It's not Krav Manga's United States.

And as an American, I’m thankful for that.

How is he so sure that the guy who got shot on the subway platform in Oakland had “a rap sheet a mile long”?

“Lets call it intuition.”

Armed with his powers of intuition, Mr. Manga demands to know why no one has brought up this intuitively obvious rap sheet in a discussion of whether the shooting could possibly have been justified.

Answer: because we’re normal people, not Junior Neo-Fascists from Lower Rapistan or whatever disgusting country Krav Manga lives and/or belongs in.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

It’s Krav Maga, the Israeli hand to hand combat style.

http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?type=bcn&item=FATAL-SHOOTING-PROTESTED-bagm-

No reason to shoot him in the back while he was restrained face first on the ground by two cops.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28521292/

Oh shit I was wrong! I was reading what I wanted to read. It IS Manga.

“Showing signs of maturation”?! Whew! Good thing they got him then!

Yes, Krav, a person in conflict with the law is likely to have a history of being in conflict with the law, so if a law officer makes a hideous error, either deliberately or accidentally, the probability will be that the victim had a history of being in conflict with the law.

You are greviously in error when you try to blame the victim who was shot in the back while fully restrained. His criminal record is not relevant to this. His propensity to be in conflict with the law is not relevant to this. Being shot in the back while fully restrained is so far beyond the pale that it can not be a reasonably forseeable consequence of being in conflict with the law.

You are greviously in error when you try to claim that the victim was fully restrained.

I was completely unaware of this story until I read this thread. I didn’t read the other thread. A quick read through of the article shows that he was not restrained. The lawyer of the dead guy says he was cuffed after he was shot. If it is going to be a proper pitting then lets get the facts straight.

He was not handcuffed, but he was on the ground with police on top of him.

He was also a citizen of the United States.

I’m in San Francisco for the holidays, and this story has been on the news every night since the New Year. There’s actually something of a mini-riot going on in Oakland right now, after a protest this evening.

Anyway, when i heard about this story, i wanted to wait until the final report before drawing any definitive conclusions. There were witnesses saying that the man was shot while prone on the ground, and some said he was in handcuffs, but witnesses to incidents like this are notoriously unreliable. I’m completely opposed to excessive force by police, but i realize they have a very difficult job, so it’s best not to judge incidents like this until you’ve at least seen some evidence. The IHOP case in Virginia a couple of years ago is a good case in point.

But then i saw this video. It’s not incredibly clear on the internet (the version they showed on TV was somewhat clearer), and after viewing that video i really cannot think of a single thing that would justify this shooting.

No, the guy was not cuffed. But he was, as WF Tomba said, on the ground with two cops on top of him. And no-one, as far as i know, is disputing that he was shot in the back. One of the main theories surrounding the case is that the officer intended to shoot the guy with a Taser, but accidentally drew and fired his gun instead. That is, from what i’ve seen so far, probably the most charitable interpretation that could be put on the incident, from the officer’s point of view. If it was NOT a case of mistaking his Taser for his gun, i shudder to think what his motivation was.

By the way, on the news a couple of minutes ago (KTVU Fox in SF), one analyst rejected the Taser/gun mistake argument, saying that the officer had been shown earlier drawing his Taser, so he clearly new where it was on his person. I haven’t seen the video of the officer drawing the Taser, so i can’t speak about that

The officer resigned from his job today.

Just kidding. Actually, he chose resigning from the force over having to face the internal inquiry.

Link

Probably needs more time to choose between the “I thought I went for my taser” vs. “The use of deadly force was justified” defense strategies.

Face down on the ground, not struggling, with two police on top of him is fully restrained. The lack of handcuffs at that point in no way means that he was not already fully restrained, nor does his not having been shot to death at that point mean that he was not fully restrained.

Since there’s already a Pit thread about this…

Does this seem rather hypocritical to anyone else, considering that Diogenes was following this same SOP when a cop aimed a tazer at Airman Doors?

Besides, it’s not any argument in the first place - shooting a taser at a restrained person is not justifiable either.

And this is relevant how? So, if he wasn’t a citizen, the things you’re alleging would be kosher?

But, you see, Doors wasn’t restrained, and he had a gun.

He’s not saying it would be kosher otherwise, more that as a citizen he is entitled to all the protections afforded to him under the constitution of the United States.

Anyone trying to imply that the man shot was still enough of a significant danger to warrant drawing either a taser or a pistol, is either being disingenuous or blinkered to a ridiculous extent. The man was no longer a threat…end of.

Why do posters here insist not just feeding, but then pitting, what, to me, appear to be blatantly obvious trolls?