Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Granadino

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a non-lethal weapon.

a Less lethal weapon

Can you get even one aspect correct?

Granadino

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

Worse case scenario is he kills someone else, an innocent bystander. THATS the worse case scenario.

No such thing as not shooting to kill, no police force trains to aim to injure.

US policing mirrors the US as a whole. Turn on the TV, they are a very full on, all or nothing violent people.

Joe Columbo

Cops in America know that guns are extremelly prevalent within American society so when they have to deal with someone they have to be aware for the potential for a gun being pulled on them and as a result are going to be a lot more jumpy and make more mistakes than a guard in Ireland who knows 99.9% of people will be unarmed and the can be comfortable in dealing with them. It's understandable there are so many police shootings in the USA when you have such a violent society. Black people tend to live in poor urban areas and poverty combined with high population density tends to add up to crime so it's understandable that more black people end up getting involved with and shot by cops because they are going to have more interaction with them due to where they live.

Cops like most people just care about getting home alive each day so expecting them to be extremely calm and rational when someone points a weapon at them is ridiculous, it must be an unbelievably stressful job. Cops in America are too violent and this needs to stop but the population is too violent also and a violent population is going to result in a violent police force. There are root causes of the issue that are being ignored and it would be more responsible of the media to allow some nuance in there coverage and not the pathetic rabble rousing they have indulged in thus far.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

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.

No such offence in Ireland. Dunno about the US.

Had he not resisted, but he did. If he stole the Gardas baton or spray then used them on the Garda they would have used force to stop him as is their right and expectation. They most certainly would not have allowed him jog home and called in after breakfast tomorrow

Mrsmum

For general law and order, there has to be some sense of people, even if unarmed, understanding they cannot run from cops too though. Is it not the fear of being shot that makes alot of people put their hands up in these situations and worse ones. Otherwise sure why would anyone stay and face the music. They would all just run without a bother on them.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a non-lethal weapon.

They had bo idea what he drew, also a taser can incapacitate so he could maybe have taken the gun and shot the officer on the ground.

If he had no weapon and made a cocked hand and pointed that back it would still have been a justified shooting, they could not know at the time.

Hindsight is 2020.


Look, we'll never ageee I think a working class cop should have the right to defend his life from violence

ohnonotgmail

Mrsmum wrote: »

For general law and order, there has to be some sense of people, even if unarmed, understanding they cannot run from cops too though. Is it not the fear of being shot that makes alot of people put their hands up in these situations and worse ones. Otherwise sure why would anyone stay and face the music. They would all just run without a bother on them.

so the police should just shoot them in the back if they run away?

punisher5112

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.

Stop making it out like he done nothing, many on here commenting and not even looking at all the footage.
He was wrong, he shouldn't have fought the 2 officers, he shouldn't have hit them and taken their taser, he tried to use it against them also, he ran but so do many and look at how many will kill anyone to get away.....

He could have gotten into a car with people inside, used the taser, he could also have a knife or actually have a gun as they hadn't searched him....

I know what way I would have done it and that's absolutely no different and those two officers were professional to the end.

He chose to do what he did.

3 shots were fired doesn't mean all hit their target either.


I'd actually love to see you all hating thrown into a similar scenario or he'll even a training centre for officers and see what they have to put up with.

ohnonotgmail

punisher5112 wrote: »

Stop making it out like he done nothing, many on here commenting and not even looking at all the footage.
He was wrong, he shouldn't have fought the 2 officers, he shouldn't have hit them and taken their taser, he tried to use it against them also, he ran but so do many and look at how many will kill anyone to get away.....

He could have gotten into a car with people inside, used the taser, he could also have a knife or actually have a gun as they hadn't searched him....

I know what way I would have done it and that's absolutely no different and those two officers were professional to the end.

He chose to do what he did.

3 shots were fired doesn't mean all hit their target either.


I'd actually love to see you all hating thrown into a similar scenario or he'll even a training centre for officers and see what they have to put up with.

he was searched for weapons. he had none.

weldoninhio

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.

Amnesty International has documented over 500 deaths that occurred after the use of Tasers.

Stablelad123

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

He did lay a hand on the cops and he took their tazer. He then fled. The cop chasing him had his tazer out which meant he just wanted to apprehend him. This all changed when the guy turned and shot the tazer at the cop. Cop drew his gun and shot him because he felt his life was in danger. It went from a case of the guy resisting arrest to wanting to harm the cops. End of story.

Mrsmum

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the police should just shoot them in the back if they run away?

Circular argument. The answer to that is they wouldn't be shot if they obeyed a police order to stop.

joe40

Joe Columbo wrote: »

Cops in America know that guns are extremelly prevalent within American society so when they have to deal with someone they have to be aware for the potential for a gun being pulled on them and as a result are going to be a lot more jumpy and make more mistakes than a guard in Ireland who knows 99.9% of people will be unarmed and the can be comfortable in dealing with them. It's understandable there are so many police shootings in the USA when you have such a violent society. Black people tend to live in poor urban areas and poverty combined with high population density tends to add up to crime so it's understandable that more black people end up getting involved with and shot by cops because they are going to have more interaction with them due to where they live.

Cops like most people just care about getting home alive each day so expecting them to be extremely calm and rational when someone points a weapon at them is ridiculous, it must be an unbelievably stressful job. Cops in America are too violent and this needs to stop but the population is too violent also and a violent population is going to result in a violent police force. There are root causes of the issue that are being ignored and it would be more responsible of the media to allow some nuance in there coverage and not the pathetic rabble rousing they have indulged in thus far.

I take your point, probably the main problem is the massive inequality that exists, which disproportionately affects black communities. Poor education, poor health care, poor mental health support, no social welfare.
And of course gun control.

They're all long term problem that America does not seem to be able to get a handle on.

Police brutality is another problem and obviously violent crime is a factor but how many controversial deaths have we seen where the police were not in danger but still killed someone.

They're not all down to over anxious nervous cops.

Even some of the ways protestors were handled show that a police mentality that is far too macho and aggressive.

It's simply not working and is totally counterproductive.

The police are not the only issue but the way some police behave and they are part of the problem.

Danzy

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

He disagreed and felt he shouldn't be shot at or threatened with a weapon.
A jumped up prole I guess.

ohnonotgmail

Mrsmum wrote: »

Circular argument. The answer to that is they wouldn't be shot if they obeyed a police order to stop.

so you dont have an issue with the police shooting somebody in the back as they run away? a simple yes or no will suffice.

Danzy

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Worse case scenario is he kills someone else, an innocent bystander. THATS the worse case scenario.

No such thing as not shooting to kill, no police force trains to aim to injure.

US policing mirrors the US as a whole. Turn on the TV, they are a very full on, all or nothing violent people.

We can all agree on that.

Danzy

joe40 wrote: »

I take your point, probably the main problem is the massive inequality that exists, which disproportionately affects black communities. Poor education, poor health care, poor mental health support, no social welfare.
And of course gun control.

They're all long term problem that America does not seem to be able to get a handle on.

Police brutality is another problem and obviously violent crime is a factor but how many controversial deaths have we seen where the police were not in danger but still killed someone.

They're not all down to over anxious nervous cops.

Even some of the ways protestors were handled show that a police mentality that is far too macho and aggressive.

It's simply not working and is totally counterproductive.

The police are not the only issue but the way some police behave and they are part of the problem.

Broadly agree.

punisher5112

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he was searched for weapons. he had none.

No he wasn't, they had just tried to cuff him and he ran, they tend to search when in cuffs, simple really the footage is there.


He could have a gun or knife down his pants.

If this is how the cops were to carry themselves then we would be looking at a lot more killed on duty.

Ardent

Just watched the Atlanta mayor on CNN. She is an example of the worst type of lily-livered, populist political ladder climber.

Talking about "rooting" for Brooks and "just let him go". Boll®cks - you don't make up the rules retrospectively. Give the officers the decency of a full investigation - lots of video evidence to justify their actions - before throwing them under a bus to save your own political skin.

If I was a member of the Atlanta PD I would be seriously considering an organised walkout

punisher5112

Ardent wrote: »

Just watched the Atlanta mayor on CNN. She is an example of the worst type of lily-livered, populist political ladder climber.

Talking about "rooting" for Brooks and "just let him go". Boll®cks - you don't make up the rules retrospectively. Give the officers the decency of a full investigation - lots of video evidence to justify their actions - before throwing them under a bus to save your own political skin.

If I was a member of the Atlanta PD I would be seriously considering an organised walkout

Blue flue.....

They really could do with using it now....


Who will protect the mayor and these other loonies then.

Stablelad123

Ardent wrote: »

Just watched the Atlanta mayor on CNN. She is an example of the worst type of lily-livered, populist political ladder climber.

Talking about "rooting" for Brooks and "just let him go". Boll®cks - you don't make up the rules retrospectively. Give the officers the decency of a full investigation - lots of video evidence to justify their actions - before throwing them under a bus to save your own political skin.

If I was a member of the Atlanta PD I would be seriously considering an organised walkout

If the cop isn't reinstated there will be hell to pay.
Mass walkouts nationwide.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he was searched for weapons. he had none.

Not in the footage I saw, The footage on CNN which includes the restaurants CCTV shows hims point the taser at police and then get shot.

He wasnt just running away, he was aiming a weapon at police. Thats the facts. Thats the footage.

The steps of force escalation are simple, you start small and go up as needed. They tried just handcuffing, they tried physical retraint, then taser and lastly, they used lethal. Thats the force continuum and is similar here as well.

The difference being that the average cop here cant escalate to a firearm and therefore cant be expected to as part of the system. Our system is at that stage to call for armed support for an armed suspect while maintaining personal safety and that of the public. Gardai are expected to try and stop a suspect fleeing. They are expected to try and stop an armed suspect if possible. Armed Gardai can shoot someone dead if they are threatened with a weapon. They wont wait until someone actually shoots them. Again, different country with different rules and thankfully a lot less fatalities on both sides.

You do now understand that a taser can be lethal and used more than once yes? I assume you have googled that now?

Heres the footage I watched: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/rayshard-brooks-videos-final-moments/index.html

iebamm2580

punisher5112 wrote: »

No he wasn't, they had just tried to cuff him and he ran, they tend to search when in cuffs, simple really the footage is there.


He could have a gun or knife down his pants.

If this is how the cops were to carry themselves then we would be looking at a lot more killed on duty.

He was asked had he gun and was patted down in one of the earlier videos.

patsman07

I posted this late last night, but I really think it is a brilliant article about the whole issue, and it is backed by data throughout.

Please read: https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Organic_Social

Donald Trump

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No such offence in Ireland. Dunno about the US.

Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it is not true.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Not in the footage I saw, The footage on CNN which includes the restaurants CCTV shows hims point the taser at police and then get shot.

He wasnt just running away, he was aiming a weapon at police. Thats the facts. Thats the footage.

The steps of force escalation are simple, you start small and go up as needed. They tried just handcuffing, they tried physical retraint, then taser and lastly, they used lethal. Thats the force continuum and is similar here as well.

The difference being that the average cop here cant escalate to a firearm and therefore cant be expected to as part of the system. Our system is at that stage to call for armed support for an armed suspect while maintaining personal safety and that of the public. Gardai are expected to try and stop a suspect fleeing. They are expected to try and stop an armed suspect if possible. Armed Gardai can shoot someone dead if they are threatened with a weapon. They wont wait until someone actually shoots them. Again, different country with different rules and thankfully a lot less fatalities on both sides.

You do now understand that a taser can be lethal and used more than once yes? I assume you have googled that now?

Heres the footage I watched: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/rayshard-brooks-videos-final-moments/index.html

he was searched for weapons. https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/what-we-know-so-far-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks/

Rolfe asked Brooks to step out of the car at 10:02 p.m. according to bodycam timestamps. He asked to do a weapons pat-down on Brooks, which Brooks consented to. Rolfe didn’t appear to find any weapons. Rolfe then performed two field sobriety tests on Brooks

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

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

Well hang on a second now, hes sacked but thats their system. They also reinstate afterwards. You dont follow the full system to conclusion in 2 days especially when criminal cases overrules civil. The sacking was a kneejerk, tame the crowd response.

Tasers can kill and have and again, police have a duty of care to people that the armed suspect may encounter afterwards. They nor you nor I can state for a fact he would not have harmed anyone else.

Lastly, in the CCTV footage you can see its a second between him turning and firing the taser and being shot by the cop. The cops life matters. hes entitled to defend himself and despite what people think, use force. Police are required to use whatever 'reasonable' force is required to achieve a legal objective. They followed the force continuum at every single step. Let me repeat that, every single step from level 1 to 6 (I think for the US). OK they skipped pepper spray and batons but as he was armed with a level 5, they wouldnt have worked.

You cant keep comparing to Ireland, the Irish want tough policing on people just never them and only until its actually applied. In Ireland Gardai use handcuffs and are accused of brutality. More Gardai have been shot dead by criminals than criminals by Gardai, thats hardly a nice statistic now is it for a society that claims to value Garda lives. Cheaper to bury em than arm em.

then theres the cases where Gardai have been dragged through the courts for using lethal force on a person with a fcking rocket launcher that was hijacking a car ffs!

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he was searched for weapons. https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/what-we-know-so-far-about-the-killing-of-rayshard-brooks/

Thats not a search. Its a pat down, external of clothing only and in certain obvious areas such as pockets. Its most assuredly not a search and is not defined as one.

You have not been correct in one single aspect of this so far, in proceedures, in the equiptment used and its capabilities, in comparisons to Gardai and not in what has actually occured. Not a single area.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it is not true.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/5/enacted/en/html

Absolutely. Luckily I do know.

'in charge off' requires the keys to be in the ignition and in most cases the engine to be turned on (modern keyless cars). Its a required ingrediant for a succesful prosecution. read it again:

"A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle "

It is not an offence to sit in a stationary car and have the key in your pocket. there is zero attempt to drive at such a stage