Posted on 07/12/2016 8:05:40 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
The Louisiana police officers who fatally shot a black man pinned to the ground did so after seeing the man reach for a gun, a Baton Rouge detective said.
...
"While the officers were attempting to subdue the subject the officers observed the butt of a gun in the subject's front pants pocket," Cook wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The guy on the ground looked tightly pinned with what(?) three cops crushing him. The one cop has his gun at his head.
I couldn’t watch.
Hard to believe he was able to draw a gun underneath him. But... maybe... maybe not.
I thought he was reaching for his PEZ dispenser?
I have to agree, based on the second video. It does look like he is reaching into his pocket. Blowing up the video and showing it frame by frame should clear it up.
He was reaching for his Skittles.
are you speaking of the deceased, drawing? From the reporting, the butt of the gun was sticking out of the pocket (maybe after being tazered?) so all the deceased needed was any finger on the trigger, and he could be firing thru the pocket into the officer’s body. It was a good kill of a really stupid guy.
“I couldn’t watch.”
But then you want to comment as if you know what happened? Please Rita, you’re better than that.
Probably the police only knew the ‘brandishing’ part when they arrived. The perps arrest record usually becomes known only after...
Not picking on you. The LEFT does this hind-sight stuff all the time... or maybe I should say ‘attempts’.
Can someone in the liberal MSM explain what police are supposed to do when a black male physically resists arrest by TWO arresting officers?
Are the officers supposed to step back and ask permission of the arrestee? What about when the arrestee pulls a gun? Are they supposed to prove they are not racist by allowing the arrestee to murder them?
I think they need a spiderman net or something short of shooting people. It’s too easy for these events to be manipulated to make the good guys look bad.
There’s a “legal safety” reaction from our side that must stop. Bush did it, he never fought back and any liar on the other side could win the argument. You point out an excellent example of this. The cops huddle talking to lawyers to be legally safe while the perps scream bloody murder from the get go. Result? The media hears the noise and the first liar wins. That is happening over and over.
He was reaching for his dental floss, so he could floss his grill.
A spiderman net won’t stop a man with a pistol in his hand.
The one in Baton Rouge was tasered twice. Kind of like Rodney King, who kept charging and charging. That part was edited out of the video shown nationwide about a million times.
Resisting got him killed. Having a gun got him killed.
Reaching need not be proved. At this point, the officer need only perceive that his life is in danger or in fear of great bodily harm to shoot FIRST.
But wait..... Isn’t it against the LAW for a convicted felon to possess a gun? So he couldn’t have had a gun because gun laws have prevented felons from having guns.
Maybe if we passed more gun laws restricting law abiding citizens from having guns, the criminals won’t have them either because the laws aimed directly at felons have worked so well.
I watched. I watched him prone in a pile on. I didn’t watch the cop’s gun go off. No.
Having gun in your pocket is prob more dangerous than one in a holster.
With most holsters you have to “pull it out” before discharging the weapon, you don’t have to do that if it’s in your pocket, just fire through your pants.
Most civilians don’t think that way, cops are trained to watch for that.
Actually, he was also accused of threatening to kill someone. I think if he was just selling CD’s, they would have let him go. But his record proved he was a menace.
That makes more sense. ;)
.
>> No, I mean the American people as a whole who still think Michael Brown said, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”. <<
A mythical group to be sure.
Even those that shout it know its false.
I watched the altercation a number of times in slow motion. These are still shots from it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3448058/posts?page=20#20
The camera moves away once the shooting begins.
There were two officers involved, and they didn’t have his right hand and arm under control. He moves it all around, and his gun was in his right pocket.
At the 4-second mark, you can most easily see how much Sterling’s arm moved by the visible shoulder movement. At the 6-second mark, you can see one officer using his left hand to grab Sterling’s right hand.
And, once the officers recognized he had a gun, apparently not just one officer drew his gun, but both did (one can see both officers going for their guns at the same time). If that’s the case, then they were trying to wrestle with Sterling with their free left hands while having guns in their right hands - a very dangerous situation.
Thanks for the clarifications and for your take and the photos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.