Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

lawrencesummers

I fail to see how anybody is still able to side with the cops here.

The guy was running away, he fired the taser that didn’t connect to the Cop and was shot in the back, and shot three times.

Police can use deadly force where there is a threat to life, there is no threat to like in this instance, for anyone to make this situation into a threat to life it involved IF he tasers the cop, and IF he tasers the other cop and a few more IF’s which means the situation in which he was shot did not at the time of the shooting have a threat to life.

Simple as.


But i still don’t think the cop should have been fired. No pun intended.

Danzy

Mrsmum wrote: »

Given the current atmosphere, I'm surprised the cops would shoot a black man for even a grave reason never mind what looks here to be, in the big scheme of things, a somewhat minor enough one. Have they been living under a rock these past few weeks. Course cops, thinking to themselves, I'm not getting fired and I'm not getting shot so I'll just do enough to collect my weekly pay and turn away from any trouble would probably cause a whole other set of problems.

The desire to stay alive when someone drew a weapon overwhelmed their desire to conform to middle class Americans idea of how they should respond, which is largely based on no experience of such situations.

ohnonotgmail

Danzy wrote: »

The desire to stay alive when someone drew a weapon overwhelmed their desire to conform to middle class Americans idea of how they should respond, which is largely based on no experience of such situations.

they shot a man who was running away and presented no threat to them.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they shot a man who was running away and presented no threat to them.

Pointing a weapon, that left them no choice.

It's all very well for Middle class activists from the safety of their homes to say working class cops should allow violent drunks to point weapons at them because they can tell with hindsight that the threat to life wasn't too severe.

ohnonotgmail

Danzy wrote: »

Pointing a weapon, that left them no choice.

It's all very well for Middle class activists from the safety of their homes to say working class cops should allow violent drunks to point weapons at them because they can tell with hindsight that the threat to life wasn't too severe.

a weapon he fired while running away which they should have known would have no effect. he had already fired. he was holding a piece of plastic.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a weapon he fired while running away which they should have known would have no effect. he had already fired. he was holding a piece of plastic.

Easy for you to know that from your comfy chair. They couldn't take the chance in the heat of the moment.

His pointing back cost him his life.

There is a real class divide I feel in this, lots of middle class activists thinking that working class cops should be more willing to let violent people threaten them in the most gun over loaded society in the world.

They may be cops, they may only be working class people but they still have an instinct for self preservation, a desire to live and that is understandable.

In a highly volatile situation with a violent criminal, the moment he brings a weapon to point, he has to be shot. The threatening motion leaves no choice. Their life depends on it and he has set it in motion.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a weapon he fired while running away which they should have known would have no effect. he had already fired. he was holding a piece of plastic.

How the hell can they be expected to know that firing while running away carried to no risk to anyone? You cannot possible state that.

Its also not a piece of plastic. Its a weapon considered so dangerous that Gardai shouldnt be allowed carry them according to civil rights groups here.

Please tell me that someone critisiing these police officers have some level or training and / or experience to do so.

Please tell me about the US based use of force system and the police responsibilty to bystanders. I am assuming you know these.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How the hell can they be expected to know that firing while running away carried to no risk to anyone? You cannot possible state that.

Its also not a piece of plastic. Its a weapon considered so dangerous that Gardai shouldnt be allowed carry them according to civil rights groups here.

Please tell me that someone critisiing these police officers have some level or training and / or experience to do so.

Please tell me about the US based use of force system and the police responsibilty to bystanders. I am assuming you know these.

they should know that. they have been trained to use them.

Danzy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

How the hell can they be expected to know that firing while running away carried to no risk to anyone? You cannot possible state that.

Its also not a piece of plastic. Its a weapon considered so dangerous that Gardai shouldnt be allowed carry them according to civil rights groups here.

Please tell me that someone critisiing these police officers have some level or training and / or experience to do so.

Please tell me about the US based use of force system and the police responsibilty to bystanders. I am assuming you know these.

He should have been willing to risk being shot for a poor wage, to impress those who will always see themselves as above him, even while talking about solidarity.

joe40

punisher5112 wrote: »

Drink and drugs can give unbelievable strength.

Some people can take 6 or 7 to get under control.

I'm not going to slag of the cops because he got away.

But the guy does not deserve death because he resisted arrest and got away.

There has to be proportionality in police actions.

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I fail to see how anybody is still able to side with the cops here.

The guy was running away, he fired the taser that didn’t connect to the Cop and was shot in the back, and shot three times.

Police can use deadly force where there is a threat to life, there is no threat to like in this instance, for anyone to make this situation into a threat to life it involved IF he tasers the cop, and IF he tasers the other cop and a few more IF’s which means the situation in which he was shot did not at the time of the shooting have a threat to life.

Simple as.


But i still don’t think the cop should have been fired. No pun intended.

Because we believe that the cops life carried some importance too?

Or that we understand what will happen to society if you start demanding police can only shoot after they themselves have been shot?

IF you insist on removing the 'IFS' of a situation then you remove any liability for what happens after the interaction with police, you must also guarantee the safety of those in the situation. A syou can no neither then its not your call.

Police have to consider the 'IFS' because they and others coulf be dead if they do not. Its held that Gardai, to keep it local, have a responsibility to not only third parties but also the suspects safety both during the interaction and after it. Therefore the 'IFS' come into play. IF the Garda allows the drunk to walk home and he gets hit by a car, the Gardai is investigated for negligence.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they should know that. they have been trained to use them.

You should have informed them exactly what weapon he had drawn then.

Given the time difference, you would have likely been in bed at the time, you could have been 100% certain that he had nothing else on him.

A great pity you weren't able to do so.

Danzy

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not going to slag of the cops because he got away.

But the guy does not deserve death because he resisted arrest and got away.

There has to be proportionality in police actions.

He wasn't shot for resisting arrest, he was shot for drawing a weapon and pointing it, a much more serious situation.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not going to slag of the cops because he got away.

But the guy does not deserve death because he resisted arrest and got away.

There has to be proportionality in police actions.

naturally, and beinf reasonable you must concede that he did a little more than resist and flee. He fired a weapon at armed police. The day that is not considered to be enough reason for a police officer to shoot someone, you may as well disband the police. Who in their right minds would become a US cop under those circumstances?

joe40

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because we believe that the cops life carried some importance too?

Or that we understand what will happen to society if you start demanding police can only shoot after they themselves have been shot?

IF you insist on removing the 'IFS' of a situation then you remove any liability for what happens after the interaction with police, you must also guarantee the safety of those in the situation. A syou can no neither then its not your call.

Police have to consider the 'IFS' because they and others coulf be dead if they do not. Its held that Gardai, to keep it local, have a responsibility to not only third parties but also the suspects safety both during the interaction and after it. Therefore the 'IFS' come into play. IF the Garda allows the drunk to walk home and he gets hit by a car, the Gardai is investigated for negligence.

A guard would not have shot the man in that circumstance drunk or not.
Drunk people walk home all the time.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

He should have been willing to risk being shot for a poor wage, to impress those who will always see themselves as above him, even while talking about solidarity.

I guess Blue Lives Dont Matter.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Because we believe that the cops life carried some importance too?

Or that we understand what will happen to society if you start demanding police can only shoot after they themselves have been shot?

IF you insist on removing the 'IFS' of a situation then you remove any liability for what happens after the interaction with police, you must also guarantee the safety of those in the situation. A syou can no neither then its not your call.

Police have to consider the 'IFS' because they and others coulf be dead if they do not. Its held that Gardai, to keep it local, have a responsibility to not only third parties but also the suspects safety both during the interaction and after it. Therefore the 'IFS' come into play. IF the Garda allows the drunk to walk home and he gets hit by a car, the Gardai is investigated for negligence.

what was the threat to the cops life? a taser is not a deadly weapon.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I guess Blue Lives Dont Matter.

black lives certainly dont. you can shoot a black man in the back as they are running away and people like you will defend the cop.

iebamm2580

In all fairness the cops had his car so knew who he was, Jesus let him off catch up with him the following day, im starting to think its more a lack of common sense then racism with some of these cops.

Danzy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

naturally, and beinf reasonable you must concede that he did a little more than resist and flee. He fired a weapon at armed police. The day that is not considered to be enough reason for a police officer to shoot someone, you may as well disband the police. Who in their right minds would become a US cop under those circumstances?

Let them be shot at, they are cheap working class lives when they lose out and are readily replaced.

That's the view of many.

weldoninhio

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Nope, I'm talking absolute sense here... Two completely sober and heavily armed cops allowed one unarmed drunk man to take control of the situation. The fact he had to draw his weapon and shoot 3 rounds at a drunk man running away, is proof that they lacked the requisite ability to control a fairly routine situation!

The drunk man was dumb, but that's hardly unusual for drunk people... he didn't deserve to die for his stupidity. And in most other western countries, he would almost certainly still be alive and in a court answering to a judge! But in braindead America, he gets gunned down like a scene from bad hollywood movie!

Too many twitchy and trigger happy people in America... far too eager to take their firearm out and start shooting, before they've fully engaged their brain! It's just too easy to take a lethal weapon out and end someone's life in that country... you can spend years in multiple court cases and appeals to decide if someone should be given a death sentence... but then end someone else's life in milliseconds with no trial at all... that's illogical and disturbing for any so-called civilized society!

Plenty of cops fire off a warning shot or one non lethal round - Nonsense

He was being civil and co-operative. - Nonsense up until he punched a cop threw another, stole a taser and ran.

The police officers voices sounded very panicked... I think it was an excessive use of force. But mostly they just handled a co-operative drunk man very poorly. - Nonsense

he parked his car up when he realised he was too drunk to drive - Nonsense he was going through a Drivethru so drunk that he passed out and car horns, banging on his window couldn't wake him.


You are talking nonsense.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

A guard would not have shot the man in that circumstance drunk or not.
Drunk people walk home all the time.

You cannot make that claim. Armed suspects are shot. thats what ARMED police do. Drunk people walk home all the time in the US too. So whats your point? Drunk drivers drive home a lot as well, but not all the time because sometimes they encounter police who use the 'IFS' to make decisions on how to proceed. Sometimes they will arrest, sometimes not. Sometimes they will use force and if you believe pointing and fireing a weapon at an armed detective wouldnt result in being shot, I have a bridge to sell.

You need to research this topic a lot, lot more. Theres case studies, court cases that refer to this.

However, once again I point out that the US is not Ireland. We do not have the same systems as they do nor even the same legal system. What would happen here makes no odds to how it happened there.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a weapon he fired while running away which they should have known would have no effect. he had already fired. he was holding a piece of plastic.

As stated multiple times, police tasers have three rounds in them.

joe40

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I guess Blue Lives Dont Matter.

Nobody said that at all.
I think everybody acknowledges that if the police man's life was at risk then shooting is appropriate.

In this instance the guy way running away, he was not confronting them, he had already escaped.

The weapon he pointed was their taser they knew it was a taser. He took it from the cop.

There would be outrage in Ireland if the same situation played out and we do value Garda lives.

And since he has been sacked the policeman didn't comply with American standards of policing

ohnonotgmail

weldoninhio wrote: »

As stated multiple times, police tasers have three rounds in them.

and tasers are not a deadly weapon. shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with a non-lethal weapon is not an appropriate response.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

black lives certainly dont. you can shoot a black man in the back as they are running away and people like you will defend the cop.

Lol.

Back to pretending he didn't point a weapon and switch to race.

More money than sense.

ohnonotgmail

Danzy wrote: »

Lol.

Back to pretending he didn't point a weapon and switch to race.

More money than sense.

a non-lethal weapon.

iebamm2580

iebamm2580 wrote: »

In all fairness the cops had his car so knew who he was, Jesus let him off catch up with him the following day, im starting to think its more a lack of common sense then racism with some of these cops.

Are you forgetting or ignoring the part where he took a cops weapon and fired it before fleeing with that weapon?

Would you take responsibility for his future actions under these circumstances?

There seems to be a mentality here that criminals will saunter home and therefore we should calmly allow anyone who chooses not to be arrested, to leave and catch up with them when it suits the criminal more. What if he still didnt want to be arrested later? What if the car was in fact not his or he no longer lived at the registered address?

Worse still, what if he used the police taser to hijack a pregnant woman using said taser? Theres a lot of possibilities at play here. Possibilities that would not have been in play had he not taken the course of action that he chose to.

He chose to drink drive, something a lot of people here are downplaying.
He chose to resist arrest, something people here seem to consider acceptable
He chose to steal a cops weapon, something people here seem to ignore
He chose to fire that weapon, again something that is being ignored
He chose to run away.

If we woke up tomorrow and the policing that people here are calling for was actually enacted, those same people would be screaming about lack of police action and criminals acting with impunity

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and tasers are not a deadly weapon. shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with a non-lethal weapon is not an appropriate response.

Pity you weren't there to fill them in on every detail you heard in hindsight.

They weren't willing to die in the absence of that. It must be false Consciousness.

Donald Trump

In Ireland you would likely be done for being found asleep in the drivers seat of a car while drunk if you have the keys in your possession

In many US states you could be similarly convicted.