   Yet another reason why police shouldn't have so much authority
  Another innocent man dead, thanks to this brilliant officer who not only shot the wrong man, but did so because he thought a soda can was a gun.Police Shoot Innocent ManSo now there will be an "investigation".  Of course, it seems that nobody cares that a police officer can break into your home and shoot you dead without reason.  Damnit this kind of thing makes me furious.  Not only for the families who lose loved ones, but because "the people" continue to let themselves be violated without opposition.  Not that this particular citizen had a fighting chance.One other thing, I love how the media tries to justify the action by saying he was a "career criminal".  Absolutely insane.   
Quote:Frank Lobato was shot once in the chest Sunday night during a police search for a domestic-violence suspect. Lobato, a career criminal and formerly homeless man whom neighbors said was disabled, was not involved in the domestic dispute.Quote:Once out of the house, Sandoval called police and agreed to meet them at a nearby McDonald's. She said she gave police permission to enter her home, and told them that her husband and his uncle Lobato were in the apartment.Quote:Lobato had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1959, including arrests for drugs, assault and burglary. He had been in prison several times. His most recent arrest came in May on shoplifting charges.Career criminal.  Hardly an innocent.  The person who was killed was present and (probably) did not interfere with Sandoval's husband who held her captive and abused her for 17 hours.  The police knew he was in the building, and were likely aware of his history of assault.  That marks him as a threat, and complicit in an act in which another person was held held against her will and beaten for talking to someone at the bar.Generally speaking the police should not shoot people when trying to arrest, however when you are at the scene of a crime which involved holding a woman essentially hostage and tormenting her and then the police show up and you do not comply 100% and you have a violent criminal history, then in the immortal words of Chris Rock "Everybody knows if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them.".The criminal who was shot and killed was not an innocent man, and the police officer was correct in assessing a non-responsive, career criminal with a violent history as a potential threat.  Unfortunately this police officer will likely lose his career and be vilified in his community even though he did his job which is to protect and serve innocent civilians.;  I agree that sometime Poliece do cross over the line and do stupid things, but I disagree that ALL police are overstepping their authority.  I think the officer knew going in that the guy could be armed, and seeing something like a can, or something that might of "looked" like a gun freaked him out and his "fight or Flight" mechanism got the best of him and he fired.  Judgeing by the article, it looks like it was more of an accident than anything else.  Maybe if they incresed the police funding in citys and towns, they could afford better training and accidents like this wouldn't happen as much. . .While I agree that there are "Bad Cops" out there - this doens't sound like one of them. . . my 2 centsRoach   ;  Well now, this is precisely the reason police should not carry guns except when going after someone known to be armed and dangerous. It ups the ante too much. Certainly, guns don't kill people, but they do make it that much easier.EDIT : And by the way, "career criminal" is totally and utterly irrelevant. First, a policeman is not judge and jury. Second, whatever he had done, it does not carry the death penalty, even in the US.   ;Quote:Original post by RoachI agree that sometime Poliece do cross over the line and do stupid things, but I disagree that ALL police are overstepping their authority.  I think the officer knew going in that the guy could be armed, and seeing something like a can, or something that might of "looked" like a gun freaked him out and his "fight or Flight" mechanism got the best of him and he fired.  Judgeing by the article, it looks like it was more of an accident than anything else.  Maybe if they incresed the police funding in citys and towns, they could afford better training and accidents like this wouldn't happen as much. . .While I agree that there are "Bad Cops" out there - this doens't sound like one of them. . . my 2 centsRoachHe should be charged with murder.  Nothing less, he murdered that man in cold blood.;Quote:Original post by ChaoticCanuckQuote:Frank Lobato was shot once in the chest Sunday night during a police search for a domestic-violence suspect. Lobato, a career criminal and formerly homeless man whom neighbors said was disabled, was not involved in the domestic dispute.Quote:Once out of the house, Sandoval called police and agreed to meet them at a nearby McDonald's. She said she gave police permission to enter her home, and told them that her husband and his uncle Lobato were in the apartment.Quote:Lobato had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1959, including arrests for drugs, assault and burglary. He had been in prison several times. His most recent arrest came in May on shoplifting charges.Career criminal.  Hardly an innocent.  The person who was killed was present and (probably) did not interfere with Sandoval's husband who held her captive and abused her for 17 hours.  The police knew he was in the building, and were likely aware of his history of assault.  That marks him as a threat, and complicit in an act in which another person was held held against her will and beaten for talking to someone at the bar.Generally speaking the police should not shoot people when trying to arrest, however when you are at the scene of a crime which involved holding a woman essentially hostage and tormenting her and then the police show up and you do not comply 100% and you have a violent criminal history, then in the immortal words of Chris Rock "Everybody knows if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them.".The criminal who was shot and killed was not an innocent man, and the police officer was correct in assessing a non-responsive, career criminal with a violent history as a potential threat.  Unfortunately this police officer will likely lose his career and be vilified in his community even though he did his job which is to protect and serve innocent civilians.I'm sorry but your arguments are completely and utterly irrelevent to this situation.  He was innocent, period.;  So the poliece can go into a bad area of town and get massicured by the Drug Dealers, etc that Do have the guns.  Hell in LA, the criminals have much better weaponery that the cops. Cops should have guns, and tazers as well.  The cop should use the tazers for a first choice, but if they are really getting fired upon by the bad guys - I have no problem with a cop taking out his gun and shooting to kill.These guys have a right to defend themselves - Police work can get dangerious (hell a cop a few weeks ago just got shot when he pulled over someone for a simple speeding ticket).  Disarming cops is about the dumbest thing you can do - it takes away their only real protection.  I vote for better training, that way the officer can better prepare himself for an instance on when he may/may not have to pull out his gun. (hopefully he would never have too).Roach   ;  Fine! But what has that got to do with this situation? The man in question was not armed! Incidentally, if you people would have sensible gun control laws, the drug dealers wouldn't be armed.   ;Quote:Original post by RoachSo the poliece can go into a bad area of town and get massicured by the Drug Dealers, etc that Do have the guns.  Hell in LA, the criminals have much better weaponery that the cops. Cops should have guns, and tazers as well.  The cop should use the tazers for a first choice, but if they are really getting fired upon by the bad guys - I have no problem with a cop taking out his gun and shooting to kill.These guys have a right to defend themselves - Police work can get dangerious (hell a cop a few weeks ago just got shot when he pulled over someone for a simple speeding ticket).  Disarming cops is about the dumbest thing you can do - it takes away their only real protection.  I vote for better training, that way the officer can better prepare himself for an instance on when he may/may not have to pull out his gun. (hopefully he would never have too).RoachWho wanted to disarm the police?  Sure, they have a right to defend themselves, but this man was not threatening the officer, and he was unarmed.  Police do too much reacting, and not enough thinking.;Quote:Original post by King of MenFine! But what has that got to do with this situation? The man in question was not armed! Incidentally, if you people would have sensible gun control laws, the drug dealers wouldn't be armed.Criminals do not follow the law by definition.  The only ones who will have guns then will be the criminals in such a utopia.  Oh, and of course the cops as well who would continue to shoot people over soda cans.   