# What's wrong with this video?



## Stevo (Feb 7, 2006)

go here

~S~


----------



## akflightmedic (Feb 7, 2006)

I dont know whats wrong with it.

I dont feel as if I know enough about whats going on or what has happened prior to the film starting. The film is also of very poor quality.

Best I can tell, the guy is laying on the ground with an officer pointing a gun at him..and then the guy proceeds to get up and is shot.

Why would you get up if the call was serious enough for an officer to lay you down and have a gun drawn?


As always, I think there is more critical information to this story that we are not recieving, so I can not make a comment either for or against at this time.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 7, 2006)

The Video was very hard to see! But come on...how many times is he gonna shoot the guy already!!


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 7, 2006)

Its really hard to tell what's going on and I don't know that much about LEO rules. I'll have Jay watch it and see what he thinks.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Feb 7, 2006)

The guy was shot while attempting to stand up...please note that he was repeatedly ordered to stand up and when he did, he got shot for it.

Is this what you're talking about Stevo?


----------



## Stevo (Feb 7, 2006)

this is one link to the story, others are around

this is [part of] a transcript from the scene;



> In the tape, an unarmed Carrion appears to be on the ground as a deputy sheriff stands above him with his gun drawn.
> 
> "Get up!" the deputy shouts. "OK," Carrion says.
> 
> ...



~S~


----------



## MMiz (Feb 7, 2006)

I saw this video on a news station.  I hate to say someone did something wrong, but I think almost everyone on every side admits that someone made a mistake.


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 7, 2006)

OK I had Jay look at the tape, and even he can't make a proper guesstimate form the clip, But he did notice a shadow in the guys left hand that could be a weapon. I really think it's too little information to make an assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions. Every cop is trained to shoot to kill, not to just wound, so he's lucky he only got one in the chest. But I don't see how with the way law enforcement rules are today that a deputy would shoot a suspect unless he really felt threatened.  

Jay's saying is he rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, mine is 
I'd rather have him come home fired than not come home at all.

If you're a cop and you feel your life is in danger, then shoot... If you're not a criminal you won't be in that situation most of the time. As much as I may sound like a b***h I don't feel for those who threaten the police, it may be personal, but if you got shot you f***d up.


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 7, 2006)

You have to remember, like suspects, some cops are also total idiots. I think they stationed all of the idiots locally from the whole state.

Example. There was an accident right in front of the local firehouse. The firemen were right there, they didn't even have to leave the station ramp to treat the walking patients. The police came, State Police, they walked up to an EMT, and he must not have realized he was a rescuer, not a victim. The cop slapped his hand on the hood of the ambulance, and said "Are you the driver?" Still tapping the ambulance hood. The guys says "Yeah, I'm driving". Cop grabs him by the arm, slams him against the rig, and cuffs him. Cop asks "What the F**K were you doing, pulling out in front of that truck". EMT says "What the hell are you talking about". Cop slams into his back, and yells it into his ear. Fire chief walks up and says "What the hell are you doing to my driver". Cop looks dumbfounded. I say, he's not the driver of the car, he's the ambulance driver. Cop looks around, takes the cuffs off, and goes to sit in his car. The FD actually pressed charges, the officer was demoted, and transfered after a face to face and public apology. 

And the cause of the wreck was a truck hitting a parked car, so I don't know where he got his info from.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 8, 2006)

> shadow in the guys left hand that could be a weapon.





> Chino Airman Shooting, 02/02/06
> This image taken from a 40-second video tape clip and provided to the Associated Press by KTLA-TV in Los Angeles, purports to show *unarmed Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion, 21, being shot by a San Bernadino, Calif. sheriff's deputy in Chino, Calif., Sunday Jan. 29, 2006.* The video shows Carrion being shot three times as he appeared to obey an order to get up off the ground. KTLA-TV broadcast the clip and said it came from a Chino resident who videotaped Sunday night's shooting, which followed a 100 mph car chase. (AP Photo/APTN)









Carrion was unarmed....

~S~


----------



## Stevo (Feb 8, 2006)

guess they didn't have Tasers?

~S~


----------



## Stevo (Feb 8, 2006)

> but if you got shot you f***d up.



well we've been there before though wingnut.

...and that was just as much a cluster as well....
~S~


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 8, 2006)

If you got shot, you were unarmed, had your hands in view, and was trying to get up... Then the officer f**ked up.

Angry, nervous officers with guns.. Kill.


----------



## Phridae (Feb 8, 2006)

TTLWHKR said:
			
		

> If you got shot, you were unarmed, had your hands in view, and was trying to get up... Then the officer f**ked up.
> 
> Angry, nervous officers with guns.. Kill.


 
I agree.
//////


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 8, 2006)

TTLWHKR said:
			
		

> You have to remember, like suspects, some cops are also total idiots.
> .


 


Of course, they're everywhere in every job, I've met a number of them.


Stevo well I guess it wasn't one then.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 9, 2006)

no wingnut

most unfortunate that they were being videotaped as well

i suppose we should all take a leson here in that we could be under such scrutiny at any time, and not really know it eh?

~S~


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 9, 2006)

I don't think this will be a lesson for me...

I don't own a gun.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 9, 2006)

but _happiness is a warm gun_ Wacker...


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 9, 2006)

I guess I'm just prejudiced because I'm married to cop, have a brother that's one, and most of our friends are cops. And I personally have no problems with guns, I have problems with certain people owning them. But we've had this topic before and it always gets heated (no matter who or where you have it)

So forgive me if I sound naive or *****y, I don't mean to be, and while sarcasm reigns supreme in my daily life, that inflection gets lost in the land of typed conversations. :wacko:


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 9, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> Carrion was unarmed....
> 
> ~S~


Carrion was unarmed, so says the media. And we all know they're not biased and only report the whole untainted truth. How is it known Carrion was unarmed? After he was shot, someone inspected him and found no weapon. Did the cop know that when he was shooting Carrion? *No.* When the cop shot Carrion, Carrion wasn't unarmed; _apparently_, he was presumed (by the cop) to be armed and dangerous. A lot of people get shot each year while holding or reaching for a cell phone, cigarette, lighter, or some other object. I have no idea what happened here; it's difficult to tell from the video, I don't know what the cop thought he saw, if anything. I'm not saying the cop right or justified. It doesn't really sound like it, but you never know.

A guy I know, who's also an EMT and his wife is a police dispatcher, once told me about an incident that happened in his local PD. A rookie was riding with an experienced officer. They had stopped someone (I don't know the reason), and had had the man exit his vehicle with his hands raised. The officers were standing by their car; the experienced officer had his handgun out and aimed at the suspect, while the rookie had a shotgun aimed at the suspect. The rookie then shouted out, "Freeze!", but at the same time, the experienced officer told the man to step backwards. The man, confused, started to move backwards. The rookie shot him, and with that shotgun, he was d-e-d-dead.

Mistakes happen. Confusion? Negligence? Ignorance? Stupidity? Nervous? Yep.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 10, 2006)

> Mistakes happen. Confusion? Negligence? Ignorance? Stupidity? Nervous? Yep.



_yes yes and yes_ JJ, in a broader scope, who's fault is it that we subscribe to a gun crazed society?

couple that thought with a growing police state mentality (not meaning to pick on the bro's in blue, but the overall jist of our political landscape)

shake, don't stir, bake @ farenhient 911, and what do you see in 2016?

~S~


----------



## Stevo (Feb 10, 2006)

oh btw~ i've an arsenal too, and my gun is bigger than yours!

~S~


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 10, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> oh btw~ i've an arsenal too, and my gun is bigger than yours!
> 
> ~S~


 
My brother has an oxygen tank cannon...

He refilled O2 tanks on the side, and we set up a steel tube cannon with a 250 lb drop weight. The old tank is slid down the barrell, one end is closed with a 200 thread plug. The weight is dropped, and it shoots the tank out, and into some misc object..

My father owns a lot of land, so there is really no danger of it going anywhere... Plus it has a cupped tip, so it can't gain the speed of an actual missile. Usually it smacks a tree with enough force to collapse the steel, and make the trunk explode or break. 

That's as close as I come to shooting a gun regularly.


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 10, 2006)

TTLWHKR said:
			
		

> That's as close as I come to shooting a gun regularly.


 

Well Hell that sounds like a lot more fun that shooting a gun!


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 10, 2006)

It is... Makes a sound like a CO2 cylinder discharging. The surface that it hits and the remains of the tank are always really hot, while the barrell of the cannon is covered in frost.


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 11, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> _yes yes and yes_ JJ, in a broader scope, who's fault is it that we subscribe to a gun crazed society?
> 
> couple that thought with a growing police state mentality (not meaning to pick on the bro's in blue, but the overall jist of our political landscape)
> 
> ...


Hopefully, a safer and more secure society. One where people who haven't done anything wrong aren't afraid, and those who have, are. Oh, and hopefully there'll be a national healthcare system, too.


----------



## MedicPrincess (Feb 11, 2006)

JJR512 said:
			
		

> One where people who haven't done anything wrong aren't afraid, and those who have, are. Oh, and hopefully there'll be a national healthcare system, too.


 

And I have a bridge in Arizona I can sell you as well as a  BEAUTIFUL gulf front home with an OPEN floor plan right on the beaches of Florida.  Intrested?


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 11, 2006)

It's curious you had to take out the part where I said "HOPEFULLY" to make your point. There's a difference between hoping something will happen and believing it will happen. I meant exactly what I said, and _only_ what I said; nothing more, nothing less. I _hope_ that's where we'll be.

But if that's not where we are, for some reason I very much doubt it will be because of anything Michael Moore is worried about.


----------



## TTLWHKR (Feb 11, 2006)

If you want all that... move to Canada.


BTW. I voted for Kerry.


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 12, 2006)

TTLWHKR said:
			
		

> If you want all that... move to Canada.
> 
> 
> BTW. I voted for Kerry.


Instead of moving to Canada, I'll do whatever little thing I can do to make it that way here. This country gives me the right to say how I want it to be, and the means to at least try to make it that way. For example, with _my_ vote, I voted on a third party person. Some people told me that was a waste of a good vote. I choose to vote against the major parties to send them a message. It may just be one vote, it may not have mattered...but _all_ votes come from individuals; we _all_ have "just one vote". More people need to get up off their *** to exercise their right to try to make this country better, whatever better may be in their own opinions.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 12, 2006)

well the gun control issue goes deeper than our elections folks, it's a mindset ingrained in our American pshyce

lets start off with some facts if we're going to delve into the issue....



> *More Americans were killed by guns than by war in the 20th Century.*
> More Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 Americans will have been killed in non-military-related firearm incidents during the decade.
> Handgun Control 12/30/99 (Press release from CDC data)



now some of this data gets a tad scary doesn't it? perhaps intricate knowledge of them paints those two strung out cops whom just subdued a perp in a high speed chase in a different light?

however, we do have this little 2nd Amendment here that many stand on as being the gold standard of freedom



> Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



now if one reads this carefully, one may conclude that it was written not so much as a right to arms, as an obligation of the people to protect themselves from a rouge goverment right?

of course it was written back in the days of black powder muskets and cannons, so to assume here that the premis would fly in 2006 i'd have to have the _right_ to obtain the very same munitions as the gov has

as such, please join me in petitioning the NRA to solicit Black Hawk choppers and howitzers for the general public

*Cop* "do you know why i pulled you over Stevo"?

*Stevo* "i was doing 34 in a 30 mph zone"?

*Cop* "no, that howitzer is taking up a lot of dashboard room & blocking your vision"

*Stevo*"well i'm protecting myself against any rouge goverments, part of the local milita you see"

*Cop* "well ok, try not to point it AT the school when you pick up your kid again, it really sets them off"

*Stevo* Sir, yes Sir"! (snappy salute)

~S~


----------



## ffemt8978 (Feb 12, 2006)

I don't mean to start another big debate here, but I just wanted to point out one thing about the "facts" that you reference.

If you go to the link, it is from a blatently anti-gun site.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  So lets take a look at their first "fact", shall we?



> *5 children were killed every day in gun related accidents                  and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998*.
> An average of 5 children were killed every day in gun related                  accidents and suicides committed with a firearm, from 1994-1998.
> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's                  National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National                  Injury Mortality Statistics, 1994-1998




Notice that the site quotes the 1994-1998 CDC National Injury and Mortality Statistics for their reference.  That's good, right?  Then why does the link provided take you to the following site called www.kidsandguns.org and not the CDC?  Why does the site referenced only show the data from 1997-2002 yet the original fact covers the period from 1994-1998?  


Setting all of those questions aside for a moment, I would like to to point out one MAJOR problem with these facts.  If you look at the data provided in a nice and easy to use table format, you will see that for each year firearms deaths are broken down by category (Accidental, Suicide, Homicide, Undetermined/Other) and that each category is broken down into age ranges.  The ranges are from 0-4 years old, 5-9 years old, 10-14 years old, and 15-19 years old.  The problem with these ranges is that in this country, a person is considered an adult at the age of 18 yet for the purposes of the "facts", they are a child until they are 20 years old.  So, using these defined age groups, this would include the 17-19 year olds that are serving in todays military.  Do you think that might skew the data a little?


Please understand that I do not want this to turn into another discussion about firearms, since this in not the right place for it.  I just wanted to point out that just because someone says something is a fact and have the statistics to back it up does not mean it is one.


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 12, 2006)

If a more appropriate place is needed for this type of debate, I'd like to suggest my own message board. It's the same kind as this place, but it's more for general discussion (as well as some computer-specific forums). This is the kind of discussion we used to thrive on there (unfortunately, I couldn't afford to keep it online for the last two years, and since it's been back, it's been a little slow, but this might stir things up a bit).

http://www.jjr512.com/

(I apologize if this message is seen as too spammy; if those in charge here feel it is so, please delete this message, and accept my apologies.)


----------



## Stevo (Feb 13, 2006)

what more appropo place to debate the issue than among those whom see and have to clean up the mess folks?

this is quite the fight (as well as political diversion) , and our trade is right in the crossfire.

and yes FF, statictics don't lie, but liars sure use them don't they? In all fairness, you may also find challenge to said antigun stats directly from the NRA

perhaps some are aware of the latest legislation moving across the country? 

or some of the implications that have arisen due to said choices?

of course the whole shebang is more pointed this week due to Cheney's quail hunting snafu (isn't this the man who has his finger on that red 'nuke' button?) , so have at it people..... nobody need get roasted for their views right? 




~S~


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 13, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> and yes FF, statictics don't lie, but liars sure use them don't they?


I'm sure you've heard the saying that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.


----------



## emtff376 (Feb 14, 2006)

You can make stats say whatever you want, if you try hard enough... trust me.


----------



## JJR512 (Feb 14, 2006)

100% of the respondants in a recently conducted survey agreed with that statement.

(I asked myself a minute ago and I agreed.)


----------



## hfdff422 (Feb 14, 2006)

Alright, I can't stay out of this one. Again my views on personal responsibility and personal liberty are going to put me out where I don't want to go. But I am going to just post once on this (I promise?). 

My view on guns and gun rights is the following:
Guns are not bad. A gun is an inanimate object that only reacts to an action that a person takes. People are the problem, and they use guns as a tool to do their dirty work. You can't get all the guns off of the street, because everyone knows what a gun is and how they work. Even if you could get every current gun off of the street, there are people who would exploit that by making their own guns and we would then be at their disposal. 

The fact is that this country was founded on the right to keep and bear arms. Is keeping and bearing arms the same now as it was back when this country was founded? - No. If this country were founded today, would it be reasonable to outlaw firearms to begin with?- Yes, at least to an extent. Should average Joe Shmoe carry automatice weapons?- No. Should the current federal juggernaut that is the U.S. Government dictate what kind of firearms we can possess?- No, unless they want to put the same limitations on the FBI's HRT. 

The flaw in the whole concept of gun control is that the laws that are put into place are going to be followed only by the people who are not the problem. The person who has no history of violence who currently carries a firearm either for personal protection or for recreation will have that liberty stripped. The person who is likely to endanger the general population is likely already breaking the law by carrying a weapon. There are plenty of laws in place that prevent felons or persons with a history of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. There are icreased penalties for persons who commit other crimes (including drug possesssion) with a gun simply in their possession. These are common sense laws, the problem is that they are not enforced with severe enough penalties. The people who are a current threat would continue to be, regardless of the level of gun control. There will be no perfect utopia of no dangerous weapons on the streets regardless of the imposition on the common mans liberty.

We are a people that is currently dependant on firearms to protect ourselves and as part of our recreational culture. To simply dismiss this would be as irresponsible as any action that any fool that has misused a gun has taken. The instances of gun related accidents does continue to increase, but take a look at what the population increase is like. That has more to do with the increase of gun deaths either from accident or an intentional act than anything else. Remember when you are looking at any statistical trend put into a chronological context that there are more people on the face of the earth now that there have been in the entirity of history put together. There are currently places where gun related deaths are actually decreasing, even though you have a greater population. 

There is an ever growing faction of the population that has had no exposure, or no postitive exposure to firearms. These people are likely to only see guns as a symbol of power or criminality. Often they will see guns as something only the cops and robbers will have, that they are not a common tool for the average person. This faction will likely never understand what guns truly are. The gun is a tool, that can be used for good, evil, or recreation but possesses none of those properties inherently. The possessor is the one who bestows those properties on that inanimate object.

Of course, the one thing about guns that is truly a problem is the safety issues associated with children in homes that have legally owned firearms. Even the children of police officers who only have a duty weapon are at risk. The efforts of persons who wish to mitigate the risks should be given due consideration for action. Trigger locks are a reasonable safety precaution in a home where children are present. I would suggest though, that the best way to decrease accidents is to prepare children for the responsibility of gun use by education and training. A child that understands what kind of deadly power a gun can deliver and is well trained in the use of them is less likely to have an accident. This is also a chance to develop a parent child relationship that will keep the child from straying down a self-destructive path in the future. 

The primary issue I have is that once a "right" (which it is not, it is a liberty and a responsibility, not a right) has been extended, it should not be infringed upon by governmental intrusion. The government's responsibility is not to protect us from ourselves, but rather to protect us from outside dangers we are not capable of defending alone.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 20, 2006)

heres a thought for this thread...

America is a gun culture that off's more of it's own each year than OBL (et all boogymen) could ever hope to

and we get to clean it up....

~S~


----------



## CaptainPanic (Feb 21, 2006)

Guns dont kill - idiots wielding guns do!

And I hate to say it I have respect for VERY FEW cops if any - the majority Ive run into are arrogant SOBs who get a tingle in their loins everytime the dispatch goes off, hoping they might get to use their arresting powers.

The few that I do respect have been doing this for a very long time, and have either come into Law Enforcement humbled, or had an experience that really humbled them.

CP


----------



## Phridae (Feb 21, 2006)

CaptainPanic said:
			
		

> Guns dont kill - idiots wielding guns do!
> 
> CP


\

If Chaney can do it....h34r: 
tho the guy isnt dead, yet...


----------



## CaptainPanic (Feb 23, 2006)

well at least Cheney aint anti-gun! Wonder if hes NRA card carrying member....


----------



## DT4EMS (Feb 23, 2006)

This story kinda disappeared from the news for some reason. I wanted to hear/see a clean version of the tape.

I am still curious.... WHY WAS THE PASSENGER OUT OF THE CAR AND PRONED OUT?

That is not a "routine" situation. I am also not so sure that he was being told to "get up".

I will not judge on officer on a few seconds of a video that I was able to see. 

I know of "cops that have drank too much, did something stupid and lost their jobs............so to say that the "Passenger" of the car was totally innocent....... We don't have all of the facts.

Just like the news will say "Man dies after being Tased". When a few days later the toxicology reports that the man died secondary to a huge amount of cocaine (cocaine psycosis) the news never reports that part.

Before you get all mad at me .......I am not saying the cop was right, but I am not saying he was wrong. We just don't KNOW enough of the facts.


----------



## MMiz (Feb 26, 2006)

DT4EMS,

This forum has no room for your damn rational and conservative thoughts.

I kid I kid.  Good to see ya around again!


----------



## Stevo (Feb 26, 2006)

yanno MMiz, one can find quite a few similar vids on the net, very easy to do

rational responses, or that of any depth , are the _choice_ of the posters here, yet by far and large we don't live in a rational world do we?


~S~


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 26, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> rational responses, or that of any depth , are the _choice_ of the posters here, yet by far and large we don't live in a rational world do we?
> 
> 
> ~S~


 

Stevo you think too much.


----------



## Stevo (Feb 26, 2006)

yeah, even my mom says i read too much too Wingnut


----------



## MedicPrincess (Feb 26, 2006)

Stevo said:
			
		

> yeah, even my mom says i read too much too Wingnut


 
WAIT! Are you what happens when someone reads to much?

Thats it!! I am taking away all of my son's books.  TV and Video Games will rule in our house from now on.


----------



## Wingnut (Feb 26, 2006)

No, it can't be. I read ALL the time, there's no such thing as reading too much!!!


----------



## JJR512 (Mar 10, 2006)

> *Veteran shot by cop: It's hard to walk*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/10/airman.shot.ap/index.html


----------

