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!

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

 

And again, I'm saying that FROM THE DETAILS OF THE ARTICLE he did the wrong thing (meaning that if the events went down in any other way then my point does not apply). It is never police protocol to shoot first and ask questions later or to shoot at someone when doing so is not necesary. You saying that he was "right" without knowing the facts most certainly is judging his actions and not "simply giving the officer the benefit of the doubt".

From the article:

Police then approached the attacker and told him to stop eating the man's face but he continued to bite into the victim, reportedly a homeless man.

. . .

A police officer fired shots that hit the man, but the attacker kept chewing on the victim's flesh -- more shots were fired, eventually killing him, the Miami Herald said.

In other words, the police told the attacker to stop... and then when he did not stop then one officer began firing until the attacker died. No indication at all that the police did anything whatsoever before shooting other than tell the guy to stop (which was not going to help if the guy's perception of reality was distorted to the point of eating someone else's flesh... this man was obviously not thinking rationally). Furthermore, the article implies that there was more than one officer present... meaning that it is even less likely a case of "I wouldn't have been able to handle the situation in any other way".

 

If someone were to just give the police officer the benefit of the doubt, fine. But the benefit of the doubt doesn't indicate whether or not the officer was right... no reason to dismiss all suspicion.

You, on the other hand, are not doing that at all, but are instead insisting that there is no way that the police can possibly... make a mistake. Or break the law themselves. Basically do no wrong...

There is a huge difference between saying that you do not know what happened and saying that the officer WAS in the right.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

And again, I'm saying that FROM THE DETAILS OF THE ARTICLE he did the wrong thing (meaning that if the events went down in any other way then my point does not apply). It is never police protocol to shoot first and ask questions later or to shoot at someone when doing so is not necesary. You saying that he was "right" without knowing the facts most certainly is judging his actions and not "simply giving the officer the benefit of the doubt".

From the article:In other words, the police told the attacker to stop... and then when he did not stop then one officer began firing until the attacker died. No indication at all that the police did anything whatsoever before shooting other than tell the guy to stop (which was not going to help if the guy's perception of reality was distorted to the point of eating someone else's flesh... this man was obviously not thinking rationally). Furthermore, the article implies that there was more than one officer present... meaning that it is even less likely a case of "I wouldn't have been able to handle the situation in any other way".

 

If someone were to just give the police officer the benefit of the doubt, fine. But the benefit of the doubt doesn't indicate whether or not hte officer was right... no reason to dismiss all suspicion.

You, on the other hand, are not doing that at all, but are instead insisting that there is no way that the police can possibly... make a mistake. Or break the law themselves. Basically do no wrong...

 

Where did i say cops cant make a mistake or do no wrong ? Until proven they did something wrong , they have done nothing wrong . Same thing in trying cases in court , the burden of proof is on the prosecution . They need to prove beyond doubt guilt. You are judging guilt and wrongdoing without being there or even knowing what protocol is for this . You are villainizing the police for doing their jobs while victimizing the attacker .There were also witnesses to all this . Do you see them crying foul on the police ? No . Use some logic here . Like i said, all you are is a freakin' keyboard commando judging what you werent there to see ..You ALREADY JUDGED THE POLICE WRONG. You were the one saying that they definitely were wrong . FFS they had to shoot this guy how many times and he still didnt stop! You think that wasnt a huge issue ? The guy was outta control . Your reasoning is flawed . Until you can honestly say you couldve handled it better you have no right to judge .

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

Where did i say cops cant make a mistake or do no wrong ? Until proven they did something wrong , they have done nothing wrong . Same thing in trying cases in court , the burden of proof is on the prosecution . They need to prove beyond doubt guilt. You are judging guilt and wrongdoing without being there or even knowing what protocol is for this . You are villainizing the police for doing their jobs while victimizing the attacker .There were also witnesses to all this . Do you see them crying foul on the police ? No . Use some logic here . Like i said, all you are is a freakin' keyboard commando judging what you werent there to see ..You ALREADY JUDGED THE POLICE WRONG. You were the one saying that they definitely were wrong . FFS they had to shoot this guy how many times and he still didnt stop! You think that wasnt a huge issue ? The guy was outta control . Your reasoning is flawed . Until you can honestly say you couldve handled it better you have no right to judge .

 

I said that the police was wrong UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAPPENED AS INDICATED IN THE ARTICLE.

As far as proving beyond a reasonable doubt... yeah, that's to find him guilty and punish him for it. I'm not suggesting that he be punished without trial. But the trial cannot even occur if he is never accused of anything in the first place. The prosecution makes up half the trial... if there was no prosecution... no doubt at all that this officer was "in the right", then there would be no trial.

You yourself admit that the police are not infallible. If the police can make mistakes and break the law and this appears to be a case of just that, then this should be taken to trial and dealt with. Or at least investigated (and it probably is under investigation... as is any death, even clearly accidental deaths)

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

I said that the police was wrong UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAPPENED AS INDICATED IN THE ARTICLE.

As far as proving beyond a reasonable doubt... yeah, that's to find him guilty and punish him for it. I'm not suggesting that he be punished without trial. But the trial cannot even occur if he is never accused of anything in the first place. The prosecution makes up half the trial... if there was no prosecution... no doubt at all that this officer was "in the right", then there would be no trial.

You yourself admit that the police are not infallible. If the police can make mistakes and break the law and this appears to be a case of just that, then this should be taken to trial and dealt with. Or at least investigated (and it probably is under investigation... as is any death, even clearly accidental deaths)

 

There has been no indication that there should even be an investigation. There obviously will be a report taken . This is protocol . There was nothing even remotely reported of wrongdoing on the polices part . Therefore you cant accuse wrongdoing .Also , the media reports arent even indicative of what exactly happened .So you cant even say what was or was NOT done period.. I doubt if you were the officer you wouldve thrown yourself on top of the attacker instead of shooting . Matter of fact , someone who kept eating after multiple shots wasnt gonna stop if attempts of physical restraint were applied .The officers wouldve risked self injury or death and they have rights too..They did what they had to do .

This is just... weird. Like an April Fools Day article, but... not written on April 1.

A guy ate another guy's face... and as if that wasn't weird enough, he was naked? And there's more... the victim was also naked?! And to add to all that, the police killed the attacker instead of taking him into custody?!

Really, that officer shouldn't have killed him... especially if he was high on drugs and not in control of his actions at the time...

 

If someone was gnawing on my face, I would be very upset if he wasn't shot outright.

 

The guy couldn't obey/refused to obey instructions and was putting his victim and the officers in immediate danger. He had to be shot.

If someone was gnawing on my face, I would be very upset if he wasn't shot outright.

 

The guy couldn't obey/refused to obey instructions and was putting his victim and the officers in immediate danger. He had to be shot.

 

THANK YOU ! fred i love you !

If someone was gnawing on my face, I would be very upset if he wasn't shot outright.

 

The guy couldn't obey/refused to obey instructions and was putting his victim and the officers in immediate danger. He had to be shot.

 

And that is why the courts and juries aren't run by the victims / the victim's families.

Justice is not about revenge. You don't sentence someone to death simply because not seeing that person dead would make you "very upset".

Now consider the attacker's crime. He did not kill anyone (but obviously would have if the police did not show up), either way, attempted murder and assault and drug crimes and whatever else he would have been charged with are not crimes punishable by death. Even if the victim had died then it may not be enough to sentence the attacker to death (as most murderers receive prison time or life in prison rather than the death penalty). And this specific case (if the attacker was high on drugs) may very well have fallen under "manslaughter" (a lesser crime than cold-blooded murder).

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xenidal

And that is why the courts and juries aren't run by the victims / the victim's families.

Justice is not about revenge. You don't sentence someone to death simply because not seeing that person dead would make you "very upset".

Now consider the attacker's crime. He did not kill anyone (but obviously would have if the police did not show up), either way, attempted murder and assault and drug crimes and whatever else he would have been charged with are not crimes punishable by death. Even if the victim had died then it may not be enough to sentence the attacker to death (as most murderers receive prison time or life in prison rather than the death penalty). And this specific case (if the attacker was high on drugs) may very well have fallen under "manslaughter" (a lesser crime than cold-blooded murder).

 

He wasnt saying it was a punishment, he was saying it was the right action bc he was endangering the victim and the police ( actually the public too).FFS

And that is why the courts and juries aren't run by the victims / the victim's families.

Justice is not about revenge. You don't sentence someone to death simply because not seeing that person dead would make you "very upset".

Now consider the attacker's crime. He did not kill anyone (but obviously would have if the police did not show up), either way, attempted murder and assault and drug crimes and whatever else he would have been charged with are not crimes punishable by death. Even if the victim had died then it may not be enough to sentence the attacker to death (as most murderers receive prison time or life in prison rather than the death penalty). And this specific case (if the attacker was high on drugs) may very well have fallen under "manslaughter" (a lesser crime than cold-blooded murder).

 

I'm sure if it was someone you were close to that was getting their face chewed off, you might be a bit more likely to agree with Flaming Lea. The victim would've most likely died if the attacker hadn't been shot. They gave the attacker a warning, and drugs or not, he was a danger to the victim and possibly the police themselves, they could hardly allow him to continue and the first shot didn't even affect him. But hey, not my place to tell you what your opinion should be; each to their own.

Also, not trying to argue or anything, I'm just saying. So sorry if I've misunderstood something you've said.

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Xalaru

And that is why the courts and juries aren't run by the victims / the victim's families.

Justice is not about revenge. You don't sentence someone to death simply because not seeing that person dead would make you "very upset".

Now consider the attacker's crime. He did not kill anyone (but obviously would have if the police did not show up), either way, attempted murder and assault and drug crimes and whatever else he would have been charged with are not crimes punishable by death. Even if the victim had died then it may not be enough to sentence the attacker to death (as most murderers receive prison time or life in prison rather than the death penalty). And this specific case (if the attacker was high on drugs) may very well have fallen under "manslaughter" (a lesser crime than cold-blooded murder).

 

My question to you is, do you shoot a wolf that pounces on you with the intent to make you dinner?

My question to you is, do you shoot a wolf that pounces on you with the intent to make you dinner?

 

Whaaa.... ;~;

Edited May 29, 201213 yr by Wolfgang

My question to you is, do you shoot a wolf that pounces on you with the intent to make you dinner?

 

 

...Yes. >x>;; *hides again*

Whaaa.... ;~;

 

There is a wolf, it's hungry, you are it's food. You have a gun. Do you shoot or become wolf food?

There is a wolf, it's hungry, you are it's food. You have a gun. Do you shoot or become wolf food?

 

I am the wolf though :U

@Xenidal for someone who is claiming to know all about police protocol you know very little. That officer was in every right to shoot he took time out and asked the attacker to stop his actions. He did not heed due to severity of what the attacker was doing the cop had every right to assume the attacker a threat to not only his own life but his fellow officers and surrounding citizens. Therefore he reacted with the appropriate force ( Not enough if was still eating the guy's face after multiple shots)

To nyarghh! or not to earghh! That is the mrrghh~

I'm sure if it was someone you were close to that was getting their face chewed off, you might be a bit more likely to agree with Flaming Lea. The victim would've most likely died if the attacker hadn't been shot. They gave the attacker a warning, and drugs or not, he was a danger to the victim and possibly the police themselves, they could hardly allow him to continue and the first shot didn't even affect him. But hey, not my place to tell you what your opinion should be; each to their own.

Also, not trying to argue or anything, I'm just saying. So sorry if I've misunderstood something you've said.

 

If I was the victim or I was close to the victim then yes, in the moment then maybe I would have wanted to see the attacker dead. That still doesn't make it right to kill him, and that was my point. That is killing him out of revenge, anger, whatever... that is not justice. That is murder in itself.

As for "the victim would have died if the attacker was not shot"... I've already addressed that. (To clarify, my point is that if the police had removed the attacker from the victim in any way at all (shooting him and killing him, shooting him with a taser and not killing him, or physically removing him from his victim) then it would have ended the same way for the victim)

 

My question to you is, do you shoot a wolf that pounces on you with the intent to make you dinner?

 

Yeah, but a wolf cannot be compared to a human life...

 

@Xenidal for someone who is claiming to know all about police protocol you know very little. That officer was in every right to shoot he took time out and asked the attacker to stop his actions. He did not heed due to severity of what the attacker was doing the cop had every right to assume the attacker a threat to not only his own life but his fellow officers and surrounding citizens. Therefore he reacted with the appropriate force ( Not enough if was still eating the guy's face after multiple shots)

 

Umm... no. Telling a guy who is high on drugs with his perception of reality that distorted to stop when he cannot comprehend a word you are saying is the same thing as verbally telling a deaf man to stop and then open firing on him when he does not. Or telling a person who does not understand any English to stop doing something (in English). Even if the police officer had said "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!!!" then that is not at all fair warning when the guy does not understand a word of it.

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Xenidal

@ Xendinal whether high or not he still was still a threat not to mention the fact that legally if you place yourself in a situation in which your perception of reality is altered such ingesting drugs or alcohol you are responsible for your actions. Your sitting here justifying someone trying to kill someone else on the basis that he was not in his right state of mind but it for that very reason that they took the actions they did. I bet you would have a diffrent attitude if he sat there and let him contin

The attacker is dead. The police shot him.

STOP ARGUING AND GET OVER, HE'S DEAD

Maybe the officer was wrong to shoot him. Or maybe he was right. It's about perspective.

But it really doesn't firetrucking matter because the attacker is dead anyways, there's nothing you can change, no matter how many times you say the officer was or was not justified.

What happened, happened.

hehehe omg Wheres Alice when we need her? o-o

 

Yeah, but a wolf cannot be compared to a human life...

 

But the wolf was putting human lives in danger!

 

The man nearly took away the life of another and was ready and willing to take the life of other people. Your saying you would rather have several innocent people injured or dead so one person who can't contribute to society can live the rest of his life with a straight jacket and muzzle on.

Do I even want to click on that link?

@ Xendinal whether high or not he still was still a threat not to mention the fact that legally if you place yourself in a situation in which your perception of reality is altered such ingesting drugs or alcohol you are responsible for your actions. Your sitting here justifying someone trying to kill someone else on the basis that he was not in his right state of mind but it for that very reason that they took the actions they did. I bet you would have a diffrent attitude if he sat there and let him contin

 

Yes, if you kill someone while high then you are responsible, but the crime is not the same as planning a murder and killing someone purposefully. Someone who drives while drunk and hits / kills someone is never found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death over it... instead he is found guilty of manslaughter (which is a lesser crime not punishable by death) along with other felonies such as the act of driving while drunk.

Him being high does not excuse him for killing (or attempting to kill) anyone but it does not carry the same weight as if he had purposely killed (or tried killing) the victim. And not stopping after being told to while not being able to comprehend what he is being told to do is not the same as if he had understood the officer and refused to cooperate.

Do I even want to click on that link?

 

It's safe for work, there are no images, which disappointed me greatly.

Not what I meant. I don't even go to work! What I meant was "How scary is this thing, what happens, and am I going to crap myself?"