*Warning: Graphic Video* Man Shot In the Back By Police

[naaman fletcher]

Source: shtfplan.com

The following graphic video was taken in San Francisco on July 16, 2011, where a man was reportedly shot at by police six to ten times when he tried to flee after failing to produce a train ticket. According to reports, he was shot in the back while running from police. In the video, recorded by an onlooker, the 19 year old man struggles for life for a few moments and then his body lay motionless on the pavement as police hold the crowd at bay. Initial reports provided by Jack Blood’s Dead Line Live via Domas Jefferson indicate the man was unarmed, but SF PD reported the following day that a silver handgun was found. Witnesses can be heard asking police where the gun is, and no such weapon is apparently visible in the video (though the SF Gate account below indicates there is a weapon visible).

No video of the actual encounter has been made available yet (if it even exists), but the following video is taken seconds after the shooting:



Read more: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/warning-graphic-video-man-shot-in-back-by-police-for-not-paying-train-fare_07192011

---

Cops will probably get a medal.

[Uben]

1. Since the video doesn't show the actual shooting.....

.... there is no evidence of wrong doing by police. If the man did have a gun and fired it at police, as witnesses state, then he deserved to get what he got. Once you fire a weapon at police, kiss your ass goodbye. They now have the right to use deadly force and they usually do....to the extreme. Anyone who even brandishes a gun at police is subject to deadly force, and they rarely ever win that scenario. I have zero sympathy for any thug who uses a gun to commit a crime, and I hope this video will help a few see the consequences of bad decisions.

[naaman fletcher]

3. To be clear

Witnesses say he did not have a gun. They police say witnesses said he had a gun.

[slackmaster]

9. Which "witnesses" said what, to whom, and when?

How can someone who didn't see something be called a witness?

[greiner3]

4. Been uneder the radar for 10 years?

[peacetalksforall]

5. How blatantly prejudiced in favor of police. I am not you. There are two sides to a story.

It looks like there has been a major change in instructions coming down from the top about what police can do. Every couple of weeks we have new news like this.

Once you learn that you can't trust them for planting evidence, how can you believe anything from the first minutes - it takes months of legal digging. And who is going to do it for one lone person.

This person so far can only be accused of running. Be real.

We didn't turn on the police by not believing them to the extent we do now. They are making their own case for not being believed - all across the nation.

If they haven't been given direction from the top - then they are experiencing collective, group insecurity and little brain decision making topped off with the being at the top for their ability to lie to us.

[Recursion]

2. There's an at least plausible story from the police on this one

Which is not to say it is necessarily true for being plausible, but it is also not necessarily false for coming from the police.

[valerief]

6. How are we different from the old Soviet Union again? nt

[Rebubula]

7. Several Points

He was chased for not paying - he started shooting as he ran.
They found gunshot residue on his hands.

Bystanders violated the scene and took evidence - according to the SF Chronicle.

This asshole was wanted for murdering a pregnant woman.


You shoot at police - you get shot back.

I get so tired of hearing about people getting mad about cops shooting people - YET NOT ONE PERSON SEEMS TO CARE about the 10s of thousands of young black men murdered by other young black men.

You side with the thugs - I side with the police on this one.

[slackmaster]

8. Unrec for misleading headline

I was expecting a video depicting the act of police shooting a man in the back. I can't tell where the man was shot, and the text says "According to reports, he was shot in the back while running from police."

Who made the reports, and to whom? Without more data it looks like hearsay and speculation.

[kanrok]

10. Not only a misleading headline

but the body of the post contains a lot of guess, speculation and conjecture.

[w4rma]

11. Interesting that the police did not provide first aid to the man.

Nor did they allow anyone else to provide first aid.

So that he basically bled out right there on the sidewalk before any ambulance could arrive.

[slackmaster]

14. I don't see how they could have. The crowd was harassing them. They were in a defensive mode.

Before you attempt to stop bleeding, it is essential that you don impermeable gloves at a minimum to protect yourself from infection.

The situation was not conducive to the administration of first aid. The police in the video are protecting themselves and trying to preserve the integrity of the scene.

[buckrogers1965]

15. Gloves aren't to protect yourself.

Unless your skin is cut open and bleeding, your skin is completely impermeable to all germs and viruses. You are most likely to get infected when you touch your face, rubbing your mouth, nose or eyes with your hands, which you can do accidentally even when wearing gloves.

You wear gloves to protect the wound site on the victim from infection. But if rescuers don't have time to don gloves, an infection is better than being dead.

[BrightSideOfLife]

12. San Fancisco PD lost a bit of credibility with the Oscar Grant shooting

[slackmaster]

13. Oscar Grant was shot by a BART police officer

Not SFPD.

http://www.bart.gov/about/police/index.aspx

[joshcryer]

16. Is that the gun laying in the median there? The second video shows evidence removal from the scene.

Here's a screenshot of what I believe is the gun.



The second video shows evidence removal from the scene:



In the second video the people are clearly seen standing in the median (the police efforts to cordon off the scene appear to have been futile, it is a wonder if the first video is the entire video or was cut off at that point to hide the fact that the police were unable to fully cordon off the scene due to the mob.

I hate defending police but I don't buy the story that he didn't have a gun, not for one minute.