Birmingham cop beaten unconcious w own gun; says he was scared to shoot; bystanders just take pics

[Correll]

Why is it that we only get to hear the cop's side of every story? Why doesn't the news media give both sides of a story like this? I read nothing that would indicate any truth to the cop's story. What I read was that a cop got his ass beat by a person that was possibly drunk. It's the cop's story that he feared being news headlines, and he did make headlines after all. This sounds to me like a cop that got his ass beat, and using the excuse that he feared publicity if he acted as a cop and arrested the possibly drunk person. Guess what, he made headlines anyway. If there were witnesses, which is obvious by the photo that there were witnesses, then the cop would've had proof to back his action had he shot to kill. Something doesn't add up with the cops story.

He called for back-up, which gives him verification of a possible incident. Therefore, if he had shot the possible drunk, he would've walked with no charges. Something just doesn't read right in the story. There must be more to it than what's in the article.

I've a buddy who is a cop and has had training on this.

You don't seem to understand that the decision point here was less than a second.

THe time frame from Drunk guy disobeying and drunk guy taking my gun is less than a second. IN that time the cop doesn't have time to think. He reacts based on the fact that for months he has constantly been bombarded with information about cops getting f**ed for shooting "unarmed" men.

They are shown dash cam footage of cops dying while they try to talk to people shooting them, afraid to shoot back.

Ah, but there're even more innocent people shot by bad cops. Some shot in the back. Some choked to death. Some beaten to death while handcuffed. Please, give both sides of the story. Thanks.

It's not one story.

The population is not an united group AGAINST the cops.

The COPS are not united behind the bad cops who abuse their power.

THese are all separate stories.

The innocent guy that gets shot in NYC doesn't somehow balance out the cop who gets killed in Birmingham.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why is it that we only get to hear the cop's side of every story? Why doesn't the news media give both sides of a story like this? I read nothing that would indicate any truth to the cop's story. What I read was that a cop got his ass beat by a person that was possibly drunk. It's the cop's story that he feared being news headlines, and he did make headlines after all. This sounds to me like a cop that got his ass beat, and using the excuse that he feared publicity if he acted as a cop and arrested the possibly drunk person. Guess what, he made headlines anyway. If there were witnesses, which is obvious by the photo that there were witnesses, then the cop would've had proof to back his action had he shot to kill. Something doesn't add up with the cops story.

He called for back-up, which gives him verification of a possible incident. Therefore, if he had shot the possible drunk, he would've walked with no charges. Something just doesn't read right in the story. There must be more to it than what's in the article.

I've a buddy who is a cop and has had training on this.

You don't seem to understand that the decision point here was less than a second.

THe time frame from Drunk guy disobeying and drunk guy taking my gun is less than a second. IN that time the cop doesn't have time to think. He reacts based on the fact that for months he has constantly been bombarded with information about cops getting f**ed for shooting "unarmed" men.

They are shown dash cam footage of cops dying while they try to talk to people shooting them, afraid to shoot back.

Ah, but there're even more innocent people shot by bad cops. Some shot in the back. Some choked to death. Some beaten to death while handcuffed. Please, give both sides of the story. Thanks.

It's not one story.

The population is not an united group AGAINST the cops.

The COPS are not united behind the bad cops who abuse their power.

THese are all separate stories.

The innocent guy that gets shot in NYC doesn't somehow balance out the cop who gets killed in Birmingham.

The Free Thought Project

Check the link. Police brutality, and other cop abuse of power and authority.

 

[Wildman]

He should have air holed the son of a bitch

should have emptied the guns magazine

 

[bucs90]

Why is it that we only get to hear the cop's side of every story? Why doesn't the news media give both sides of a story like this? I read nothing that would indicate any truth to the cop's story. What I read was that a cop got his ass beat by a person that was possibly drunk. It's the cop's story that he feared being news headlines, and he did make headlines after all. This sounds to me like a cop that got his ass beat, and using the excuse that he feared publicity if he acted as a cop and arrested the possibly drunk person. Guess what, he made headlines anyway. If there were witnesses, which is obvious by the photo that there were witnesses, then the cop would've had proof to back his action had he shot to kill. Something doesn't add up with the cops story.

He called for back-up, which gives him verification of a possible incident. Therefore, if he had shot the possible drunk, he would've walked with no charges. Something just doesn't read right in the story. There must be more to it than what's in the article.

I've a buddy who is a cop and has had training on this.

You don't seem to understand that the decision point here was less than a second.

THe time frame from Drunk guy disobeying and drunk guy taking my gun is less than a second. IN that time the cop doesn't have time to think. He reacts based on the fact that for months he has constantly been bombarded with information about cops getting f**ed for shooting "unarmed" men.

They are shown dash cam footage of cops dying while they try to talk to people shooting them, afraid to shoot back.

Ah, but there're even more innocent people shot by bad cops. Some shot in the back. Some choked to death. Some beaten to death while handcuffed. Please, give both sides of the story. Thanks.

It's not one story.

The population is not an united group AGAINST the cops.

The COPS are not united behind the bad cops who abuse their power.

THese are all separate stories.

The innocent guy that gets shot in NYC doesn't somehow balance out the cop who gets killed in Birmingham.

Smartest post yet. You understand the stats of it. That out of 1,000,000 American cops...who work 300 BILLION hours of combined police work per year....there's a tiny tiny fraction....maybe 100-200 or so stories per year...of truly "bad cops". A tiny fraction.

Also....you're correct that good cops arent united behind bad cops. Just like how none of us know if our neighbor is a serial killer til he's caught....good cops most often never see or suspect criminal cops. Like all criminals....they hide their crimes.

And ALSO correct...most citizens aren't anti cop. The silent majority supports LEOs.

The problem is....a handful of cops are gonna be sacrificed to the mobs every year. Killed or crucified by the media. Or both.

And EVERY one of those 1,000,000 cops knows...he is one aggressive unarmed thug away from either being in jail, on Page 1 of global news and life ruined and family endangered....OR...dead because he was hesitant.

So all the cops are saying "Nope. Ain't gonna be me. I'll just avoid interactions with criminals." And crime....is gonna flourish.


So that vocal minority of cop haters....is deterring most cops front working because they don't wanna be one of those handfuls a year who get sacrificed.

 

[bucs90]

He should have air holed the son of a bitch

should have emptied the guns magazine

Yes. But imagine.....

White Alabama cop....shoots unarmed black man.

Birmingham. Selma. Sharpton. Obama. BlackLivesMatter.

You just KNOW it would become the next Ferguson....if not worse. It would be chaos. The cop would say "I feared for my life".

And in hindsight....the cop was laying bloody, unconcious, with a thug standing over him...holding his gun. WAS his life in danger? Without question .

But had he shot him....that scene would've never happened. Whish is the reason police are trained to do EXACTLY that. Survive. You reach for the gun...you will NOT get it. Even if it costs your life.


So....liberals....do you NOW believe a cop when he says he shot someone...to AVOID being in that position???? Dont worry. You all haven't answered yet...I don't expect one.