Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Danzy

iebamm2580 wrote: »

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

Could it ever be possible that a pat down might miss a weapon?

Could that ever happen, even once?

AbusesToilets

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

In this scenario, he wasn't shot in the back. he was shot when he turned and pointed a weapon at the officer. Running away doesn't absolve you of the consequences for your actions.

Danzy

Exactly, it was the pointing back that led him to be shot,not his resisting arrest, not his violence, the threat to life.

They disagreed with many that their lives were worth a risk, especially with middle class activists safe at home, in safe neighbourhoods.

Atlanta is not safe and the area it happened is not safe by Atlanta standards.

iebamm2580

iebamm2580 wrote: »

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

thats fair enough but a pat down is very cursary and not a search.

asking if he has one only really matters if the person is being honest and giving them an oppurtunity to disclose. Again, following the steps. Its mostly in reference to the fact the they have the right to carry and therefore they ask and theres a system in place for a legally held firearm to be safely produced. A system we dont have and dont need thankfully.

We do however ask people if they have any weapons on them and prior to drug searches, if they have drugs. Complaince is always the best option in such circumstances but guess what? Criminals tell fibs and sometimes dont tell us about the illegal and sometimes dangerous items they carry. They also sometimes attempt to produce them and hurt Gardai afterwards. Its not uncommon to find junkies carrying open and bloody needles and gotten "Oh yeah, I forgot about that" in reply to the finding of said item after being told they were clean

Its also happened where people are reasonable and complaint for most of the interaction. Will allow you to handuff them, bring them to the station and then for some reason knwon only in their heads, will go nuts inside a cell or search room.

Donald Trump

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

Right ok. You are correct and the supreme court is wrong
https://app.justis.com/case/dpp-v-byrne/overview/c4CZm1aJnZWca


You can stick in qualifications about "pocket" etc. to try to obscure things. Doesn't change the fact that you would likely be done for it. Once there exists a prima facie case that you are in charge of said vehicle, the burden would fall on you to disprove it. Not impossible, but not easy

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

I guess ER doctors should refuse to treat them as well?

Where is your moral boundary?

They are not out calling er doctors murderers, scum, racist nor are they asking for er doctors to be defunded or abolished.

Why would a police unit put themselves in danger going into a ghetto at 1 o clock in the morning in response to a call.

Many individual officers womt do it. They have young families at home. Why help these people who hate them so much.

Rioters and protesters have made their bed now.

Danzy

I'd view it as why would police work in areas where even doing your job properly is enough to have the Mayor turn on you, middle class American consider you a savage.

Either way the effect is the same, police, of any colour will minimize activity in African American communities.

joseywhales

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

afro man

joseywhales wrote: »

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

A person with bullet in each leg can still be able to return fire if carrying a weapon...

gibgodsman

Cannot understand this one, the police were completely right in what they did, the second he took the tazer and turned it on the officers all bets were off. Imagine if they just let him taze them and then he could have possibly got a gun and then what? He put himself into that situation, not the officers. Race has nothing to do with this one, play stupid games win stupid prizes. Saying "Would that happen in Ireland" etc doesn't work either, because people over here do not easily have access to guns like America, watch Police Activity on Youtube, you will see just how often Police get shot at

mynamejeff

joseywhales wrote: »

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

again and again this is covered , there is no army police organisation or firearms training course in the world that trains to shoot in the leg ,

a running target at night with a handgun

aim for centre mass if your are going to shoot at all

anything else is Hollywood BS

biko

joseywhales wrote: »

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

You find that even a trained officer will not be able to hit someone in the legs if they are moving.
And even if you do it doesn't mean they will fall to the ground.

As a civilian, a soldier or a police officer, you train to hit centre of mass as this is where you are most likely to hit.

yourdeadwright

gibgodsman wrote: »

Cannot understand this one, the police were completely right in what they did, the second he took the tazer and turned it on the officers all bets were off. Imagine if they just let him taze them and then he could have possibly got a gun and then what? He put himself into that situation, not the officers. Race has nothing to do with this one, play stupid games win stupid prizes. Saying "Would that happen in Ireland" etc doesn't work either, because people over here do not easily have access to guns like America, watch Police Activity on Youtube, you will see just how often Police get shot at

Its bizarre people trying to blame the cops on this incident

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Its bizarre people trying to blame the cops on this incident

No it's not.

Had the incident been in Europe the chances of him being shot are small. European police routinely deal with dangerous situations without their gun leaving their holster.

joseywhales

mynamejeff wrote: »

again and again this is covered , there is no army police organisation or firearms training course in the world that trains to shoot in the leg ,

a running target at night with a handgun

aim for centre mass if your are going to shoot at all

anything else is Hollywood BS

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

mynamejeff

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not.

Had the incident been in Europe the chances of him being shot are small. European police routinely deal with dangerous situations without their gun leaving their holster.

what are the stats on gun ownership and police getting shot or shot at in Europe compared to the US right now I wonder ?

he probably wouldn't have been shot in Europe your right but the situations are no where near interchangeable

The Nal

mynamejeff wrote: »

again and again this is covered , there is no army police organisation or firearms training course in the world that trains to shoot in the leg ,

a running target at night with a handgun

aim for centre mass if your are going to shoot at all

anything else is Hollywood BS

You also run the high risk of missing and the bullet bouncing off the ground and hitting someone else.

Certainly resisting arrest, stealing a police stun gun and then running away while aiming the stun gun at the police is guaranteed to get you shot.

They need to bring back the choke hold where possible. In this case, one cop puts it on, one observes. Would've been over in 10 seconds and left a living suspect.

mynamejeff

joseywhales wrote: »

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

he was armed , he fought the police and stole a tazer then aimed it at the police

he had not been checked , he was patted down not searched

he was being arrested for DUI , that cant be done the day after ,

the leg shot has been explained to you a number of times already and you are choosing to ignore it


you are trying to turn this into something its not

why are you doing that

weldoninhio

joseywhales wrote: »

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

The should just shoot the weapon out of the criminals hands. Cheaper than the medical bills of two shot legs.

mynamejeff

The Nal wrote: »

You also run the high risk of missing and the bullet bouncing off the ground and hitting someone else.

Certainly resisting arrest, stealing a police stun gun and then running away while aiming the stun gun at the police is guaranteed to get you shot.

They need to bring back the choke hold where possible. In this case, one cop puts it on, one observes. Would've been over in 10 seconds and left a living suspect.

choke hold is an awful idea , dangerous even bone by a professional never mind a poorly trained panicky cop

it should not ever be used in policing , its a military thing that was brought over by vets joining the police in America ,

compressing some ones neck is way to dangerous as seen in the Floyd murder

weldoninhio

joseywhales wrote: »

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

If they aim for his leg and miss, do you think the bullet just stops??

yourdeadwright

joseywhales wrote: »

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

eh your wrong , He was ARMED when he was shot

The Nal

mynamejeff wrote: »

choke hold is an awful idea , dangerous even bone by a professional never mind a poorly trained panicky cop

it should not ever be used in policing , its a military thing that was brought over by vets joining the police in America ,

compressing some ones neck is way to dangerous as seen in the Floyd murder

If done correctly all it does it make the person basically faint for a few seconds. And it only takes a few seconds. Floyd had his neck kneeled on for 7 minutes or something and for a few minutes after he passed out.

yourdeadwright

Also why do people keep saying non violent crime,

It started as a non violent crime, but when he fought with the cops , stole there Taser and pointed at them it became a violent crime ,

joseywhales

mynamejeff wrote: »

he was armed , he fought the police and stole a tazer then aimed it at the police

he had not been checked , he was patted down not searched

he was being arrested for DUI , that cant be done the day after ,

the leg shot has been explained to you a number of times already and you are choosing to ignore it


you are trying to turn this into something its not

why are you doing that

I am not sure how discussing something can turn it into something it isn't. Perhaps we should wait for your statement on all such incidents in case our opinions are wrong.

I stated he had a non lethal weapon. He was running away, police officer was not in danger. I am trying to understand if there was a way for the police officer to de-escalate without taking lethal action. How is that changing the story?

The ineffectiveness of a leg shot was explained to me 3 times within 9 minutes before a reply from me, I think you need to chill.
Why is it you are so defensive about a discussion?

In terms of the dui, I assume resisting arrest and pointing a tazer at an officer are greater crimes. Can these not be resolved with a follow up? Rather than escalation to lethal action?

walshb

Can folks quit the nonsense comparisons between the 340 million people of such diverse backgrounds in the U.S. and European countries...

Not saying cops do not exhibit trigger happiness. They do. But the exaggerations and comparisons to Europe are juts ridiculous.

Danzy

joseywhales wrote: »

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

Few could do that with any regularity.

That's an exceptional level of marksmanship even in training, never mind when in a stressful situation.

It's good shooting to hit a leg If standing, with a handgun.

mynamejeff

joseywhales wrote: »

I am not sure how discussing something can turn it into something it isn't. Perhaps we should wait for your statement on all such incidents in case our opinions are wrong.

I stated he had a non lethal weapon. He was running away, police officer was not in danger. I am trying to understand if there was a way for the police officer to de-escalate without taking lethal action. How is that changing the story?

The ineffectiveness of a leg shot was explained to me 3 times within 9 minutes before a reply from me, I think you need to chill.
Why is it you are so defensive about a discussion?

In terms of the dui, I assume resisting arrest and pointing a tazer at an officer are greater crimes. Can these not be resolved with a follow up? Rather than escalation to lethal action?

by repeating that he was unarmed is trying to claim something that is not true , I don't know why anyone would do that as its a lie and not discussion

your suggestions of trying to find him later are nonsensical in the extreme.
let a man you may or may not have correctly identified run off with a police weapon after assaulting officers ? do you think that would happen anywhere ?

as for the leg shot thing , I along with most other posters here assume that it is common sense

declanflynn

weldoninhio wrote: »

If they aim for his leg and miss, do you think the bullet just stops??

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

joseywhales

mynamejeff wrote: »

by repeating that he was unarmed is trying to claim something that is not true , I don't know why anyone would do that as its a lie and not discussion

your suggestions of trying to find him later are nonsensical in the extreme.
let a man you may or may not have correctly identified run off with a police weapon after assaulting officers ? do you think that would happen anywhere ?

as for the leg shot thing , I along with most other posters here assume that it is common sense

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.