Darryl Tyree Williams case

as usual another innocent man murdered for being black, headcases over there glad we dont have too much of it over here

I think you may be mixing this case up with that other case where the guy (Tyre Nichols) was beaten to death.

Regardless, even if the cops were the themselves black, a murder of a black suspect can still have a racial component - in that white suspects don't seem to get murdered quite so often by police when they aren't posing a threat as in these two cases and many many others in recent times.

Actually no. That's not the case here. You must have missed it.

Which isn't what you said.

And how do you know he was "of his head on drugs [sic]?" He was being arrested for drug possession not drug intoxication? Are you privy to an autopsy report already if so please share.

You're just lumping 100s of media outlets into the 1 narrative. Sounds like it belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Not even the 'mainstream republican' outlets agree among each other on their own narratives - and one of them was in daily contact with the POTUS.

To suggest the whole media is in on a conspiracy - the body camera footage speaks for itself though.

When there's a system failure on a ship for example, they don't go 'ah sure but 99% of the boat works perfectly well' I'm sure some quarters would love if the media waves were blasting orwellian "all is good all is calm, glorzo is peace etc" rhetoric hyping up the police as heroes and amplifying their warrior rhetoric 24/7 without closely examining the failures but that's just never how it's worked is it? 1000s of bridges work well every day but I STILL have to hear about the Tacoma Narrows on a professional basis nearly every quarter. People still have to remember the lessons from that failure, today, and hopefully forever.

Well if there's a statistical story would you mind sharing the stats on the numbers of unarmed white people killed by police?

I watched the video in the link.

Williams seemed to be a bit dopey to be honest, like someone who had taken something. He wasn't bad, just didn't seem 100% coherent.

Everything was calm, Williams was standing with his hands against the car. The cop instructed Williams that he wasn't trying to put him in handcuffs and he repeated to Williams that if he didn't keep his hands on the car he'd put him in handcuffs, which seems like a reasonable request to me.

They searched Williams and found what looks like drugs, a note with white powder in it. The cops were being fairly respectful to him at that stage. Williams then took his hands off the car and the cop then said put your hands behind your back. The cop was following up with his instruction that if Williams didn't keep his hands on the car, he would be placed in handcuffs. To be perfectly honest, I don't see the cops doing anything wrong at this point. They attempt to handcuff Williams and he keeps saying why and then it looks like he starts to resist having the handcuffs put on him.

The screen goes black for a few moments so I can't see 100% what is happening but it seems like Williams is resisting having the handcuffs put on. The next scene is the cops instructing him to get on the ground. He's clearly resisting. He won't put his hands behind his back. The cops taze him which seems justified to me. He keeps resisting and breaks away and tries to run away. He then gets tazed what appears to be a second time (hard to tell to be honest).

At 01.30 he is on the ground and won't put his hands behind his back so they taze him a 3rd time. I don't see much wrong here other than they ignore the fact that he says he has a heart condition. But how are they know if he's telling the truth or not, all while he is resisting having the handcuffs put on him.

Is saying you have a heart conditon now a thing that you can say while resisting arrest to stop the cops tazing you?

I don't see the cops having done much wrong here to be honest. He was the architect of his own misfortune. If he kept his hands on the car or if he allowed himself to be handcuffed, and if he didn't resist, he wouldn't have been tazed.

This incident is wildly different to the Tyre Nichols case.

He wouldn't let the cops handcuff him so the answer to you is yes.

The video footage is in the OP post.

I bet if he watches the video, he won't see what you seem to have seen above. It's clear as day that Williams was resisting. The cops were trying to put him in handcuffs and he was not being beat to hell.

You need to go see these guys.

I'd 'resist' too if an officer told me 'I don't wanna put you in cuffs' and then almost immediately proceeded to do just that without communication.

Whereas all the dozens of hours of LIVE PD (e.g.) I've watched indicates that when a cop knows they're being observed (as, for example, by a live television audience) they would have easily first communicated to suspect what they found and for what reasons that was putting them in handcuffs. They'll especially give a suspect ample more opportunity to verbally incriminate themselves with their reactions to the findings. All we see in the camera is a $1 Bill then it's straight to cuffing. All the drug arrests I saw on live television and they didn't ever just do this, they happily and positively indicated their evidence for the cameras and the suspect alike. Some states even recognize a right to resist an unlawful arrest ... including North Carolina.

How about that.

What leads you to believe it was an unlawful arrest?

Seems like a valid reason to arrest someone to me.

It would be so why not articulate that to begin the arrest? Why tell someone from behind you’re not going to be handcuffed if you cooperate so you do and within 10 seconds or so are being cuffed without explanation.

Source of this textbook?

He was told by the police officer that he didn't want to cuff him. A few seconds later he told Williams that if he took his hands off the car he would be handcuffed. A few seconds after that Williams took his hands off the car so the officer started to handcuff him - at which point Williams resisted. I'll agree that the cop didn't give Williams a chance to put his hands back on the car but he's under no obligation to give Williams another chance to avoid being handcuffed.

I still don't understand how you think it was an unlawful arrest.

The cops didn't set out to kill him. It was an accident, not a death sentence execution.

Regarding the guy saying he had a heart condition, he may or may not have been telling the truth. How are the cops to know? He was well enough to keep resisting having the cuffs put on him so one would believe his heart condition, if he had one, wasn't particularly bad.

Again you are harking back to the notion that his arrest was illegal. I'd meet you half way if I could but the dude had what appeared to be drugs in his car and drugs in his pocket so it looks to me like it was a valid arrest. Have we got to the stage where people with drugs can't be legally arrested?

It's a difficult situation for the cops when someone says they have a cardiac condition. How the hell do they know the person is telling the truth. Are they supposed to no longer taze anyone who says this to them? How then do they arrest someone who is resisting? Batter them with battons, shoot them, jump on them and crush them all of which can also lead to death?

Here's a tip. If you have a heart condition, don't resist arrest.

I just did a bit of Googling regarding tazers. It seems like 5 seconds is pretty standard per exposure with a max of 15 seconds total exposure, that seems to be pretty much what Williams got. Open to correction on that though. And that brings up another question. Supposing someone isn't subdued with 15 seconds of the tazer in total, what then?

Yep, it's very common and many people with heart conditions don't even know they have them.

That said, I'll admit I'm kind of caught between take it seriously as it's genuine or the dude could be telling lies. How do you know which it is? If an instruction goes out to take it seriously, pretty much 100% of people resisting arrest will start yelling 'I've a heart condition' as soon as they see a tazer coming out.

I think we both agree that using non-lethal methods to subdue people resisting arrest is preferable to shooting them but a knee jerk reaction of banning the use of tazers on someone saying they have a heart condition could end up in more people dying because the tazer wasn't allowed to be used on them (because they lied and screamed I have a heart condition) versus the number of people who die because they actually had a genuine heart condition.

The other tools aren't great either. Batton, gun, physical violence etc. The benefit of the tazer is that it can be used from several feet away whereas a batton, physical strength etc, means that the cop is in more danger because they are closer to the person resisting arrest.

No easy solution unfortunately.

And many would argue that our Gardai aren't sufficiently trained either. But yes, more training is needed. You can't blame the individual cops though if they don't have sufficient training.

Anyway, I've to go to a meeting now. To be continued.

Meeting over early.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point or maybe I worded it poorly.

What I meant is that you can't blame individual cops with regard to the level of training they get, i.e. 21 weeks. The individual cops don't set the level of training they get in the Academy. I'm not saying don't blame the cops for their actions, I'm just saying that if you are criticising cops for only doing 21 weeks in the Academy, you are criticising the wrong people. Criticise whoever deems 21 weeks acceptable, i.e. the top brass in the cops/political sphere.

I am!

Can you link to the North Carolina procedure you’re so certain of

What does the procedure say about handling suspects with medical conditions