http://news.yahoo.com/miami-police-kill-naked-man-bit-off-victims-161203612.html

 

"The guy just stood, his head up... with pieces of flesh in his mouth and growled," Vega said, and would not stop eating the victim's face.

 

It has begun!

On the less-serious note, this comment made me laugh hysterically.

 

The mistake was taking the zombie attack victim to the hospital while still alive. This is where ground zero will happen. Everyone keep your guns loaded and your baseball bats ready. Remember to go for the head.

So the officer was suppose to let him continue to eat this guys face to death? He surely wasnt stopping on his own . The police did the right thing. Its unfortunate but the victim is still alive . The whole incident is horrifying .

 

No... he was supposed to do what police officers are supposed to do and call in back-up, and restrain the attacker until the back-up arrives and the arrest is able to be made.

Police can't just go around shooting people, even violent criminals who are attacking someone. Police shouldn't even use their guns except as a last resort... now I don't know the situation at all but that attacker wasn't even armed. He more than likely could have been restrained and taken into custody.

Heard of the news, I really wish it was a real zombie attack though lol.

 

MY GUNS ARE READY!

No... he was supposed to do what police officers are supposed to do and call in back-up, and restrain the attacker until the back-up arrives and the arrest is able to be made.

Police can't just go around shooting people, even violent criminals who are attacking someone. Police shouldn't even use their guns except as a last resort... now I don't know the situation at all but that attacker wasn't even armed. He more than likely could have been restrained and taken into custody.

 

This guy wasnt stopping . The victim is barely alive now . If the police had waited any longer the victim would be dead . So you are saying the attackers life is more valuable than the victims ? Please . The victim is barely alive now . If the officer waited any longer he would be dead for sure . .Lets use logic here . The attacker wasnt the victim .His life wasnt worth more than the victims.By almost killing his victim , the police had no choice . It was the victims life or the attacker ...Newsflash, the police DO have the right to shoot when a life is at stake ...Surely the attacker wouldve killed the victim for sure if he hadnt been shot . The victim is BARELY alive now.

This guy wasnt stopping . The victim is barely alive now . If the police had waited any longer the victim would be dead . So you are saying the attackers life is more valuable than the victims ? Please . The victim is barely alive now . If the officer waited any longer he would be dead for sure . .Lets use logic here . The attacker wasnt the victim .His life wasnt worth more than the victims.By almost killing his victim , the police had no choice . It was the victims life or the attacker ...Newsflash, the police DO have the right to shoot when a life is at stake ...Surely the attacker wouldve killed the victim for sure if he hadnt been shot . The victim is BARELY alive now.

 

First off, the attacker would not have been able to kill the victim if the police officer had restrained him. Restraining the attacker would not have ended any worse than killing him. I'm not at all saying he should have called in back-up and then stand around doing nothing while watching the attacker kill the victim...

Second, I don't judge the value of peoples's lives but there's no indication of who's life was more "valuable". The attacker was high on drugs... nothing that he did was any indication of how good or bad of a person he was. And we don't know anything about the victim either... the fact that he was attacked does not automatically make him a better person than his attacker (who's perception was obviously altered).

Third, for all we know the victim did start the attack, causing the attacker to go into a rage. Now I'm not at all saying that he did... I'm saying that the police officer had no idea. And you can't say "a victim would never have taken it that far and eaten another man's flesh" or "a victim would have stopped when the officer told him to" because the man was high on drugs. Of course he won't react in the way you'd expect...

Lastly, yes, police officers are allowed to shoot people who are about to kill someone / in the process of killing someone... but they shouldn't (and probably aren't allowed to) shoot people if they are able to handle the situation in a different way (which again, I don't know the details of this situation. But it looks like he could have been able to restrain the attacker, preventing him from killing the other guy without killing him)

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

First off, the attacker would not have been able to kill the victim if the police officer had restrained him. Restraining the attacker would not have ended any worse than killing him. I'm not at all saying he should have called in back-up and then stand around doing nothing while watching the attacker kill the victim...

Second, I don't judge the value of peoples's lives but there's no indication of who's life was more "valuable". The attacker was high on drugs... nothing that he did was any indication of how good or bad of a person he was. And we don't know anything about the victim either... the fact that he was attacked does not automatically make him a better person than his attacker (who's perception was obviously altered).

Third, for all we know the victim did start the attack and the attacker went into a rage. Now I'm not at all saying that he did... I'm saying that the police officer had no idea. And you can't say "a victim would never have taken it that far and eaten another man's flesh" or "a victim would have stopped when the officer told him to" because the man was high on drugs. Of course he won't react in the way you'd expect...

Lastly, yes, police officers are allowed to shoot people who are about to kill someone / in the process of killing someone... but they shouldn't (and probably aren't allowed to) shoot people if they are able to handle the situation in a different way (which again, I don't know the details of this situation. But it looks like he could have been able to restrain the attacker, preventing him from killing the other guy without killing him)

 

First off, the police guessed it MIGHT be drugs . This isnt a proven factor . Secondly , since the victim is in critical condition barely alive he certainly was in danger of being killed . How can you say someone cant be killed by this ? He's already almost there . What makes you think the police officer COULDVE restrained him ? The guy was outta control and a threat to the public as well. The attacker was a threat to not only the victim but to the public .Furthermore , the victim wasnt a threat to anyones life but the attacker sure was . By the time back up wouldve been there the victim wouldve died and the attacker couldve attacked yet another person . It amazes me that you are acting like the officer was wrong to try to save the victims life and possibly prevent the attacker from attacking anyone else .Use some common sense . If the officer thought this guy was gonna stop he probably wouldnt have shot him .I bet if that victim was you or a member of your family you wouldnt be saying this shit . Its rediculous to defend the attacker and villainize a police officer for saving the victims life .And your biggest reasoning is that the attacker was on drugs when its not even proven that he was .For all they know hes just some psycho acting irrational. The victim wasnt a threat to anyone .The attacker was .

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

First off, the police guessed it MIGHT be drugs . This isnt a proven factor . Secondly , since the victim is in critical condition barely alive he certainly was in danger of being killed . How can you say someone cant be killed by this ? He's already almost there . What makes you think the police officer COULDVE restrained him ? The guy was outta control and a threat to the public as well. The attacker was a threat to not only the victim but to the public .Furthermore , the victim wasnt a threat to anyones life but the attacker sure was . By the time back up wouldve been there the victim wouldve died and the attacker couldve attacked yet another person . It amazes me that you are acting like the officer was wrong to try to save the victims life and possibly prevent the attacker from attacking anyone else .Use some common sense . If the officer thought this guy was gonna stop he probably wouldnt have shot him .I bet if that victim was you or a member of your family you wouldnt be saying this shit . Its rediculous to defend the attacker and villainize a police officer for saving the victims life .And your biggest reasoning is that the attacker was on drugs when its not even proven that he was .For all they know hes just some psycho acting irrational. The victim wasnt a threat to anyone .The attacker was .

 

Umm... I never said that the victim's life was not threatened. And neither did I say that he would have stopped on his own.

 

What I said was that the attacker could not have killed the victim if he was not in contact with the victim. If he was restrained then he wouldn't still be on the victim, gnawing on his face. And neither would he have been out attacking someone else.

 

And if he had waited for backup to arrive then it would have had no effect on the victim living or dieing. Once the attacker was removed from the victim (whether he was shot dead or restrained) then the victim would still have to wait for the ambulance... killing the guy isn't going to make the ambulance arrive any more quickly.

 

What makes me think he could have been restrained?

Well, first off, he was unarmed. If a police officer is able to tackle a man armed with a knife or a gun and take him into custody then why could a completely unarmed man not have been able to be dealt with? If he resists arrest and won't snap out of the frenzy then why not shoot him with a taser or something?

 

As for him being on drugs... the way I see it, either he was on drugs, he was criminally insane (which I suppose you're implying by calling him "psycho"), or he was an evil man who chose to commit the act.

Drugs - not his fault (although he'd still need to be held responsible)

Insane - not his fault (and he wouldn't be responsible... instead he'd be sent to the asylum)

Murder - entirely his fault

How do we tell the difference? That's what a trial is for...

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

Umm... I never said that the victim's life was not threatened. And neither did I say that he would have stopped on his own.

 

What I said was that the attacker could not have killed the victim if he was not in contact with the victim. If he was restrained then he wouldn't still be on the victim, gnawing on his face. And neither would he have been out attacking someone else.

 

And if he had waited for backup to arrive then it would have had no effect on the victim living or dieing. Once the attacker was removed from the victim (whether he was shot dead or restrained) then the victim would still have to wait for the ambulance... killing the guy isn't going to make the ambulance arrive any more quickly.

 

What makes me think he could have been restrained?

Well, first off, he was unarmed. If a police officer is able to tackle a man armed with a knife or a gun and take him into custody then why could a completely unarmed man not have been able to be dealt with? If he resists arrest and won't snap out of the frenzy then why not shoot him with a taser or something?

 

As for him being on drugs... the way I see it, either he was on drugs, he was criminally insane (which I suppose you're implying by calling him "psycho"), or he was an evil man who chose to commit the act.

Drugs - not his fault (although he'd still need to be held responsible)

Insane - not his fault (and he wouldn't be responsible... instead he'd be sent to the asylum)

Murder - entirely his fault

How do we tell the difference? That's what a trial is for...

 

 

You missed my point entirely . What makes you think this guy couldve been restrained by this one officer ? He was attacking in an irrational violent frenzy. He couldve also killed the officer if he tried to take him on by himself .So then you have TWO victims plus anyone else he could attack after . He was a dangerous public threat . If the officer thought he couldve restrained him he probably wouldve . Obviously he thought he couldnt . What in the world makes you think it was that easy or simple? He was there, you werent . Yet you assume this couldve been easily handled and the officer was the big bad guy. You can judge his actions when you are in his position .Oh wait , you arent .He did his job.Its very easy to say what you think he couldve done when you werent there dealing with it .

You missed my point entirely . What makes you think this guy couldve been restrained by this one officer ?

I believe that I had already answered that...

Well, first off, he was unarmed. If a police officer is able to tackle a man armed with a knife or a gun and take him into custody then why could a completely unarmed man not have been able to be dealt with? If he resists arrest and won't snap out of the frenzy then why not shoot him with a taser or something?

Police have special training... that's how they are able to take down a man twice their size or a man armed with a weapon without being killed themselves. Now this attacker... he was not a super-human or anything. He was not immortal / invincible / invulnerable. Why would the laws of physics which apply to other criminals and to other attackers not apply to this man?

 

In addition to training, police carry non-lethal weapons such as tasers (which would could have easily incapacitated the attacker).

Surely he could have done something rather than shoot the man (which is excessive force and not at all part of his job)

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

I believe that I had already answered that...

 

Police have special training... that's how they are able to take down a man twice their size or a man armed with a weapon without being killed themselves. Now this attacker... he was not a super-human or anything. He was not immortal / invincible / invulnerable. Why would the laws of physics which apply to other criminals and to other attackers not apply to this man?

 

In addition to training, police carry non-lethal weapons such as tasers (which would could have easily incapacitated the attacker).

Surely he could have done something rather than shoot the man (which is excessive force and not at all part of his job)

 

 

And i already said this : The officer in the situation obviously didnt think restraining him was an option/ possible. Since you think this is so easy and simplistic, next time you see some homicidal maniac eating a mans face off , you can be the first person to be the hero and restrain him and protect the public.If the officer was in the wrong , he would be investigated .Pure and simple . I dont see this happening so whats that say ? Its easy to judge what you wouldve done sitting behind a computer screen safe inside your home , isnt it ? Oh and you act like police officers are of superhuman strength and skill that can take any irrationally violent threat with ease with their police training . They are human just like everyone else , training included.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

And i already said this : The officer in the situation obviously didnt think restraining him was an option/ possible. Since you think this is so easy and simplistic, next time you see some homicidal maniac eating a mans face off , you can be the first person to be the hero and restrain him and protect the public.If the officer was in the wrong , he would be investigated .Pure and simple . I dont see this happening so whats that say ? Its easy to judge what you wouldve done sitting behind a computer screen safe inside your home , isnt it ?

 

Of course I won't "play the hero"... I am not a police officer... I have no training other than a few karate lessons and I certainly don't carry around any sort of nonlethal weapons (or any weapons for that matter).

You can say that the situation called for it all you want but the fact remains... you were not there. Your idea of what happened is just as good as my idea of what happened. As for investigating the officer... who knows? That happened Saturday... even if an investigation was underway then it wouldn't be in the news yet. I'm just going by what's in the article... there could very well be more to the story than what we see (for example, for all any of us know the police officer may very well have attempted to stop the attacker before resorting to his gun...)

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

Of course I won't "play the hero"... I am not a police officer... I have no training other than a few karate lessons and I certainly don't carry around any sort of nonlethal weapons (or any weapons for that matter).

You can say that the situation called for it all you want but the fact remains... you were not there. Your idea of what happened is just as good as my idea of what happened. As for investigating the officer... who knows? That happened Saturday... even if an investigation was underway then it wouldn't be in the news yet. I'm just going by what's in the article... there could very well be more to the story than what we see (for example, for all any of us know the police officer did attempt to stop the attacker before resorting to his gun...)

 

That was my whole point from the beginning -- we werent there so who are you to judge ? You cant honestly say he did the wrong thing bc you werent there .. Period.. Yet here you are posting he was wrong. You dont know that.

let's go CoD Zombies! Wheres my Ray Gun?!

 

Bitch please

Left 4 Dead

That was my whole point from the beginning -- we werent there so who are you to judge ? You cant honestly say he did the wrong thing bc you werent there .. Period.. Yet here you are posting he was wrong. You dont know that.

 

That's a bit hypocritical considering that you too are judging the police officer's actions without being there and knowing for sure that he did the right thing.

I was not saying outright that he was wrong, I was posting that based on the information from the article he should not have shot the guy (which makes it seem like a case of excessive force or a "shoot first and deal with it later" scenario). I even said (twice) that I didn't know anything about the situation other than what's in the article... of course if the situation was different then what I've been saying cannot be applied to the situation.

I saw this and i was like wtf ZOMBIES ARE REAL?!?! O_O

That's a bit hypocritical considering that you too are judging the police officer's actions without being there and knowing for sure that he did the right thing.

I was not saying outright that he was wrong, I was posting that based on the information from the article he should not have shot the guy (which makes it seem like a case of excessive force or a "shoot first and deal with it later" scenario). I even said (twice) that I didn't know anything about the situation other than what's in the article... of course if the situation was different then what I've been saying cannot be applied to the situation.

 

Not really .I wasnt judging the guys actions wrong based off the article like you were. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he judged the situation as he saw fit ( and that he was trained to ). You judged him like he was basically murdering this attacker outta laziness when he had all these supposed other options YET YOU WERENT THERE TO SAY OTHERWISE. Its easy to say what you would do behind a computer screen isnt it ? Funny shit .

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

Not really .I wasnt judging the guys actions wrong based off the article like you were. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he judged the situation as he saw fit ( and that he was trained to ). You judged him like he was basically murdering this attacker outta laziness when he had all these supposed other options YET YOU WERENT THERE TO SAY OTHERWISE. Its easy to say what you would do behind a computer screen isnt it ? Funny shit .

 

You were judging his actions as right (i.e. the opposite of wrong) based on non-existent information which was not even in the article. Makes no sense really.

It's one thing to say that he should be given the benefit of the doubt since neither of us were there... it's completely different to do as you did and say "you're wrong because the officer was clearly in the right" when you yourself were not there and have no idea if he even was in the right or not.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

You were judging his actions as right (i.e. the opposite of wrong) based on non-existent information which was not even in the article. Makes no sense really.

It's one thing to say that he should be given the benefit of the doubt since neither of us were there... it's completely different to do as you did and say "you're wrong because the officer was clearly in the right" when you yourself were not there and have no idea if he even was in the right or not.

 

Im saying he was there, he knew the full details' circumstances/ possibillities .Therefore until proven otherwise , he was right. You , on the other hand, are automatically assuming there was a better way and it definitely avoidable.Then you say , based on his training, he shouldve done differently when in turn , you dont know if the decision he made was protocol from his very training. . In other words you are judging his actions when you yourself dont know the police protocol and are saying this from the safety of your computer screen . Its easy to say what you would do when you arent there . Its another thing to say what one should do when in the actual situation.( which you arent ).. Who are YOU to say what shoulda been done ? You werent there and yet you are saying this guy basically murdered the attacker. Then you say , oh well, the cop mightve tried other options. Im allowing this possibility from the start . You , assumed from the beginning that this was never done after i point out that he made his decision based off of what he himself saw as the circumstances. Yet you still dont get this . I didnt judge him , i gave him the benefit of the doubt. You automatically judged him wrong. Fail

I literally just read about about this on an article linked on facebook... Apparently the guy had some 'bad LSD' or something. Regardless of what he was on though, he still deserved to be shot; I mean he ate the other man's nose & eyeballs out and wouldn't stop when asked to, c'mon. x_x The police officer definitely did the right thing, it's not like he didn't give the guy a chance.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xalaru

Dead Rising 4: REAL LIFE has begun

I literally just read about about this on an article linked on facebook... Apparently the guy had some 'bad LSD' or something. Regardless of what he was on though, he still deserved to be shot; I mean he ate the other man's nose & eyeballs out and wouldn't stop when asked to, c'mon. x_x The police officer definitely did the right thing, it's not like he didn't give the guy a chance.

 

I agree..Also just to clarify, the police suspected it might be drugs but its not proven for sure yet .( although it definitely appears most likely)

I agree..Also just to clarify, the police suspected it might be drugs but its not proven for sure yet .( although it definitely appears most likely)

 

Yeah, I'm just basing it on what I read. I hope he WAS on something, it'd be even worse if he did it whilst somewhat sane.

Yeah, I'm just basing it on what I read. I hope he WAS on something, it'd be even worse if he did it whilst somewhat sane.

 

Yep i agree.. Scary thought isnt it ?

Yep i agree.. Scary thought isnt it ?

 

Yeah... just hope it doesn't start to become a habit/trend. I'm still not seeing the appeal of chewing someone's face off.

Dead Rising 4: REAL LIFE has begun

 

LMAO