Second Video of Alton Sterling's Shooting Death Seems to Contradict Police Claim That He Was Holding a Gun

[ExPatty 502]

Here's what I don't understand. When a cop kills a black person, it gets all kinds of media (sensational) coverage. But in Chicago, a black is killed (on average) every 14 hours. That means every 10 days, 17 more blacks are murdered. Yet there seems to be little to no outrage nor coverage of this fact. Why not? Those lives matter just as much as anyone else's, yet it's hardly mentioned. And happens a lot more frequently.

Because when that happens they can't blame it on racism. It's far, far more fun to blame it on racism because it allows the local community to hold somebody or something else responsible. That's why a tiny percentage of deaths of blacks from cops results in a huge amount of media coverage. Yes, it is that simple.

[Jacque67 7,328]

The good old zero sum game.

[ExPatty 502]

Just to give a heads up on those slow to catch up: The cops who shot Alton Sterling will not be convicted of murder, if they are even charged to begin with.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3685764/Officers-saw-butt-gun-Alton-Sterling-s-pocket-trying-restrain-saw-reach-warrant-says.html

They claim they saw the butt of his gun and that he was reaching for it. Is this true? Is it borne out by the facts we have so far? Here is what we know unequivocally:

1) Sterling was resisting arrest

2) One of the cops sees a gun in Sterling's pocket, screams "gun", while they are wrestling with Sterling

3) He had one arm absolutely restrained (left)

4) His right arm absolutely was unrestrained (clear in the "second" video that the police did not have a good grasp of it)

5) One cop pulls a gun, does not immediately shoot; instead there are a couple more seconds of something else going on, meaning the cop with the gun drawn did not pull with total intention to shoot, else he would have immediately

6) Cop shoots

7) After the shooting, the gun in Sterling's pocket is pulled out by another cop

TLDR: Sterling is resisting arrest, is wrestling with cops, and has a gun. They shoot him. They won't be charged.

This looks to me to be a legal, justified shooting of an armed person resisting arrest.

To be clear, I've changed my view on this. The first viewing of the initial vid showed them shooting a guy cause they were sick of his #######. Then you learn he had a gun (initially we were not sure he did) and you can also tell they didn't have control of him. If you don't get that, you're not only unable to look at this matter objectively, but also you will be disappointed when these police are not convicted.

[JenniferNangel 137]

This is the best, most rounded, unbiased post on the issue to date

Thank you so much

[JenniferNangel 137]

Just to give a heads up on those slow to catch up: The cops who shot Alton Sterling will not be convicted of murder, if they are even charged to begin with.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3685764/Officers-saw-butt-gun-Alton-Sterling-s-pocket-trying-restrain-saw-reach-warrant-says.html

They claim they saw the butt of his gun and that he was reaching for it. Is this true? Is it borne out by the facts we have so far? Here is what we know unequivocally:

1) Sterling was resisting arrest

2) One of the cops sees a gun in Sterling's pocket, screams "gun", while they are wrestling with Sterling

3) He had one arm absolutely restrained (left)

4) His right arm absolutely was unrestrained (clear in the "second" video that the police did not have a good grasp of it)

5) One cop pulls a gun, does not immediately shoot; instead there are a couple more seconds of something else going on, meaning the cop with the gun drawn did not pull with total intention to shoot, else he would have immediately

6) Cop shoots

7) After the shooting, the gun in Sterling's pocket is pulled out by another cop

TLDR: Sterling is resisting arrest, is wrestling with cops, and has a gun. They shoot him. They won't be charged.

This looks to me to be a legal, justified shooting of an armed person resisting arrest.

To be clear, I've changed my view on this. The first viewing of the initial vid showed them shooting a guy cause they were sick of his #######. Then you learn he had a gun (initially we were not sure he did) and you can also tell they didn't have control of him. If you don't get that, you're not only unable to look at this matter objectively, but also you will be disappointed when these police are not convicted.

Hahahahaha I was told he wasn't fighting police and because of it I'm racist. You resist arrest that's fighting police they knew he had a gun because the 911 call stated he pointed a gun at them. He was arrested enough times to understand the process that comes with it and I'm pretty sure he'd know the consequences for not complying

[OriZ 3,157]

I visit a forum that has a few cops on it and every time a video comes out of a cop shooting they automatically defend the cops. But, one explained why: it's because they are falsely accused constantly, just all the time, so it's become instinctive. They did the same to the alton sterling video. I actually was willing to give alton the benefit of the doubt, but that link is quite telling. It's obvious that although I believe two guys SHOULD have been able to restrain this guy's arms, they clearly hadn't, for whatever reason. The cop obstructed in the video obviously does not have control of sterling's right hand and, after the closest cop pulls his gun and puts it to sterling's chest there is more talking and waiting for a couple of seconds. During this time sterling is clearly fighting.

I am now of the impression sterling, while resisting arrest, was reaching for his piece, which the cops knew about and verbalized.

I also predict the cops will get off for this and it will probably be the right thing.

The problem with some people is that they want so badly to believe in the narrative they made up, that they'll distort any facts or truth in order to do so

As I said on day 1 when that video came out that he may have been trying to reach for his weapon, and you can also hear them telling him a couple times to let go of it before they shot him. Cops usually don't shoot people for no reason. The reason may not always be a very good one, although in this case it probably was, but nonetheless they usually don't do it for no reason at all,

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Like you, and I am sure MANY people, I was at first shocked at what appeared to be cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. But then I saw the SECOND video, and realized we have yet to see what happened between the time the cops arrived on scene and the two videos where he was on the ground, and that leaves several unanswered questions. After re-evaluating the situation, I realized that the cops may well have been acting in self defense/fear of their own lives.

To be clear, I've changed my view on this. The first viewing of the initial vid showed them shooting a guy cause they were sick of his #######. Then you learn he had a gun (initially we were not sure he did) and you can also tell they didn't have control of him. If you don't get that, you're not only unable to look at this matter objectively, but also you will be disappointed when these police are not convicted.

[ExPatty 502]

Cops usually don't shoot people for no reason.

Virtually never. Rare as hen's teeth. There was a video a couple years back of a cop shooting a guy at a gas station who was going for his wallet. That was for no reason, but it's very rare there isn't at least some reason the cop is responding with force. In all of the cases touted by BLM that I can think of right now (certainly all the main ones), in 100% of the cases the person was resisting arrest or using/threatening violence.