Police Shoot and Kill Homeless Man

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

Hahah, can you not work out my beef based on what I said? That video adds absolutely nothing to the discussion except for some statistics, which I don't feel justify anything. I don't see how a bunch of cops getting killed in similiar situations excuses the police in question from handling the affair so sloppily that they ended up in that danger and felt lethal force was necessary. Seems to support my theory that these guys don't have a clue what they're doing.


What do you like so much about the video anyway, apart from it telling you what you want to hear? The sarcastic quip about white male privilege or the thug life meme bit? They were both pretty crass.

Could you explain what you would have done differently if you were one of those cops? Keep in mind that the difficulty they had to physically restrain him and that the taser had little effect. Don't be afraid to go into detail. I'd be very interested to know exactly where you think the **** up was and what exactly you would have done differently.

RWCNT

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Could you explain what you would have done differently if you were one of those cops? Keep in mind that the difficulty they had to physically restrain him and that the taser had little effect. Don't be afraid to go into detail. I'd be very interested to know exactly where you think the **** up was and what exactly you would have done differently.

It's not my area of expertise to be honest so I can't offer a great many suggestions for improvement but I do think there must be some sort of training out there that would enable 4 cops to wrestle the guy onto his stomach and cuff him without getting their guns snatched.

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

It's not my area of expertise to be honest so I can't offer a great many suggestions for improvement but I do think there must be some sort of training out there that would enable 4 cops to wrestle the guy onto his stomach and cuff him without getting their guns snatched.

But you said they didn't have a clue. How can you know that if you know nothing about it? Training can only do so much. some people just don't respond like the training tells you they will. Some people are immune to pepper spray, some can ignore tasers, some don't feel anything at all. People on drugs or with mental health issues can be incredibly strong. Some people are incredibly worm like and difficult to restrain. All the while you have to look out for hidden weapons. People hide blades in their clothes, their mouths, their wounds, even inside their bodily orifices. You can get lighters and cigarette packs that double as tasers or blades that fir in a belt buckle.

The guy in the op got hold of an officers gun. Maybe you think like another poster they should have handed their guns to their colleagues or run back and stored them in a car. Or maybe you think the guns should be harder to get to. All these options have potential consequences that can be just as dangerous.

Police work by consent. As a citizen you are sending them out there to do a dangerous job but in return you are vowing to obey the law. It's an unwritten agreement between the people and police that sometimes gets forgotten. Implicit in this agreement is the understanding that if someone else breaks the law, you will empower the police to stop them using the minimum force necessary to protect themselves and others. That is what the police did here. They stopped a very dangerous criminal. They tried to do it in a non-lethal manner but could not, using both force of arms and a taser. The suspect gave them no option but to use lethal force.

RWCNT

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But you said they didn't have a clue. How can you know that if you know nothing about it? Training can only do so much. some people just don't respond like the training tells you they will. Some people are immune to pepper spray, some can ignore tasers, some don't feel anything at all. People on drugs or with mental health issues can be incredibly strong. Some people are incredibly worm like and difficult to restrain. All the while you have to look out for hidden weapons. People hide blades in their clothes, their mouths, their wounds, even inside their bodily orifices. You can get lighters and cigarette packs that double as tasers or blades that fir in a belt buckle.

The guy in the op got hold of an officers gun. Maybe you think like another poster they should have handed their guns to their colleagues or run back and stored them in a car. Or maybe you think the guns should be harder to get to. All these options have potential consequences that can be just as dangerous.

Police work by consent. As a citizen you are sending them out there to do a dangerous job but in return you are vowing to obey the law. It's an unwritten agreement between the people and police that sometimes gets forgotten. Implicit in this agreement is the understanding that if someone else breaks the law, you will empower the police to stop them using the minimum force necessary to protect themselves and others. That is what the police did here. They stopped a very dangerous criminal. They tried to do it in a non-lethal manner but could not, using both force of arms and a taser. The suspect gave them no option but to use lethal force.

Yes, some people carry concealed weapons but I don't see what you're getting at with that point.

Yes, some people are super strong and hard to restrain, maybe cops with easily accessible guns that could be turned on a member of the public shouldn't be trying to wrestle with these guys then. I'd think this moreso when dealing with the homeless where mental illness could be a factor.

I'd believe they followed regulations and maybe 99 times out of 100 they work within these same regulations and apprehend the suspect without anyone being hurt, but I don't buy that there could have been no better way of handling this situation.

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

Yes, some people are super strong and hard to restrain, maybe cops with easily accessible guns that could be turned on a member of the public shouldn't be trying to wrestle with these guys then. I'd think this moreso when dealing with the homeless where mental illness could be a factor.

So what should they have done if they couldn't restrain him (assuming they had future sight and knew it would be too hard) and the taser was ineffective? The only other options are shoot him or let him go.

RWCNT

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So what should they have done if they couldn't restrain him (assuming they had future sight and knew it would be too hard) and the taser was ineffective? The only other options are shoot him or let him go.

Once his assault victim was protected I'd be down with them letting him go, maybe call for backup and get him followed, I definitely wouldn't back shooting him unless he's literally on top of someone beating them to death with no chance of them prying him off.

darkpagandeath

RWCNT wrote: »

Once his assault victim was protected I'd be down with them letting him go, maybe call for backup and get him followed, I definitely wouldn't back shooting him unless he's literally on top of someone beating them to death with no chance of them prying him off.

Oh, So we just let violent drug dealers do what they want ? Call for backup ? The guy was clearly a danger to the general public and the Armed police. Wait for a swat team who knows what could happen in that time. And the same people on here would be omg they let him attack more people what incompetent officers.

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

Once his assault victim was protected I'd be down with them letting him go, maybe call for backup and get him followed, I definitely wouldn't back shooting him unless he's literally on top of someone beating them to death with no chance of them prying him off.

So you let him go and he goes around the corner and robs someone else. Maybe stabs them for good measure. You've also just told everyone that if cornered by the police the best tactic is to be as violent as possible so they will let you go. Do you assign any personal responsibility to the violent robber?

RWCNT

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So you let him go and he goes around the corner and robs someone else. Maybe stabs them for good measure. You've also just told everyone that if cornered by the police the best tactic is to be as violent as possible so they will let you go. Do you assign any personal responsibility to the violent robber?

So every violent criminal needs to be shot dead if not apprehended? I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here. Don't get too wrapped up in your hypothetical situation either, I think your superhuman criminal is a pretty exceptional case.

Of course I assign some responsibility to the robber, he started the whole thing but I feel the cops worsened the situation.

darkpagandeath

RWCNT wrote: »

So every violent criminal needs to be shot dead if not apprehended? I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here.

Of course I assign some responsibility to the robber, he started the whole thing but I feel the cops worsened the situation.

How did the police make it worse ? Trying to arrest a clearly dangerous man ? If he fought back that hard against the police just think what he would do to a regular person. I no one with sense here has said just shoot people willy nilly.

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

So every violent criminal needs to be shot dead if not apprehended? I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here.

I think we do. You value his life over his future victims.

Manic Moran

RWCNT wrote: »

So every violent criminal needs to be shot dead if not apprehended? I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion here. Don't get too wrapped up in your hypothetical situation either, I think your superhuman criminal is a pretty exceptional case..

A violent criminal with a gun needs to be mad a violent criminal without a gun, or an ex violent criminal with a gun. Arrests don't enter into the equation until the threat is gone.

Your life expectancy when you are a criminal with a gun facing off pokice is likely to be pretty low. They'll prefer to just arrest him if they can, there's a lot of paperwork involved in shooting someone, but they don't owe the chap anything. The safety of the criminal is the lowest on the priority scale after other citizens and police.

Egginacup

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So what should they have done if they couldn't restrain him (assuming they had future sight and knew it would be too hard) and the taser was ineffective? The only other options are shoot him or let him go.

Why are the only options to shoot him or let him "go"?

Little CuChulainn

Egginacup wrote: »

Why are the only options to shoot him or let him "go"?

There are five options. Negotiate, restrain, non lethal force, lethal force, release. You can't negotiate with someone swinging wildly. They were unable to restrain him. Non-lethal force was ineffective. That leaves two options, lethal force or release. As he posed an imminent threat to police and bystanders there was really only on option. If you know of other options I'll happily consider them.

RWCNT

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Oh, So we just let violent drug dealers do what they want ? Call for backup ? The guy was clearly a danger to the general public and the Armed police. Wait for a swat team who knows what could happen in that time. And the same people on here would be omg they let him attack more people what incompetent officers.

We weren't talking about this guy, it was a hypothetical situation of some beast who cannot be restrained and is invulnerable to lethal force, it was a pretty pointless excursion.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How did the police make it worse ? Trying to arrest a clearly dangerous man ? If he fought back that hard against the police just think what he would do to a regular person. I no one with sense here has said just shoot people willy nilly.

Allowing him to get his hands on a gun. How come you feel your judgement of this situation watching a crappy quality video is so superior to the disgusted crowd who were actually present?

Manic Moran wrote: »

A violent criminal with a gun needs to be mad a violent criminal without a gun, or an ex violent criminal with a gun. Arrests don't enter into the equation until the threat is gone.

Your life expectancy when you are a criminal with a gun facing off pokice is likely to be pretty low. They'll prefer to just arrest him if they can, there's a lot of paperwork involved in shooting someone, but they don't owe the chap anything. The safety of the criminal is the lowest on the priority scale after other citizens and police.

He wasn't a violent criminal with a gun until Chief Wigham and the lads bumbled over.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I think we do. You value his life over his future victims.

Faux concern doesn't suit you at all, it's obvious you don't value human life at all if you're so happy for someone to be gunned down in a situation YOU KNOW was preventable. I've humored you in discussing your superstrong criminals who can't be restrained, we know this guy wasnt one of those. However these lads unfortunately can't keep a hold of their guns.

Celticfire

RWCNT wrote: »

Allowing him to get his hands on a gun.



He wasn't a violent criminal with a gun until Chief Wigham and the lads bumbled over.



Faux concern doesn't suit you at all, it's obvious you don't value human life at all if you're so happy for someone to be gunned down in a situation YOU KNOW was preventable. I've humored you in discussing your superstrong criminals who can't be restrained, we know this guy wasnt one of those. However these lads unfortunately can't keep a hold of their guns.

Considering your ability to criticize but actually offer no solutions except "there must be something else that could be done" or" just let him" go:rolleyes: your faux superiority complex doesn't suit you either.

RWCNT

Celticfire wrote: »

Considering your ability to criticize but actually offer no solutions except "there must be something else that could be done" or" just let him" go:rolleyes: your faux superiority complex doesn't suit you either.

I didn't say "just let him go". Sorry, I didn't realise I had to be a martial arts expert or top cop before commenting, I assume everyone else in the thread is?

Nothing faux about my superiority complex either, baybeh.

Celticfire

RWCNT wrote: »

Once his assault victim was protectedI'd be down with them letting him go , maybe call for backup and get him followed, I definitely wouldn't back shooting him unless he's literally on top of someone beating them to death with no chance of them prying him off.

But but, there must be some training (iv'e no idea what) that could be used to pry him off?? Why would you need to shoot him??

RWCNT wrote: »

I didn't say "just let him go". Sorry, I didn't realise I had to be a martial arts expert or top cop before commenting, I assume everyone else in the thread is?

Actually yes you did.

If you were able to show this mysterious training you might have a valid point .

RWCNT

Celticfire wrote: »

But but, there must be some training (iv'e no idea what) that could be used to pry him off?? Why would you need to shoot him??


Actually yes you did.

If you were able to show this mysterious training you might have a valid point .

You're getting confused. Please note we were talking about a hypothetical individual who the police knew beforehand could not be restrained and would not respond to non-lethal force. Pretend it's The Hulk if it makes it any easier for you.

Hey once again, really sorry for not being a cop or unarmed combat expert. Maybe you're right and it is impossiblle for four people to restrain one unarmed man without managing to let him get a gun in his hands and I've just watched too many movies. Not ruling it out. What makes your opinion so infallible anyway?

Celticfire

RWCNT wrote: »

Hey once again, really sorry for not being a cop or unarmed combat expert. Maybe you're right and it is impossiblle for four people to restrain one unarmed man without managing to let him get a gun in his hands and I've just watched too many movies. Not ruling it out. What makes your opinion so infallible anyway?

It's not impossible as it happens every day all around the world but what is possible is that something can go wrong as happened in this video, it's you that seems to think that there is some imaginary training (that you funnily enough have no idea what that might happen to be) that will somehow eliminate the possibility of something going wrong. My opinion is based on the fact that sometimes no matter how much training is done things actually don't go according to plan.

Egginacup

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So what should they have done if they couldn't restrain him (assuming they had future sight and knew it would be too hard) and the taser was ineffective? The only other options are shoot him or let him go.

You keep bringing up all these maybe situations but was the guy acting out of his mind BEFORE the police came along and started fcuking with him?

It seems that they not only exacerbated the problem by roughing him up but that they actually inflamed in the first place. Why do you think that people are just pussies if they advocate for a more softly softly approach? Why do you think that you gotta show who's boss and stomp people and then justify it with bullshit outlandish what-if questions like "He coulda been on crack! Police do a scary job!" and then slag off anyone who thinks their over-the-top brutality is just that...over the top?

RWCNT

Celticfire wrote: »

It's not impossible as it happens every day all around the world but what is possible is that something can go wrong as happened in this video, it's you that seems to think that there is some imaginary training (that you funnily enough have no idea what that might happen to be) that will somehow eliminate the possibility of something going wrong. My opinion is based on the fact that sometimes no matter how much training is done things actually don't go according to plan.

Ah well, fair enough then. Are we in agreement that this was an unfortunate ****-up then?

Egginacup

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How did the police make it worse ? Trying to arrest a clearly dangerous man ? If he fought back that hard against the police just think what he would do to a regular person. I no one with sense here has said just shoot people willy nilly.

I would imagine he fought because he thought the police were going to kill him Eric Garner style. The fight for your life instinct kicks in when you believe you are going to be strangled to death or left in a coma/wheelchair by a group of cops.
As it turns out he was right.

Egginacup

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There are five options. Negotiate, restrain, non lethal force, lethal force, release. You can't negotiate with someone swinging wildly. They were unable to restrain him. Non-lethal force was ineffective. That leaves two options, lethal force or release. As he posed an imminent threat to police and bystanders there was really only on option. If you know of other options I'll happily consider them.

Did they even try to talk to him or negotiate?

Celticfire

RWCNT wrote: »

Ah well, fair enough then. Are we in agreement that this was an unfortunate ****-up then?

The major **** up was going for the officers gun. That was the game changer.

Egginacup wrote: »

I would imagine he fought because he thought the police were going to kill him Eric Garner style. The fight for your life instinct kicks in when you believe you are going to be strangled to death or left in a coma/wheelchair by a group of cops.
As it turns out he was right.

You've quite the imagination. Just because you've come up with a theory in your head with zero evidence doesn't make it so.

I could just as easily say that he was tired of living and wanted suicide by cop. My hypothesis is as valid as yours.

ohnonotgmail

Egginacup wrote: »

I would imagine he fought because he thought the police were going to kill him Eric Garner style. The fight for your life instinct kicks in when you believe you are going to be strangled to death or left in a coma/wheelchair by a group of cops.
As it turns out he was right.

Would that be the same fight for your life instinct that kicks in when somebody tries to grab your gun or the gun of your colleague?

Caovyn Lineah

Egginacup, I notice you refused to answer my questions I asked you on this matter last week. Would you care to address them now?

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

Did they even try to talk to him or negotiate?

I doubt there was time due to the fact he was fighting with the police at the time.

Little CuChulainn

RWCNT wrote: »

We weren't talking about this guy, it was a hypothetical situation of some beast who cannot be restrained and is invulnerable to lethal force, it was a pretty pointless excursion.

Now you are just making **** up.

RWCNT wrote: »

Allowing him to get his hands on a gun. How come you feel your judgement of this situation watching a crappy quality video is so superior to the disgusted crowd who were actually present?

He probably doesn't have a personal stake in the situation.

RWCNT wrote: »

He wasn't a violent criminal with a gun until Chief Wigham and the lads bumbled over.

Only if you exclude his past.

RWCNT wrote: »

Faux concern doesn't suit you at all, it's obvious you don't value human life at all if you're so happy for someone to be gunned down in a situation YOU KNOW was preventable. I've humored you in discussing your superstrong criminals who can't be restrained, we know this guy wasnt one of those. However these lads unfortunately can't keep a hold of their guns.

You still haven't said what would have prevented it or how you would have prevented it. I have never expressed any joy in someone being gunned down, and I value life a great deal. To state otherwise is a lie which you cannot back up. I don't see the right to life as absolute though.

RWCNT wrote: »

I didn't say "just let him go". Sorry, I didn't realise I had to be a martial arts expert or top cop before commenting, I assume everyone else in the thread is?

Nothing faux about my superiority complex either, baybeh.

You don't have to be either of those. You just have to state what you would have done differently. Surely you must know this if you know they ****ed up.

Egginacup wrote: »

You keep bringing up all these maybe situations but was the guy acting out of his mind BEFORE the police came along and started fcuking with him?

Why do you think they picked him out? For the craic?

Egginacup wrote: »

It seems that they not only exacerbated the problem by roughing him up but that they actually inflamed in the first place. Why do you think that people are just pussies if they advocate for a more softly softly approach? Why do you think that you gotta show who's boss and stomp people and then justify it with bullshit outlandish what-if questions like "He coulda been on crack! Police do a scary job!" and then slag off anyone who thinks their over-the-top brutality is just that...over the top?

I don't think I said any of that.

Egginacup wrote: »

Did they even try to talk to him or negotiate?

Why do you think it took so long before they attempted to restrain him?