Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

joseywhales

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The second he started attacking the police, it became a potentially lethal confrontation. He could have grabbed a pistol, fatally injured them with strikes, or with the tazer. The police are entirely within their right to respond proportionally at that point.

Proportionally would be running in the opposite direction with a tazer in their hands.

The fact is they initiated the only lethal action that took place on a fleeing person.

Was this the only option they had to resolve the situation?

joe40

Danzy wrote: »

Class divide.The working class cop should have been willing to take a bullet to conform to middle class activists views.

One above says yes he could essily have had a hidden gun but it doesn't change his view, the prole should have been open to dying.

What are you talking about the millions of people on BLM are far from middle class.

If you're so sure the police man did nothing wrong why was he sacked.
Bowing to media pressure is nonsense, plenty of controversial things have happened where police haven't been sanctioned.

I know it will be investigated fully but the initial reaction is that the police action was not appropriate.

That not me, some randomer on an Irish discussion forum it's his own bosses.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

Are you insane or just cannot read? Its in the very start of the case that YOU have quoted:

"The defendant’s keys were in the ignition"
"had been found with the keys in the ignition turned to the ready position "

Now, I can go back and quote your original statement and I can then quote mine. The qualification of where the keys are isnt some throwaway part, its stated twice in the judgement and was stressed by the DPP and State because it was very very important to the case.

I wont even get into the last part of your waffle concerning proving your own innocence.

Danzy

joseywhales wrote: »

Proportionally would be running in the opposite direction with a tazer in their hands.

The fact is they initiated the only lethal action that took place on a fleeing person.

Was this the only option they had to resolve the situation?

When he raised a weapon, they had no choice, their own safety and that of the public meant it.

If he kept on running he would still be alive, if he did anything but point his hand back as one would a gun, he made his choice and made theirs.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Proportionally would be running in the opposite direction with a tazer in their hands.

The fact is they initiated the only lethal action that took place on a fleeing person.

Was this the only option they had to resolve the situation?

Do you actually understand the role that police officers have in society? They stop people doing things they are not allowed do. They arrest people that dont want to be arrested.

The path you are trying to take here is that an armed person is allowed run away and thats that. Call in tomorrow after lunch and see if hes feeling more compliant then.
What if he isnt though? Wasit till next week? What if hes armed to the teeth at that stage? What if he kills someone after fleeing?

I know its all what if situations but they matter. the courts have held in ireland that the after effects of the interaction not only matter but can be used both to defend Garda action but also find Gardai negligent

yourdeadwright

joseywhales wrote: »

Proportionally would be running in the opposite direction with a tazer in their hands.

The fact is they initiated the only lethal action that took place on a fleeing person.

Was this the only option they had to resolve the situation?

It was the only option because he mad it there only option ,

1. They tried to arrest him quietly
2. They then tried to arrest him with a struggle ,
3. Then he pointed a dangerous weapon at them ,
He escalated the situation not them ,


Why are you so anti cop ?

He got his chance before he went nuts and started wrestling and punching them , If someone is wiling to do that to police what is willing to do to the general public,

The whole satiation was caused by the man himself why are you absolving him ?

Have to remember the police have a job to do,
Why was he acting like such a loon for such a small thing,

The Nal

vetinari wrote: »

This is exactly the bad faith argument I was talking about.


Police use tasers every day and I bet you have no issues with it.
Now that someone robs a taser, it's this lethal weapon?

Its a lethal weapon regardless. It kills people. Police shouldn't be using them when they could be using a choke first. If they choked out Brooks he'd still be alive.

Danzy

joe40 wrote: »

What are you talking about the millions of people on BLM are far from middle class.

If you're so sure the police man did nothing wrong why was he sacked.
Bowing to media pressure is nonsense, plenty of controversial things have happened where police haven't been sanctioned.
I know it will be investigated fully but the initial reaction is that the police action was not appropriate.

That not me, some randomer on an Irish discussion forum it's his own bosses.

His sacking is political, the Chief of Police, a black woman resigned in protest over it.

If police officers aren't allowed shoot a suspect that is threatening their lives, then no one will stay in the force, black or white or whatever.

Why would they? It's not a well paid job, decent pension though.

Maybe if America had no guns, maybe if there wasn't such disparity in crime rates, actually I can't see how it would ever come about.

Danzy

The Nal wrote: »

Its a lethal weapon regardless. It kills people. Police shouldn't be using them when they could be using a choke first. If they choked out Brooks he'd still be alive.

True but the optics of a knocked out black man being dragged into a car would have it's own problems.

yourdeadwright

People are gone nuts,

Seems anyone committing any crime should now just resist arrest

" oh sorry I didn't realise you wanted to your resist arrest , so its best you just go ahead now and do what you want i'll get in my car and leave you be "

Danzy

yourdeadwright wrote: »

It was the only option because he mad it there only option ,



Have to remember the police have a job to do,
Why was he acting like such a loon for such a small thing,

He went full psycho because arrest was a parole violation and he had 4 years left to serve on his sentence for torturing his kids. Not beating.

The Nal

Danzy wrote: »

True but the optics of a knocked out black man being dragged into a car would have it's own problems.

No one would've known, happens all the time. Its much better than the optics of a black man being shot in the back while running away.

The choke started to become banned in the early 80s because cops didn't release it as they didn't know how to use it properly. A half day training course could get cops using it effectively and reduce the need for tasers and the like. You resist, you get choked.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

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.

Do you, by any chance believe in brethan law and call yourself a free man?

Its less lethal, it can and does kill people. You dont get to decide if that risk is worth it for the cop and his family. They carry firearms for a reason, their system allows the carrying and use of firearms for self defence even against someone not armed equally.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that he was no greater a threat than a woman carrying a stun gun or pepper spray legally in their handbag or a sober person carrying their legally licensed and owned firearm? Of course he was a greater risk to others because he was an intoxicated man who had just stolen a weapon, tried to use it on the police and was actively engaged in criminal behaviour. Thats an insane argument on your part.

The non aggression comment is gibberish. really out there. He resisted, punched them and fired a taser at them but wasnt 'aggressive'. Right, now back to the real world.

Some US police forces allow the use of lethal force against a fleeing felon provided there is reason to believe a danger to others is present. I think that box is ticked in this scenario.

The USA has the right to firearms for self defence in general. That self defence includes in some parts, property aka the castle law or castle doctrine.

The use of lethal force is not limited to situations where lethal force is threatended against you equally.

Gardai and police globally are authorised to use 'reasonable' force. The courts have found that the level of force need not be equal to or lesser than being threatended against the Garda. The reason is pretty simple, if force is needed then by its very nature the Garda will need more force to overcome the force they are being subjected to. To win the fight. A Garda can and has used lethal force via firearm against a person armed with only a blunt instrument. It has been held by the courts to be a legal use of force.

Going to the very very basics of that concept, handcuffs and restraining someone is use of force. if someone simple decides they dont wish to comply with Gardai and try to leave, force is used to obtain compliance. The alternative is anarchy and the breakdown of law and order.

Anyone with firearms training is trained to fire at center mass. Its a lethal option and is used as one. Shooting the leg has a good chance of being lethal. People bleed out very quickly from leg wounds.

Your last question is relevent to the topic, did an alternative exist? Yes of course one did but to utilise it required taking other risks. You risked allowing other people to get hurt, you risked the situation escalating even further and you risked the lives of the police. If that is a risk worth taking depends on you but in my shoes, it was not worth taking and I doubt anyone who actually finds themselves in that cops shoes would think its worth taking either.

The Nal

The Nal wrote: »

No one would've known, happens all the time. Its much better than the optics of a black man being shot in the back while running away.

The choke started to become banned in the early 80s because cops didn't release it as they didn't know how to use it properly. A half day training course could get cops using it effectively and reduce the need for tasers and the like. You resist, you get choked.

He wasnt shot in the back while running away. Watch the video

Danzy

The Nal wrote: »

No one would've known, happens all the time. Its much better than the optics of a black man being shot in the back while running away.

The choke started to become banned in the early 80s because cops didn't release it as they didn't know how to use it properly. A half day training course could get cops using it effectively and reduce the need for tasers and the like. You resist, you get choked.

Certainly worth considering rationality is out of the debate now. When you have phrases like Defund the police in operation, it's fantasy land time.

Even though some of the the points are valid on spending but the term is shock value and that is driving so much activism now.

Look at Chaz calling for the abolition of courts, it's laughable politics.

The take over of the broader left by middle class ideologues seeking meaning.

yourdeadwright

Danzy wrote: »

He went full psycho because arrest was a parole violation and he had 4 years left to serve on his sentence for torturing his kids. Not beating.

oh lovely fella so

The Nal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

He wasnt shot in the back while running away. Watch the video

I know but thats the narrative out there. "Cops shoot unarmed man in the back".

Danzy wrote: »

Certainly worth considering rationality is out of the debate now. When you have phrases like Defund the police in operation, it's fantasy land time.

Even though some of the the points are valid on spending but the term is shock value and that is driving so much activism now.

Look at Chaz calling for the abolition of courts, it's laughable politics.

The take over of the broader left by middle class ideologues seeking meaning.

Yeah certainly beyond the tipping point for the moment but we see this every few years. Defund the cops, jail the judges, power to the people stuff.

Overheal

PonchoMcHoncho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Ginoma32/status/1272308158170492928

Sure. I suppose brooks stashed a piece behind the Wendy’s dumpster for just such an occasion.

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

Police in the states use tasers with 3 shots in them.

It’s not standard. There isn’t a standard.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

And what’s your combat experience?

I suppose you never have a say about how AGS does it’s work for you on your dime?

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

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

The bright green one :rolleyes: you’re getting real funny now

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

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.

If they thought a taser was going to kill them then they weren’t adequately trained to be on the force. Good they were fired then.

Overheal

Stablelad123 wrote: »

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.

Well no the end of the story is they were fired and the chief resigned and the city they serve and protect was outraged at their excessive force. End of the story TBD.

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

Then those officers are no longer willing to serve and protect the public or their trust. Fire them. Simple.

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

If they thought a taser was going to kill them then they weren’t adequately trained to be on the force. Good they were fired then.

Sorry are you saying a taser can NOT kill them ? It can

Lets pretend it can not kill the, what in your mind is a taser for ?

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He attacked the cops, took their weapon and used it against them. Why is this continually hand waved away as being justifiable? Stating the police didn't follow proper escalation of force protocols IS the bad faith argument being made here.

No it’s not: the continuum of force didn’t work here.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The second he started attacking the police, it became a potentially lethal confrontation. He could have grabbed a pistol, fatally injured them with strikes, or with the tazer. The police are entirely within their right to respond proportionally at that point.

So a lady slaps a cop she’s dead to rights?

We have some sick minds in this thread

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

The police have a monopoly on violence. It's the basis of any fair or functioning society. It can be abused, no doubt but without it, life as a society is not possible.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA is even there to disagree with you.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

His sacking is political, the Chief of Police, a black woman resigned in protest over it.

If police officers aren't allowed shoot a suspect that is threatening their lives, then no one will stay in the force, black or white or whatever.

Why would they? It's not a well paid job, decent pension though.

Maybe if America had no guns, maybe if there wasn't such disparity in crime rates, actually I can't see how it would ever come about.

Erika Shields is black now?

Wow you’ve been talking some serious hole in this game

yourdeadwright

Overheal wrote: »

Erika Shields is black now?

Wow you’ve been talking some serious hole in this game

Can I ask you what where the police to do when there is someone who's just been violent pointing a Taser towards them ?