Man carrying toy sword shot 6 time in the back by police

Police aren't allowed to do that. If they point a gun at you, they are going to shoot to kill. If they aren't intending to use lethal force, they aren't going to use lethal weapons.

The issue of police using excessive force is a very real issue, as recent events have highlighted. But this is just as much of a fallacy.

Why would I need to read more, I think it's you that need to read more.

The uk may not be carrying guns but their laws are still more radical than the rest of europe.

The uk didn't sign the european constitution as well

It's suppose to be used not to kill people and pacify them...

No, because it doesn't seem that some of your officers want that

First of all that's bullshit, I've had border partrol pull a gun on me for just having my hands in my pocket when I was out with a couple of friends at night, no provocation. Did they fire? of course not. Should they have pulled a gun on me either? **** no.

Perhaps police just need better training, the job shouldn't have any parallels with the Military unless the situation requires it, IE hostages or a seriously dangerous threat. It's to serve and protect. Not kill at the slightest provocation.

Hell I've seen more restraint from the military when it comes to dealing with civilians.

I'm not really a fan of one sided facts.....

Why you need to read more? well to educate yourself of course.

Because its not that hard to find the exact same thing as this Hunt case in almost every single european city because the fact is that as long as we have human beings as cops, we will have judgments that for a layman might seem wrong. Like this not to mention that the only reason this ever became more than just a number in a statistic is for the reason why some people are claiming he got shot, and thats the colour of his skin.

Not to mention that unless 300 feet has a different meaning in his world. I wouldn't exactly call this 300 feet.

But perhaps he meant 300 kids feet?

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Riverwolf007 said:

nothing is more of a threat to a man with a gun than a guy 300 feet away with a knife.

Well, that has nothing to do with this case.

Not to mention that unless 300 feet has a different meaning in his world. I wouldn't exactly call this 300 feet.

But perhaps he meant 300 kids feet?

You guys should really watch this.

It's really looking like the deadly force issued wasn't justified at all.

@thegerg: This was a perfect situation for it though...

Sure we can agree that 410 is to many if they were all innocent but the fact is that they are all engaged with the police for a reason and i would much rather see 410 dead criminals then 410 dead police-officers or 410 innocent people because the cops were too afraid or to caught up in the media´s hetz to protect them.

But i must admit im amazed at how the human psyche works sometimes, Cops are bad if they dont do their job and they are bad if they do, do their jobs and joe kitchen and Jane couch cant as a layman see the reason chopped out in stone and happening right in front of them.

Just so you guys know, nothing you posted has anything to do with what thegerg posted.

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Riverwolf007 said:

nothing is more of a threat to a man with a gun than a guy 300 feet away with a knife.

Well, that has nothing to do with this case.

Not to mention that unless 300 feet has a different meaning in his world. I wouldn't exactly call this 300 feet.

But perhaps he meant 300 kids feet?

You guys should really watch this.

It's really looking like the deadly force issued wasn't justified at all.

Loading Video...

That beard doesn't seem very kids like to me.

So he lunged at them yet they still managed to shoot him in the back 6 times? Was he lunging backwards??

Are being biased because you're in the force?

Utah's finest

@thegerg:

What about this situation? is it justified? The taser would have been very applicable. Shit! the chokehold could have been applicable. That is now 3 unlawfully kills in the media recently by white cops against black males, with no true justice. How many more killings will there be before people see, we are not lying about the abusive force of cops, to the ethnic communities.

@thegerg: I honestly don't know enough about this particular shooting to answer that questin.

Fair enough but to be honest, what more info you need to decide on the justification?

Well, a lot of cops don't know what cosplay is. All they saw was a man with normal looking street clothes and a sword on him. A friend of mine collects fake swords and you can't tell they are blunt unless you actually have it in your hands. In other words, in the eyes of the shooter, he was armed. The full truth of this story is all over the place, people saying the man ran and some saying the man lunged at the cops. Hopefully there are more witnesses and come forward.

@ReadingRainbow4: Good video!

Well can you give a guess of what might of happen?

part of me almost thinks the guy tried to show the cops that it was a dull blade after they asked him about it, he went to unsheath it and they freaked out, saw they started to pull their guns out and aim and ran the other way because he was scared.

TC you're a dishonest PoS.

It is unfortunate, that's all. And he did get six shots in the back meaning he was running away or they just shot the guy

@medafaded: Which is exactly my point, i don't care the race, gender, sexual preferences, etc the victim is. The point is that an unarmed guy got shot 6 times in the back with no real weapon

No opinion on the actual incident (haven't read much on it)...but agree with most everyone those are NOT a toy. I own one and while it is blunted, it is absolutely dangerous and could easily kill someone.

TC is still being dishonest.

But does it look like a real sword? If it looks like a real sword people, including cops, would perceive it as a threat (because they would believe it is a real sword) and would take action to defend themselves.

If the fake sword looks real enough that people think it is real, then there is a threat in their minds, they wouldn't know its fake until after they would have shot him and secured the weapon.

If people transport a sword to and from a martial arts class, they should keep the sword in the case when they aren't actually using it. Walking around with a sword, real or fake so long as it looks real, out in the open in public will make people feel threatened.

Of course it matters. Integrity is important to me.

Focusing on the weapon is irrelevant? That just seems odd to me. Of course you focus on the weapon. A guy got killed, yes he did. But we have to try and explain why it happened. Did the guy charge the police with a sword? Did the police get jumpy and shoot a guy, because they were fearful of the sword? The weapon definitely matters in understanding the situation. I think one of the bigger issues here is that the shots were in the back.

Now, if the guy had say a pool noodle, we would be facing a whole different situation.

Well I'm not questioning of what you been saying to others, I putting you in a situation if you were on the case, don't you think as person in the force should have some ideas on what may have happen base on info we have now.

Or are you a rookie cop?

Just out of curiosity, has that been definitively proven?

The article in the original post says, "But Hunt’s lawyer says an independent autopsy shows Hunt was shot in the back and not in the front". I see that a few people have posted videos. I can't watch videos right now, so maybe those videos have proof. But I'm just asking...has it definitively been proven that he was shot in the back? Have the results of that autopsy been confirmed by the police? Who performed this independent autopsy, and have his/her results been verified by impartial experts?

The only reason I ask is...it's certainly obvious that we can't take for granted the police department's claim that the man was shot while lunging at officers. That's clearly a biased conclusion. However, there seems to be an equal bias in the lawyer for the man's family saying that he commissioned an independent autopsy which shows he was shot in the back. One claim is coming from the police, the other claim is coming from the lawyer of the man's family, and I'm not inclined to trust either of those claims. Can someone post to some actual verification of what happened (preferably not in video form, since I can't watch videos right now)?

Oh, I didn't realize that it was up for debate actually. I guess I merely took it at face value. The police may say one thing, and an independent autopsy may say another; but, where is the actual medical examiner's report then?

Just we have to wait to see how it pans out then. I guess I'll rephrase my statement: IF the shots were in the back, it will look bad for the police.

Last_Ride has a really weird perspective and logic on pretty much anything... so don't be too shocked.

what the ****...

@whipassmt: Real or not, that makes it ok to shoot the guy 6 times in the back?