The story you posted says it was a glock. I haven’t seen any picture of it. A glock looks a lot different from a tec 9.
However, what I do know is that there wasn’t any indication of him pulling it out while the cop was chasing him… which makes its existence somewhat immaterial regarding whether the cop was justified in shooting him.
Here is the photo of the gun from the article’s gallery, released by the police. A glock w/ an extended magazine could be mistaken for a Tec-9: https://i1.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Screen-Shot-2018-06-15-at-8.00.25-AM.png?w=596&ssl=1
The indication he pulled it out is the cop says on the bodycamera, “He had a gun, looked like a Tec-9” or whatever. The gun they found (pictured above) resembles a Tec-9. And presumably he was holding it, because (a) that would be the easiest way for the cop to see it; (b) they would explain it sliding away when he fell. But other than that, it’s just not easy to tell.
Again, the fact that he had a gun doesn’t actually matter.
There’s no indication that he pulled a gun on that footage.
Uh, no it doesn’t.
There’s no indication that the guy pulled it out while running. At all. And the cop shot at him, one handed while running, on a busy street.
That is bad policing all the way around. The cop was the primary threat to other civilians in that situation. He endangered passers by, for no apparent reason.
The long, large-capacity magazine and grip absolutely could be confused reasonably with a Tec-9 from a distance in a split second, which is what we are talking about here. Regardless, I don’t know who was at fault here, because the video does not really show the key moment. The interesting thing to me is just the innate bias of the crowd that formed immediately afterwards.
Why do you think it was bias? Maybe the crowd saw what we saw, a guy fleeing down a sidewalk, and a cop firing wildly at him, endangering their lives.
Even if that’s the case, and all of those bystanders all had a good enough view to conduct the equivalent of a comprehensive use of force investigation on the spot, their behavior actually endangered both the cop and the shooting victim, who needed first aid and could have been dying while they crowded the scene. That’s a pretty strong, irrational hatred working there.
Why is irrational?
I think the violent crimes San Francisco ordinarily deals with has far more to do with gang members illegally carrying Glocks with laser-sights and extended magazines than it does the police officers who occasionally make poor split-second decisions on use of force. In that light, it’s odd that people reflexively blame the police in this situation, in which it’s pretty clear they simply don’t have all the facts. Even now, with the benefit of body camera footage, we don’t have all the facts. In any event, taking out your hatred of police in this instance – when it actively impedes medical help for a gunshot victim – is irrational almost on its face.
Cop was reckless and endangered everyone. I’m sure you would have been cool as a cucumber standing in the path of a hail of bullets.
Haven’t you been paying attention?
The videos do not appear to show Barcenas holding a gun. Nor do they show officers retrieving a pistol from him. Police later released a photo of the gun he was allegedly carrying.
I think people are jumping to conclusions because of such preponderance of evidence against the police that continues to accumulate that shows collusion where all the police kept quite until confronted with the videos.
We haven’t seen an uncut video of them finding the gun.
But like Timex stated, I think about 3 times, and you refuse to answer, is that the police officer should never have discharged his weapon in that crowd like that. Gross negligence.
But they never recovered a gun in the case you link in Sacramento. They found a gun here. How many cases are there of police planting firearms on people in shooting cases? That would be pretty extraordinary. I’m thinking the concern there may not be based on much evidence.
As for whether he should have shot at someone on a sidewalk, I think it still depends on what was going on with the gun. The body camera footage is just not good. Is the implication that even if he saw the guy pulling out a pistol, and even if he felt he was waving it dangerously or even pointing it backwards, he could not return fire because he was on a sidewalk? Is that really police procedure? I’d imagine it’s a case by case thing.
A shit load?
Wow, that Vice article cites the Tamar Rice shooting. He was literally on video holding the BB gun – is the implication the cops planted it in his hand before they arrived?
I didn’t know about the St. Louis case and the Baltimore testimony. Still this strikes me as blowing two isolated cases out of proportion, and casting doubt on all cops everywhere as a result. Those kind of unfounded stereotypes or generalizations are not okay, whether it’s the cops or any other group.
It’s not an unfounded stereotype.
The cop in this case irresponsibly and dangerously shot multiple times at a fleeing suspect on a busy street. No evidence of a gun can be seen in the video, nor is it recovered at any point during the recording… but without that gun the cop could be in a lot of trouble.
We are right to be suspicious.
That was only on the first page of my quick google search.
I mean, I assume you can use Google.
I think that first incident you provide was in Canada, but anyway, what it looks like is we have three confirmed instances in the US of cops planting guns going back to 2012, with some testimony suggesting corrupt cops planted guns in multiple instances. If we can agree that’s an extremely small fraction of US cops, does the suspicion of the police come from something more than these limited numbers? Is there something else at play – maybe an innate dislike or distrust for the kind of personality that might become a cop, or cops themselves, who by their very nature must focus more on rules and enforcement, rather than emotion and empathy?
Yes, anything I didn’t do for you didn’t happen.
Since I didn’t Google up the Holocaust, that also didn’t happen. 9/11? Didn’t happen because I didn’t Google it for you. World War 2? Didn’t happen.
LOL.
Yeah, I’m done with this interaction. At least pretend to try.
Not if he was holding it, as you suggested. Seriously, the only similarity is… that it’s a gun, and has an extended clip. The orientation of the clip relative to a shooter’s hand is totally different.
Yeah, no. They do not look remotely similar. Like, it’s not even close.
Again though, moot, because:
The cop screwed up.
The more salient question is: why do you take the cop’s word for it without question, and also excuse without question his dangerous actions which are prominent in the video, and which were dangerous and irresponsible even if the suspect were armed?
This is easy: because it’s the opposite of what “the Left” is doing. If a Democrat is questioning whether police are becoming too militarized or if they maybe need to be more focused on DE-escalation rather than running in shooting, then the only proper response is to lionize the police and remove all criticality. They are always right, if only because Democrats think they are sometimes wrong.
It’s a tried-and-true playbook.
“Hey everyone, maybe we should look into this whole Climate Change thing?”
“Fuck you, libtard! Climate Change is a total hoax and instead we’re going to burn more coal!”
“Hey everyone, maybe we should look into common-sense regulations about gun ownership?”
“Fuck you, libtard! Dead schoolkids are the price we pay for freedom! Bump stocks for everyone!”