Minnesota officer shoots dead another innocent black victim

gussieg

Its discussions like this that really show up the true colours of many people on this forum that make me ashamed to be even a human being, let alone Irish.

Sudden Valley

gussieg wrote: »

Its discussions like this that really show up the true colours of many people on this forum that make me ashamed to be even a human being, let alone Irish.

To be honest i think people are being honest that they think police officers lives are worth so much that they should never be put in any danger and unfortunately in America since anyone can be armed so, this may involve aggressive action against suspects . There's no simple solution even though both sides of the argument seem to assume they have one. I don't see anyone glorying in the death of this chap.

GreeBo

Danzy wrote: »

If he had no warrant, everything was in order with his car and wrestled with them and dived into the car like that, that warranted a tasering and there would be enough justification to shoot as well.

so running away from the police carries a death sentence now? Really?

Danzy wrote: »

Why he was pulled over no longer mattered when he started fighting and running.

He could have killed several and survived the arrest, just by not acting threatening to the police.

He was playing a grown up game and he acted like a violent fool.

He was a theat to the officer's present and in trying to get away, a threat to the public. He crashed into a car when escaping, thankfully he didn't kill the occupant.

How was he a threat? He crashed the car because he was dead at the time!

tayto lover

gussieg wrote: »

Its discussions like this that really show up the true colours of many people on this forum that make me ashamed to be even a human being, let alone Irish.

You think these incidents should not be discussed or you don’t like people having alternative views to you?

GreeBo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Thats not really a fair statement, in this case she didn't set out to kill him and in cases where unarmed people have been shot the officer who did it has been brought before the courts.

Bare in mind as well that in the US an officer leaving for work in the morning might not make it home alive that evening after being shot by a gang member.

Over there when they approach a car they have no idea if the person or people in it are armed and mean to do them harm.

But that is and always has been the job. You cant have a firefighter saying that he doesnt go into burning buldings in case they collapse and he dies, again thats the job.
The job of a police officer in the US is to put yourself into these situations, our system is very different, being shot at is not expected.

GreeBo

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

You really do not know anything of the US Police force, they are very Heavy handed. Spend anytime in the US and you will notice just how visible they are compared to here in Ireland. Night and day. That is not trying to justify what they do, just pointing out the reality of things over there. When you see what people get away with here, I always think if this was the US, you would be so busted.

I do know the US police force, thats the very thing I am questioning?
I'm asking "why" is tasering an acceptable response in this situation.

Its the justification that I am questioning, not the reality!

basill

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Depends on whether the subject is armed.

For me, armed response is only acceptable if the officer's life or health - or that of someone else - is threatened. I'm assuming that, in attempting to flee, that's not the case, so firing a warning shot. I'd be interested in knowing what the official training recommends.

That said, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the use of tasers.

He fled in a car. A car is a large mass of metal which can be used as a weapon. It can be driven over the officers attempting to arrest him and it can also be driven into other innocent bystanders or drivers. The car can also contain other weapons such as guns, knives, tasers, batons etc etc. Hence why the police force in the US are trained to stop at all costs suspects from returning to their vehicles.


The reality is if this individual had not resisted arrest then he would have gone to court and had his outstanding warrant(s) dealt with and been alive to protest his innocence.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

But that is and always has been the job. You cant have a firefighter saying that he doesnt go into burning buldings in case they collapse and he dies, again thats the job.
The job of a police officer in the US is to put yourself into these situations, our system is very different, being shot at is not expected.

A policeman is not expecting to be shot at anywhere in the world Greebo.

GreeBo

Ckendrick wrote: »

You don’t seem to realise that he was being tasered because he was resisting arrest and trying to flee the scene? Why do you think he was being tasered??

Please read my posts!
I am simply asking is a taser an acceptable and appropriate response to someone resisting arrest.

riffmongous

Danzy wrote: »

Official training, everywhere, is you shoot centre mass, shoot till the threat is down.

Letting a bullet fly random in a warning shot is not an option, for obvious reasons.

Fandymo wrote: »

A warning shot . What goes up must come down. Where should this warning shot be aimed? The amount of people who think Hollywood movies are representative of real life is scary.

Warning shots are commonly used in Germany and Austria..

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

A policeman is not expecting to be shot at anywhere in the world Greebo.

Do you honestly stand behind that statement?

GreeBo

basill wrote: »

He fled in a car. A car is a large mass of metal which can be used as a weapon. It can be driven over the officers attempting to arrest him and it can also be driven into other innocent bystanders or drivers. The car can also contain other weapons such as guns, knives, tasers, batons etc etc. Hence why the police force in the US are trained to stop at all costs suspects from returning to their vehicles.


The reality is if this individual had not resisted arrest then he would have gone to court and had his outstanding warrant(s) dealt with and been alive to protest his innocence.

There are an awful lot of "can"s and "could"s in your justification.

Any car "can also contain other weapons" so why not just shoot on sight, much safer for the cops?

GreeBo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Actually, the more I think about it, the tazer might not have been a good idea either. I remember where the RSU were getting tazers over here, and all the hype surrounding it, one of the things we were told is that you would never taze someone in a car, because the electricity could force their leg to freeze on the accelerator, which could cause further issues. But yes, tazering is one of the first ports of call to stop someone resisting, especially if you don't know what they're up to. We can say it now, but at the time who's to say he wasn't getting back into the car to get a gun? You can't say he 100% wasn't at the time.

A tazer is a less lethal, not non lethal weapon, I would want far more justification than "there might have been X" before using lethal force on someone. There are numerous examples of people being killed when officers mistakenly believe something, their job is not to act first, its to respond to facts. If they dont like this reality then policing isnt for them imo.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ah, if a load of cops were pointing a gun at me telling me to not reach back, they can look at my shiny white arse all they want, I will not be moving my hands!

Thats real easy to say right now from your keyboard, you must be the only person in the world who acts and thinks with the same clarity sober as when 3 times over the limit!

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't understand non-compliance. If there's an issue, racial or otherwise, deal with it after the arrest. Non-compliance leads to an increased heavey handed response, ranging from physical, to tazers and eventually firearms. It's the same here, you resist, you increase the chances of you getting hurt. The police are there to ensure public safety, that also includes themselves.

People make mistakes, the result of which shouldnt be death.

nullzero

GreeBo wrote: »

Please read my posts!
I am simply asking is a taser an acceptable and appropriate response to someone resisting arrest.

In America it would seem to be a reasonable response.

In this particular case Duante Wright resisted arrest and got back into his vehicle. Police have to make decisions on the spot in that situation, and in a country where it is legal to carry a gun those decisions are potentially more grave than in a place like Ireland.

Fandymo

GreeBo wrote: »

A tazer is a less lethal, not non lethal weapon, I would want far more justification than "there might have been X" before using lethal force on someone. There are numerous examples of people being killed when officers mistakenly believe something, their job is not to act first, its to respond to facts. If they dont like this reality then policing isnt for them imo.



Thats real easy to say right now from your keyboard, you must be the only person in the world who acts and thinks with the same clarity sober as when 3 times over the limit!


People make mistakes, the result of which shouldnt be death.

I recounted an experience I had with the South Lake Tahoe PD earlier in the thread. I was well more than three times over the limit.

conorhal

gussieg wrote: »

Its discussions like this that really show up the true colours of many people on this forum that make me ashamed to be even a human being, let alone Irish.

Yes, yes, we get it, you're not only so much better and more viurtuous then everybody else on this board, but in fact better then everybody else in the human race.
The burden of being so right and so perfect must be overwhelming for you.

conorhal

GreeBo wrote: »

People make mistakes, the result of which shouldnt be death.

Death as the result of people making mistakes happen literally every day, you can't legislate away complete stupidity, some fool somewhere is going to unscrew a plug with a butter knife and fry themselves regardless. You live in the real world, you're just going to have cope with the uncomfortable fact that stupidity kills, frequently.

Nor can you say, 'oh person A doesn't agreee to being arrested, well that's that so, I guess we just have to let them go'. So you're also going to have to accept the reality that in the vast majority of police shootings it's the dead person own stupidity that was the major contributor to their death.

GreeBo

conorhal wrote: »

Death as the result of people making mistakes happen literally every day, you can't legislate away complete stupidity, some fool somewhere is going to unscrew a plug with a butter knife and fry themselves regardless. You live in the real world, you're just going to have cope with the uncomfortable fact that stupidity kills, frequently.

Nor can you say, 'oh person A doesn't agreee to being arrested, well that's that so, I guess we just have to let them go'. So you're also going to have to accept the reality that in the vast majority of police shootings it's the dead person own stupidity that was the major contributor to their death.

The big difference being someone else did the killing in this scenario.

I'm pretty sure there is middle ground between letting them go and killing them, how does every other country in the world do it? How does the GS do it?

conorhal

GreeBo wrote: »

The big difference being someone else did the killing in this scenario.

I'm pretty sure there is middle ground between letting them go and killing them, how does every other country in the world do it? How does the GS do it?

There's no shortage of people killed every day by someone elses stupidity either.
The middle ground you speak of would be restraining the suspect and employing non leathal force, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that middle ground is an often fraught/violent situation that will always be rife with opportunities for accidents and peoples stupidity to result in loss of life.


Don't be stupid and wait for your day in court rather then thinking you're Thelma and Louise.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you honestly stand behind that statement?

Of course I do.
They train for it but hope it never happens. No policemen wants to have to shoot someone dead.

GreeBo

tayto lover wrote: »

Of course I do.
They train for it but hope it never happens. No policemen wants to have to shoot someone dead.

Your statement was that no policeman anywhere in the world expects to be shot at, your reply above is a totally different point!?

Baggly

gussieg wrote: »

Its discussions like this that really show up the true colours of many people on this forum that make me ashamed to be even a human being, let alone Irish.

conorhal wrote: »

Yes, yes, we get it, you're not only so much better and more viurtuous then everybody else on this board, but in fact better then everybody else in the human race.
The burden of being so right and so perfect must be overwhelming for you.

Mod

Both of you cop on, please.

GreeBo

conorhal wrote: »

There's no shortage of people killed every day by someone elses stupidity either.
The middle ground you speak of would be restraining the suspect and employing non leathal force, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that middle ground is an often fraught/violent situation that will always be rife with opportunities for accidents and peoples stupidity to result in loss of life.


Don't be stupid and wait for your day in court rather then thinking you're Thelma and Louise.

Right, and what's wrong with restraining via non lethal force?

The situations are fraught and violent when one side pulls a gun because the other side isn't doing what they are told. Again, there are countless examples of unarmed people being shot because the cop mistook an action for something else, that's unacceptable. It's irrational to assume that everyone they encounter is a threat but also that every innocent person is going to act exactly how they want. Check out the number of times cops escalate a situation when there is a mentally challenged person involved.

Snickers Man

Danzy wrote: »

He probably will be an example to others not to act up when pulled over.

It may not suit a lot of rich white kids waving protest signs and screaming about solidarity.

Yeah. Because they're the REALLY bad people in all this. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

10000maniacs

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, and what's wrong with restraining via non lethal force?

The situations are fraught and violent when one side pulls a gun because the other side isn't doing what they are told. Again, there are countless examples of unarmed people being shot because the cop mistook an action for something else, that's unacceptable. It's irrational to assume that everyone they encounter is a threat but also that every innocent person is going to act exactly how they want. Check out the number of times cops escalate a situation when there is a mentally challenged person involved.

Correct.
Nobody answered my question earlier on this.
If these police officers needed to be better trained to defuse the situation and handle the situation in a manner that is appropriate, then why do people expect the public be also trained to handle a situation and know the correct things to do when a cop or cops escalate a trivial situation to a situation that is way out of proportion and potentially life threatening. Like in this case and the George Floyd case.
That poor lad was scared of getting shot by that crazy female cop (with good reason) and that's probably why he reacted in the manner he did.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Danzy wrote: »

Official training, everywhere, is you shoot centre mass, shoot till the threat is down.

Letting a bullet fly random in a warning shot is not an option, for obvious reasons.

In other words, use lethal force.

Regarding warning shots, I'm not nessecarily talking about live ammo.

nolivesmatter

10000maniacs wrote: »

Correct.
Nobody answered my question earlier on this.
If these police officers needed to be better trained to defuse the situation and handle the situation in a manner that is appropriate, then why do people expect the public be also trained to handle a situation and know the correct things to do when a cop or cops escalate a trivial situation to a situation that is way out of proportion and potentially life threatening. Like in this case and the George Floyd case.
That poor lad was scared of getting shot by that crazy female cop (with good reason) and that's probably why he reacted in the manner he did.

That doesn't make any sense at all. He was resisting arrest and fleeing before the female cop did anything that you could consider 'crazy'.
You seem to be taking the end result and reverse engineering the sequence of events that led up to it.

tayto lover

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, and what's wrong with restraining via non lethal force?

The situations are fraught and violent when one side pulls a gun because the other side isn't doing what they are told. Again, there are countless examples of unarmed people being shot because the cop mistook an action for something else, that's unacceptable. It's irrational to assume that everyone they encounter is a threat but also that every innocent person is going to act exactly how they want. Check out the number of times cops escalate a situation when there is a mentally challenged person involved.

She intended to use non-lethal force. This one was an accident proved by the fact that she only fired one shot and by the dialogue in the video.

Gradius

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qkfpe2yrOY

Go to the end of that video, that's cut short, to see what police can face in the USA at anytime, anywhere.

Try doing that job every day and see how hesitant you are about interactions with people.

Police getting ambushed is a growing trend. Wonder why? It'll certainly calm things down anyway

10000maniacs

nolivesmatter wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense at all. He was resisting arrest and fleeing before the female cop did anything that you could consider 'crazy'.
You seem to be taking the end result and reverse engineering the sequence of events that led up to it.

When cops pull over someone who is suspected of a relatively trivial misdemeanour, they need to show restraint, respect and human decency when dealing with the suspect. In other words, speak to the suspect as an equal.
That is the crux of the issue and is what is missing in Minneapolis at the moment.
Maybe then will the situation not escalate to manslaughter.
For a lot of these cops, their only qualification is a high school diploma and 16 weeks cop training. And as such should not be given leave to wave firearms in the general direction of the public.