O lawd, PS3 thief shot to death by police

[Sheeny]

They had an arrest warrant for a suspect in an armed robbery, quit playing dumb and saying all he did was have a controller in his hand.

An arrest warrant doesn't make you guilty of a crime. It means theres enough evidence for them to take you in for questioning / hold you in a cell.

And yes, all he did at the time of being killed was get up with a controller in his hand.

You and I had been talking about the presumptions, not convictions in a court of law.
Suspect was presumed to be dangerous. No denying that no matter how you spin what he was doing at the time of their arrival. Just like you said, there's enough evidence for them to arrest him - and by the same token, believe him to be dangerous.
Typical police departments don't have X-Ray goggles yet to see through walls and know he was playing video games - all they had to go on was that they were there to arrest someone presumed to be dangerous and prepared accordingly.

If the only point you're making is that having a controller in your hand is no reason to be shot and killed, well no shit. No one's arguing that.

[aurik]

I didn't see this anywhere on the thread, but apparently the police were on high alert because [b]they said[b] they had pictures of the other suspect with assault rifles and shotguns. I heard it on the radio today (local NPR round up, so it's legit).

Police make a lot of CYA statements. It's only recently with the prevalence of video cameras that some of their excuses have been foiled.

For example, if the air force dude that I linked earlier had not been filmed obeying the PO's commands before being shot 3 times, do you think that this case would have gotten a second thought? "He came at me as he got up, reaching for his back pocket..."

Even in the recent groom shooting in NY, the police are claiming they identified themselves while witnesses to the situation say otherwise.

[Axil]

I think we all know where this thread is going and a picture speaks a thousand words:

http://www.sfist.com/attachments/sfi...a-straight.jpg

[Jer]

He didn't commit armed robbery. That quote was to cover their asses, he was suspected of beating the guy.

Oh, see I didn't know that this was a work of fiction where we all got to make up stuff to add to the story. If you're changing it on a whim to "the cops lied" then I'm gonna add in that the suspect rappelled off the roof flinging poisoned ninja stars while shouting, "here's your patriot act!" Seventeen SWAT members died at the scene and the PS3 was confiscated as evidence and taken to the Police Chief's office where he plays Tiger Wood's Golf on it.
Now we're all on the same page.

Oh, but you do. Read the story again. Then, try reading it more slowly. He didn't commit armed robbery. He committed aggravated assault while committing a robbery. Nowhere except for that little piece you pulled out does it even mention armed robbery.

Edit: Look this way at the quote you used obviously without thinking about it. A man watches a cook peel apples before cutting them up. The man asks the head cook why. Head cook answers, 'We peel all apples and oranges before we cut them.' It doesn't mean the cook cut up both apples and oranges. It's a blanket statement. Comprehension is a wonderful thing.

[edgarfigaro]

I didn't see this anywhere on the thread, but apparently the police were on high alert because [b]they said[b] they had pictures of the other suspect with assault rifles and shotguns. I heard it on the radio today (local NPR round up, so it's legit).

Police make a lot of CYA statements. It's only recently with the prevalence of video cameras that some of their excuses have been foiled.

For example, if the air force dude that I linked earlier had not been filmed obeying the PO's commands before being shot 3 times, do you think that this case would have gotten a second thought? "He came at me as he got up, reaching for his back pocket..."

Even in the recent groom shooting in NY, the police are claiming they identified themselves while witnesses to the situation say otherwise.

I just got the paper for today, that's not a CYA statement, it was on the warrant. http://www.newsobserver.com/1419/story/518014.html

Oh, but you do. Read the story again. Then, try reading it more slowly. He didn't commit armed robbery. He committed aggravated assault while committing a robbery. Nowhere except for that little piece you pulled out does it even mention armed robbery.

"Mills has been charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.

Strickland would have faced the same charges." from the article linked to above

robbery with a dangerous weapon =| armed robbery? Mmmkay. I'm not saying that the police were right; in fact I really think they fucked up. However, misrepresenting the case is one way to cut yourself off at the knees. This was a fucked up situation, and the police screwed up. However, the guy brought it upon himself...let this be a reminder that you are judged by the character of your company.

[aurik]

I didn't see this anywhere on the thread, but apparently the police were on high alert because [b]they said[b] they had pictures of the other suspect with assault rifles and shotguns. I heard it on the radio today (local NPR round up, so it's legit).

Police make a lot of CYA statements. It's only recently with the prevalence of video cameras that some of their excuses have been foiled.

For example, if the air force dude that I linked earlier had not been filmed obeying the PO's commands before being shot 3 times, do you think that this case would have gotten a second thought? "He came at me as he got up, reaching for his back pocket..."

Even in the recent groom shooting in NY, the police are claiming they identified themselves while witnesses to the situation say otherwise.

I just got the paper for today, that's not a CYA statement, it was on the warrant. http://www.newsobserver.com/1419/story/518014.html

Oh, but you do. Read the story again. Then, try reading it more slowly. He didn't commit armed robbery. He committed aggravated assault while committing a robbery. Nowhere except for that little piece you pulled out does it even mention armed robbery.

"Mills has been charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.

Strickland would have faced the same charges." from the article linked to above

robbery with a dangerous weapon =| armed robbery? Mmmkay. I'm not saying that the police were right; in fact I really think they fucked up. However, misrepresenting the case is one way to cut yourself off at the knees. This was a fucked up situation, and the police screwed up. However, the guy brought it upon himself...let this be a reminder that you are judged by the character of your company.

It doesn't change the fact that police make a LOT of CYA statements. On warrants or otherwise. The only burden on themselves is they have to later espouse to have believed it to be true at the time.

[Jer]

I didn't see this anywhere on the thread, but apparently the police were on high alert because [b]they said[b] they had pictures of the other suspect with assault rifles and shotguns. I heard it on the radio today (local NPR round up, so it's legit).

Police make a lot of CYA statements. It's only recently with the prevalence of video cameras that some of their excuses have been foiled.

For example, if the air force dude that I linked earlier had not been filmed obeying the PO's commands before being shot 3 times, do you think that this case would have gotten a second thought? "He came at me as he got up, reaching for his back pocket..."

Even in the recent groom shooting in NY, the police are claiming they identified themselves while witnesses to the situation say otherwise.

I just got the paper for today, that's not a CYA statement, it was on the warrant. http://www.newsobserver.com/1419/story/518014.html

Oh, but you do. Read the story again. Then, try reading it more slowly. He didn't commit armed robbery. He committed aggravated assault while committing a robbery. Nowhere except for that little piece you pulled out does it even mention armed robbery.

"Mills has been charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.

Strickland would have faced the same charges." from the article linked to above

robbery with a dangerous weapon =| armed robbery? Mmmkay. I'm not saying that the police were right; in fact I really think they fucked up. However, misrepresenting the case is one way to cut yourself off at the knees. This was a fucked up situation, and the police screwed up. However, the guy brought it upon himself...let this be a reminder that you are judged by the character of your company.

Holy shit! I must have completely missed that part of the article. Oh wait... I didn't. It was not in the original article which is what I said was based on, the only mention they made was he beat the shit out of someone. There was no mention of him showing or threatening with a weapon. I said that to read the article again. I say that to you now, and quote what you just did from that.

[Sheeny]

I didn't see this anywhere on the thread, but apparently the police were on high alert because [b]they said[b] they had pictures of the other suspect with assault rifles and shotguns. I heard it on the radio today (local NPR round up, so it's legit).

Police make a lot of CYA statements. It's only recently with the prevalence of video cameras that some of their excuses have been foiled.

For example, if the air force dude that I linked earlier had not been filmed obeying the PO's commands before being shot 3 times, do you think that this case would have gotten a second thought? "He came at me as he got up, reaching for his back pocket..."

Even in the recent groom shooting in NY, the police are claiming they identified themselves while witnesses to the situation say otherwise.

I just got the paper for today, that's not a CYA statement, it was on the warrant. http://www.newsobserver.com/1419/story/518014.html

Oh, but you do. Read the story again. Then, try reading it more slowly. He didn't commit armed robbery. He committed aggravated assault while committing a robbery. Nowhere except for that little piece you pulled out does it even mention armed robbery.

"Mills has been charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle.

Strickland would have faced the same charges." from the article linked to above

robbery with a dangerous weapon =| armed robbery? Mmmkay. I'm not saying that the police were right; in fact I really think they fucked up. However, misrepresenting the case is one way to cut yourself off at the knees. This was a fucked up situation, and the police screwed up. However, the guy brought it upon himself...let this be a reminder that you are judged by the character of your company.

Holy shit! I must have completely missed that part of the article. Oh wait... I didn't. It was not in the original article which is what I said was based on, the only mention they made was he beat the shit out of someone. There was no mention of him showing or threatening with a weapon. I said that to read the article again. I say that to you now, and quote what you just did from that.

What does the difference between charges of "Aggravated Assault + Robbery" and "Armed Robbery" really make in this discussion? Changes nothing no matter which set of those charges you put into any part of the article. They both equate into "Dangerous Individual". It's all semantics, may as well argue over whether one of the officers was a Captain or a Lieutenant or a member of the Star Onion Brigade; just derailing from the points.

[Xavier]

The fact of the matter is that a man was being charged with a crime, confronted at his house, and killed while holding a PS3 controller.

Maybe its some sort of divine justice that the very controller he stole is the reason he was killed, I don't know. Its certainely a bit ironic.

[Axil]

The fact of the matter is that a man was being charged with a crime, confronted at his house, and killed while holding a PS3 controller.

Maybe its some sort of divine justice that the very controller he stole is the reason he was killed, I don't know. Its certainely a bit ironic.

ur a ironic !

[Xavier]

no u r

[Anyway]

NO U

[Rocl]

ur mom

[Charitwo]

ur lamp

[Tekki]

ur a towel

[Rocl]

wut a tool

[Xavier]

LOUD NOISES

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

i love chair

[Scythiroth]

i love dr pepper

[Tekki]

should make a poll to see if thats considered a gurly drink or not