting, you can ignore the reality created by that only at your own peril. It may not be right, but to say it's unexpected is silly.

If I were a Black Man, and a cop pulled me over, I'd consider it game over. He wants to kill me and I'm not just going to sit there and let it happen. Cops and their companion Courts have made it abundantly clear that it is open season on me, and they laugh all the way back home after killing yet another of me. I would have to be an absolute damned fool not to consider him an immediate threat to my continued life. That cop would not get a chance to bring his car to a stop before I pumped 30+ rounds of green and black tip .308 into his driver's side windshield. As soon as those lights come on behind me, he has advertised his intent to murder me with the knowledge that he'll get away with it. No different from a thug pulling a knife in a dark alley. The intent is known. Cops murder citizens of a certain demographic for bloodsport. The only way to survive is to kill them first. It's no longer a mere us-vs-them attitude. Cops have openly declared war. Let them experience the business end of that declaration. Give it back to them as hard as they dish it out.

Fortunately, I'm not a Black Man, so I can afford to extend them a slight bit more leeway. I don't think it should be about race or about groups. It should be about individuals. But, I don't get to choose the manner of the war they have declared. They set the rules themselves! Cops made this into a race war. They continue to murder and lie, and the courts from which they sprout, help them get away with it. Who am I to interfere with the reaping of what they have sown?

Those are my words and I stand by them.
 
Last edited:
Top