Definitely the least accountable
30 Likes
The fact that so many are willing to completely wash their hands of the abject consequences show they feel it is deserved.
In the presence of a child well under the age of majority, one would think that adults- especially authority figures- would be the ones expected to use even more caution and common sense before jumping into action, more so actions that have a deadly outcome. Is the onus really on a child to act rationally and sensibly when suddenly faced with armed policemen?
Did he deserve to die? Absolutely not. But he made very poor choices
that you left out of your comment for the sake of your argument.
Nope, did not leave anything out for sordid reasons. The video, facts and articles are all over the news. He was a 12 year-old child whoâs actions and judgement were not out of line for a 12 year-old child, who are known to make rash, stupid decisions like any children. The professional adults in a position of power on the other handâŚ
6 Likes
And on foot, too. Thatâs inherently suspicious. /sarc
Iâm not saying it isnât a problem. It is. I just think each instance needs to be investigated on itâs own merits. Not everyone shot by the police is innocent.
Yeah I think this one with the sword smells fishy. Hopefully other evidence will make it clear what happened. Iâm just saying the video doesnât do that.
1 Like
Yes. Thank you. I figured as a whole, my tone was upset/snarky enough to make it clear, but you never know 
1 Like
It proves that for at least part of the encounter he was running away from the police rather than charging them with a sword. That seriously undermines any âhe attacked USâ claims and flat out contradicts their previously stated version of events.
Who runs away from multiple adversaries brandishing superior weaponry only to turn around and attack them head-on? With a sword he knew wasnât sharp, no less?
19 Likes
4 Likes
So letâs look at this from the police perspective.
Youâve got a suspect walking about brandishing a lethal weapon. Fake or not, the police donât know this and cannot determine this until they take the suspect into custody, search him and determine the nature of the weapon. They confront the suspect, command him to drop the weapon and follow procedures so that they can cuff him pending a search and investigation into this. Now if he was smart, he would have simply done as he was told, obeyed their lawful commands, and at worst he would have had a bruised ego from the ordeal (and learned a valuable lesson in how not to be an idiot and carrying any sort of weapon like that out in public), and possibly a public mischief charge, which likely isnât more than a warning, a fine, or perhaps some community service.
Instead, he flees, the whole âwhite cops are out to get meâ, or whatever the reason behind his decision making might have been at the time (perhaps he had a criminal record that would land him in deeper hot water than we think, or outstanding warrants, who knows). So now youâve got a guy armed with a sword fleeing from you, youâre in hot pursuit with your guns drawn, and itâs a foot chase in public.
Eventually the suspect (it appears in the final clip) turns into an alleyway, a side street, into a business. Thereâs possibly innocent bystanders nearby (which the video doesnât really show), heâs not obeying your commands to stop and drop the weapon, to which point you still donât know that itâs a fake, and now youâre faced with the possibility that this person is out to do malicious harm to somebody (or himself), and you have to act. Do you A) shoot him given that heâs left you with no other options, or B) allow him to escape and possibly harm somebody with a very deadly (albeit fake) weapon?
The moral of the story?
Youâre always better off not carrying a weapon in public, period.
Make that âmoralsâ, plural. If the police confront you about anything, let alone the fact that youâre carrying what appears to them as a weapon. You donât lip them off, you certainly donât flee (which instantly is felony fleeing, no matter what the initial circumstances are, and you will go to jail for that alone in itself). Youâre in a public place, if youâre compliant in following the commands without lipping off, hesitating or resisting, even the most rookie or currupt cop is going to think twice about physically abusing you or doing anything else that in itself would be a criminal act. Yes, admittedly, there can be some hotheads that may be a bit rough. But again, youâre in public, thereâs witnesses, thereâs likely people filming this on their phones. When itâs all said and done youâre in the right by complying and theyâre in the wrong for using excessive force on a suspect whoâs plainly compliant.
None of this âitâs a black & whiteâ thing. None of this âpolice brutalityâ. If anything this video more than likely would vindicate the officers. It may not show the suspect âattacking themâ, but again, it doesnât show the initial confrontation or the final events that led to his death. Granted, there is a chance that the officers could have embelished the story slightly in their favour, but in the end, those details arenât known fully, nor are they shown in this video other than showing an armed suspect fleeing from police who had every right to confront and seek to detain the person in this case.
1 Like
But was it illegal to publicly carry a sword?
11 Likes
Because no black guy has ever found himself being charged with destruction of public property from bleeding on copâs uniforms when he was arrested and beaten up when he had done nothing wrong apart from having the same name as a wanted person. OH WAIT THAT EXACT THING HAPPENED.
If someone has done nothing wrong, which by all accounts this guy hadnât (apparently, carrying a sword is not illegal) the police should not be pulling weapons on him. full stop. Letâs get cameras on the cops and lets get them non-lethal takedown methods.
20 Likes
That is exactly what you have doneâŚ
What is shown in the video is a black man, in a comic costume, running from two white men. What exactly were the black manâs âactionsâ that justify chasing him then shooting him in the back six times? Did you see the black man brandish his 2.5 foot âswordâ? Did you see the black man lunge at the white men with his 2.5 foot âswordâ?
While you ponder those questions, look at your arm. Add 2.5 feet. How far away from you must someone be to ensure you are not a threat if you wield something 2.5 feet in length? Five feet? Six feet? In any case, all the white officers have to do to be safe is remain ten feet away. Thatâs it. No one is in danger if the idiot police maintain a ten foot distance.
Oh dear. It looks like you condemned the black man not once but twice. In the same postâŚ
The resemblance in headgear is amazingâŚ
8 Likes
It conclusively proves the cops were lying in their account of the event, in which they stated they shot him when he lunged at them when they exited their vehicle. One cop had a body camera, another a mic - but both were âturned offâ during the event, very conveniently.
21 Likes
Suspected of what?
Weâre talking about a state where people (at least, white people) can and do go about their business like this:
But a black guy in a ninja costume carrying a 2 1/2 foot sword is reason to deploy lethal force? Give me a freakinâ break.
Edit to add:
GOLLY I WONDER WHERE HE GOT THAT IDEA.
38 Likes
Shit, are you trollinâ, or are you just unaware of what happens to black men when stopped by the police in this country?
18 Likes
Based on what?
(Donât bother replying. I already know the answer. In case you donât, hereâs a hint. Fill in the missing letters: racis_ _sshole.)
3 Likes
Even if thatâs the case, somebody simply having a gun and not doing anything with it is hardly a reason to call police in the first place. Sure, the kid could have been more cooperative. But he was confronted by violent cops when he wasnât doing anything unlawful in the first place.
2 Likes
Did they? How do you know?
I claim, based on my magic crystal ball, that the officers pulled out their weapons then started screaming âIâm going to kill you! Iâm going to kill you!â At which point the black man decided his only hope of survival was to leg it. Prove Iâm wrong.
7 Likes
Odds are this will get deleted because I am replying to someone who canât have a civil conversation, but here it goes.
My comment about consequence of actions was a reply to another poster who brought up a 12 year shot while holding a realistic looking airsoft gun. Not this sword instance.
Well you are mistaken about that. The rule they teach is the 21 foot rule. At that distance someone can close in and stab you before you can react and draw your weapon.
Again I donât know if the shooting was warranted or not. It certainly requires an investigation and will require more evidence than the video alone.
Training Video illustrating the 21 foot rule:
You wonât stay here long with personal attacks.
When I said something smelled fishy, I meant that I sounds like a good possibility that the cops acted with out justification. Unfortunately you already seem to have a confirmation bias about me, so you assumed the opposite of what I meant.
2 Likes
Nitpick: Mugen is a vagabond, not a ninja or a samurai. So maybe the cops were after him for vagrancy rather than carrying a sword.
4 Likes
Wrong from the start. Carrying a weapon is nowhere near the same thing as brandishing it. Brandishing means to show off your weapon to intimidate people by demonstrating that you are willing to use it. Such as waving your gun around, holding a knife up to somebody, or thrusting a sword around. A sheathed sword on oneâs back does not count. Not only was the blade not exposed, it hardly even looked like a weapon. It could have been a wooden kendo sword, an umbrella, a rolled-up poster, or any number of other things.
When one is merely transporting something which may not even be a weapon, police do not need to take them into custody to verify anything. There is no crime.
15 Likes
