'Shoot Me!' Video Of Second Missouri Killing

[Jazzy]

New video has emerged of a knife-wielding man being shot dead by police in Missouri, just days after the killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown sparked days of public anger.

In the second shooting, the 23-year-old African-American was carrying the weapon as officer approached him following reports of a robbery, St Louis police said.

In the video, a voice can be heard saying "Shoot Me! Shoot Me! Shoot Me Now!"

He is repeatedly told to drop his weapon before several shots are fired.

The shooting took place about four miles (6.5km) from the site of Mr Brown's killing in Ferguson on August 9.

The suspect, identified as Kajeme Powell, ignored orders to drop the knife and continued to approach the officers, coming "within three to four feet" before they opened fire, said St Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson.

Witnesses confirmed the police account.

The video emerged after Attorney General Eric Holder travelled to Ferguson and met with Mr Brown's parents in an effort to quell protests, sometimes violent, that have been taking place for the past 10 days in the town.

In your opinion, was this a justified shooting? Why / Why not?

 

[Sinon]

It was justified. He had an offensive weapon, refused to cooperate with the orders of the officers, and acted in a manner that threatened the officers' health and/or lives.

 

[TommyTooter]

It was justified. He had an offensive weapon, refused to cooperate with the orders of the officers, and acted in a manner that threatened the officers' health and/or lives.

only under a completely totalitarian fascist authority is that shooting justified. while those are true facts you stated, there are other criteria to consider. fifty years ago in america that scene would not have played out that way. those police were not so threatened that they had to waste the guy before attempting to disarm him by less than lethal means.

that last ditch effort that the heroic police of my youth would make to not kill a suspect doesn't happen any more. remember that robbery is not a capital offence and that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed a trial and punishment that fits the crime. those cops are cowards - hired thugs. extortionists and assassins for a government turned criminal.

 

[Sinon]

It was justified. He had an offensive weapon, refused to cooperate with the orders of the officers, and acted in a manner that threatened the officers' health and/or lives.

only under a completely totalitarian fascist authority is that shooting justified. while those are true facts you stated, there are other criteria to consider. fifty years ago in america that scene would not have played out that way. those police were not so threatened that they had to waste the guy before attempting to disarm him by less than lethal means.

that last ditch effort that the heroic police of my youth would make to not kill a suspect doesn't happen any more. remember that robbery is not a capital offence and that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed a trial and punishment that fits the crime. those cops are cowards - hired thugs. extortionists and assassins for a government turned criminal.

"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police officers when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Pretty sure an assailant with a knife counts. Bluster all you want about "the good old days" but this was a justified shooting. Your tirade about robbery has no place here.

 

[Bluezone777]

It looks justified to me as well based on the facts currently being presented

. Also I imagine things were no different back then as they are today as it's merely those rose colored glasses you wear that make it seem so. The only thing that's changed is we have the internet and 24 hour news to spread information about events happening around the country and the world then we ever did before.

 

[TommyTooter]

He was told to stop and drop his weapon. He didn't, and he continued his advance on the police. That was suicide by cop, and it was a justified shoot. If you have a weapon and ignore the cop's orders to stop and drop your weapon, they will kill you. It is their job to do so. Just because there had been a previous possibly unjustified shooting that does not mean the police are going to change the way they handle situations like this. The deceased man wanted to die. He got his wish.

I would jump on the chance to say the cops did something wrong, but they didn't do anything wrong in this case.

i definitely agree that it was a suicide by cop but i do not agree that lethal force was justified, though it almost certainly will be ruled that way. i can't stress the stark and very frightening change in municipal policing's rules of engagement. fifty years ago, they would have tried to be more reasonable, asking him to surrender and would have taken more chances at disarming him with their clubs, rather than their guns.

in my opinion the tasers and bean bags would have been more appropriate and would have effectively subdued him. though a knife-wielding suspect is a threat to the officer's safety, municipal police are supposed to be peace officers, not infantry.

numerous combat vets have been sounding off about how much stricter their RoE was in asia and how much less force and hardware they deployed for similar crowd control situations. i never wore the uniform for personal reasons, but i come from a police and military family. though justifiable under current standards, the bar is set way to low for it to be truly just by universally accepted moral and constitutional standards.

 

[TommyTooter]

It looks justified to me as well based on the facts currently being presented

. Also I imagine things were no different back then as they are today as it's merely those rose colored glasses you wear that make it seem so. The only thing that's changed is we have the internet and 24 hour news to spread information about events happening around the country and the world then we ever did before.

i don't wear any glasses at all and you can imagine all you like about what things were like. i speak from life experience. commander john fahey of the chicago PD 19th precinct was a close family friend. there have always been armed public servants in my family. my niece is on the madison, WI PD force right now.

i have a 50 year track record as a front line activist, have witnessed several police caused riots over the years and was instrumental in preventing several from breaking out. the rules of engagement have changed. combat veterans are saying that theirs were much more strict in irag and afghanistan. they used much less force and hardware for similar crowd control situations.

 

[TommyTooter]

It was justified. He had an offensive weapon, refused to cooperate with the orders of the officers, and acted in a manner that threatened the officers' health and/or lives.

only under a completely totalitarian fascist authority is that shooting justified. while those are true facts you stated, there are other criteria to consider. fifty years ago in america that scene would not have played out that way. those police were not so threatened that they had to waste the guy before attempting to disarm him by less than lethal means.

that last ditch effort that the heroic police of my youth would make to not kill a suspect doesn't happen any more. remember that robbery is not a capital offence and that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed a trial and punishment that fits the crime. those cops are cowards - hired thugs. extortionists and assassins for a government turned criminal.

"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police officers when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others. The use of deadly force is also authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Pretty sure an assailant with a knife counts. Bluster all you want about "the good old days" but this was a justified shooting. Your tirade about robbery has no place here.

i repeat: only under a totalitarian state is that morally acceptable. to not sanction those officers for using lethal force without attempting something else first is an insult to the constitution and thousands of heroic police officers who have died in the line of duty because they attempted to take a felony suspect by non-lethal means.

 

[Bluezone777]

I believe telling a man to drop his weapon and surrender as a valid alternative to shooting him. He however was having none of it hence why he got shot for it. If they had nothing else available to bring him down but a command to obey police and their gun then what else are they to do? It doesn't matter what exists to subdue someone but what you have at the time. The only sure way of not getting killed by a cop is to obey the law and the commands of the police. Anything else and you put yourself at risk of getting killed for it. If you want to rebel against authority then be prepared to pay a price for it regardless if your rebellion is truly justified or not.

 

[+paradox]

the powerful and the police has molded the public to think it's normal and good for a nazi like state, with police having military tanks and grenades... the only enemy is the public... if you choose that this practice is alright and good for this country then you're mistaken... it's only going to get worse... just wait until you get abused or killed by the cops...

it would have been easier and effective to use non-lethal on this person... after-all, they spend so much money on non-lethal just to ignore it and use deadly force...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Absolutely justified shooting. He was not dropping the weapon when told and wanted to die it seemed as he was yelling shoot me. He was not staying in one place where the cops might have been able to talk him down. And in the video it looked like he was working his way closer to the cops. That puts the cops in danger for there lives. It does not take long at all for a person to run what looks like 15 or 20 yards if he meant to attack. Myself would not want to depend on non lethal force with a guy meaning to stab me.

Whats not a justified shooting is the homeless man a few months ago surrounded by men with machine guns. And the bum was making no threatening moves towards the cops. And the cops were with him for hours and no alternative was worked out to take him alive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6tpAZObNZfI

 

[Mozzie]

Whats wrong with using tazers, they work just as well.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You are going to trust a tazer for your possible life with a crazed man carrying a knife that could reach you in seconds? What if he had several layers of clothing on and it did not penetrate? He made is choice to act aggressively.

 

[Mozzie]

Well they work here, and clothing hasn't been an issue with stopping them. There was show on the other night about this, cops pulling guns to soon.

 

[+paradox]

Well they work here, and clothing hasn't been an issue with stopping them. There was show on the other night about this, cops pulling guns to soon.

because they are trained and brainwashed to do so to scare and intimidate anyone and everyone...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Well they work here, and clothing hasn't been an issue with stopping them. There was show on the other night about this, cops pulling guns to soon.

Wrong! Go to the 2 minute 15 second mark and see the guy not get stopped by the tazer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=avAH49NY_iY

Now imagine if this guy was angry and wanting to hurt someone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbbANEYQXE&feature=player_detailpage

Still want to depend on a tazer with your life without someone backing you up with a gun?

 

[+paradox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys

watch the cops faces as this marine puts them to shame... (;