Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Tony EH

mynamejeff wrote: »

those paragraphs you posted don't seem to belong to any of the links you posted.

does it relate to this case ? country state city ?

Jesus h christ...google warning shot FFS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_shot

timsey tiger

Rodin wrote: »

I'd probably have shot him too.
Should I just wait for him to fire the taser at me, incapacitate me then take the gun?

With your partner cheering him on I suppose

punisher5112

People have been shot dead but the person has gone after the officers weapon....

Eh this guy did do that so....

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

So even a punch is rise for deadly force?

When it may end with the person punching you taking control of a hand gun, of course.

Overheal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It can be.

Nally wasn't being assaulted and he used deadly force

Sure you could kill someone with a finger couldnt you?

So surely touching a police officer should mean escalation to deadly force, any tap or brush will do

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

Sure you could kill someone with a finger couldnt you?

So surely touching a police officer should mean escalation to deadly force, any tap or brush will do

Lad, you are really slipping.

joseywhales

Is it hard to understand that you should only use deadly force when absolutely necessary? It is not absolutely necessary when someone is running away from you.

Overheal

Danzy wrote: »

Lad, you are really slipping.

What now will you draw the gun on me or wait for the social worker

Tony EH

joseywhales wrote: »

Is it hard to understand that you should only use deadly force when absolutely necessary? It is not absolutely necessary when someone is running away from you.

Doubly so if the original arrest was a DUI.

Look, the cops in the states have an awful job to do. I am surprised that anyone goes for a job in law enforcement over there. The things they have to put up with on a monthly basis, even a weekly one at times, would curl your toes.

But these bozos fucked up big time. There's no excuses here, no matter how much one wants to defend them.

They made a right balls of things.

Danzy

Overheal wrote: »

What now will you draw the gun on me or wait for the social worker

https://youtu.be/xDKG1PW0aVU

You'd have to be still but I could and not a bit of hesitation.

mynamejeff

Tony EH wrote: »

Jesus h christ...google warning shot FFS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_shot

lol and you think that link and reply strengthens your argument in this case ?

warning shots in urban areas at night towards as armed man who had already assaulted two cops and was looking return to jail .

I suppose they could have winged him if the warning didn't work

AbusesToilets

Tony EH wrote: »

No 2shenanigans" here at all. I asked what happened to warning shots and got a couple of smug replies.

The text I posted is off the wiki page on warning shots.

They happen. Simply saying it's just something that goes on on tele is not true.

As far as I know, in Florida, even a citizen can fire a warning shot if they feel they are under threat.

The phrase you're scrabbling for is Negligent Discharge, which is considered serious enough it ends careers in the military and police forces.

It's bad enough when cops shoot at a suspect and miss, injuring bystanders. Happens all too frequently. Now you want them shooting in random directions, with no idea where there rounds are going.

Genius.

Tony EH

mynamejeff wrote: »

lol and you think that link and reply strengthens your argument in this case ?

warning shots in urban areas at night towards as armed man who had already assaulted two cops and was looking return to jail .

I suppose they could have winged him if the warning didn't work

LOL yourself.

I asked what happened to warning shots and was replied with "TV".

It isn't the case.

PsychoPete

Tony EH wrote: »

Look, the cops in the states have an awful job to do. I am surprised that anyone goes for a job in law enforcement over there. The things they have to put up with on a monthly basis, even a weekly one at times, would curl your toes.

Especially in such a gun obsessed country where anyone you could be arresting might have a gun and you've a split second decision to make. Seeing some of the interviews of people protesting etc seems like some black people have been brought up with the mentality of white people are out to get you

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The phrase you're scrabbling for is Negligent Discharge, which is considered serious enough it ends careers in the military and police forces.

It's bad enough when cops shoot at a suspect and miss, injuring bystanders. Happens all too frequently. Now you want them shooting in random directions, with no idea where there rounds are going.

Genius.

Yeah warning shots make no sense. Least of all in this scene with multiple bystanders in an urban environment where you don’t know what’s through the shrubbery. That’s also why I think the gun should have not been resorted to, but least of all for warning shots.

Overheal

PsychoPete wrote: »

Especially in such a gun obsessed country where anyone you could be arresting might have a gun and you've a split second decision to make. Seeing some of the interviews of people protesting etc seems like some black people have been brought up with the mentality of white people are out to get you

Because they have been. The US has a rich history of sending death threats to black families, smashing their windows, burning their lawns, etc.

[url] https://thegrio.com/2019/08/13/black-home-buyer-who-found-kkk-memorabilia-in-cops-home-receives-death-threats/[/url]

The problem is it’s very easy to resist accepting that these are all real hate crimes or are they staged etc so people are reluctant to accept that racial violence happens

Tony EH

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The phrase you're scrabbling for is Negligent Discharge, which is considered serious enough it ends careers in the military and police forces.

It's bad enough when cops shoot at a suspect and miss, injuring bystanders. Happens all too frequently. Now you want them shooting in random directions, with no idea where there rounds are going.

Genius.

It isn't as cut and dried at that...genius.

There are those that think it's a "stupid idea" and others who think it should be allowed in certain circumstances.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/25/new-policy-allows-police-use-warning-shots-cops-disagree-new-policy-allowing-police-use-warning-shot/798338001/

ronivek

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's bad enough when cops shoot at a suspect and miss, injuring bystanders. Happens all too frequently. Now you want them shooting in random directions, with no idea where there rounds are going.

As you say there are numerous examples of police shootings where innocent bystanders (and indeed other officers) have been injured or died.

I suspect an officer deliberately searching for and choosing a location to fire warning shots is going to be less likely to result in 3rd party injury than actually firing at a suspect to kill/wound.

However I can't imagine warning shots being useful in the vast majority of cases anyway; even if they were relatively safe to do. If a warning shot was safe to carry out then the suspect can't be an imminent danger to anyone; as such firing a taser, pepper spray, plastic bullet, beanbag round, or simply verbally warning him you're going to shoot should surely suffice.

In particular in this case at night in a public place next to a restaurant and surrounded by cars and concrete I don't think it's reasonable to suggest a warning shot would have been warranted.

ronivek

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah warning shots make no sense. Least of all in this scene with multiple bystanders in an urban environment where you don’t know what’s through the shrubbery. That’s also why I think the gun should have not been resorted to, but least of all for warning shots.

I think that's an important aspect of this shooting also which I haven't seen mentioned much:

Officers choosing to fire their weapon in cases where their life or someone else's isn't in immediate danger opens to door to innocent bystanders being injured or losing their life.

In this incident in particular: a drive-through next to a restaurant, lots of concrete and lots of occupied cars... plenty of opportunity for a stray round to hit an innocent bystander.

AbusesToilets

Tony EH wrote: »

It isn't as cut and dried at that...genius.

There are those that think it's a "stupid idea" and others who think it should be allowed in certain circumstances.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/25/new-policy-allows-police-use-warning-shots-cops-disagree-new-policy-allowing-police-use-warning-shot/798338001/

Yea, you've demonstrated exactly zero instances where this happened, outside of pieces theorising about it's (lack of) efficacy. If the authorities want to make loud noises to deescalate or disperse people, they use flash bangs. No responsible gun owner is going to use "warning shots" in a civil scenario. If a situation is bad enough that someone has drawn their gun and feels threatened, it's probably bad enough that they need to be shooting at someone.

Tony EH

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yea, you've demonstrated exactly zero instances where this happened, outside of pieces theorising about it's (lack of) efficacy. If the authorities want to make loud noises to deescalate or disperse people, they use flash bangs. No responsible gun owner is going to use "warning shots" in a civil scenario. If a situation is bad enough that someone has drawn their gun and feels threatened, it's probably bad enough that they need to be shooting at someone.

It happens in Germany.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/328297/

According to Der Speigel:

"49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."


https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizei-schoss-2011-seltener-im-dienst-a-832037.html

"Im Jahr 2010 waren sieben Personen durch eine Polizeikugel ums Leben gekommen, 17 Personen wurden verletzt. Insgesamt war bundesweit 37-mal auf Personen geschossen worden, 59 Warnschüsse waren abgegeben worden. "


I merely asked "what happened to warning shots", and got some cunt replies.

But, a few searches on the web shows that this isn't just something that happens on TV(as was smugly rattled off) and there are law enforcement agencies who believe that it should be open to a LEO as an option.

AbusesToilets

Tony EH wrote: »

It happens in Germany.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/328297/

According to Der Speigel:

"49 warning shots, 36 shots on suspects. 15 persons were injured, 6 were killed."


https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizei-schoss-2011-seltener-im-dienst-a-832037.html

"Im Jahr 2010 waren sieben Personen durch eine Polizeikugel ums Leben gekommen, 17 Personen wurden verletzt. Insgesamt war bundesweit 37-mal auf Personen geschossen worden, 59 Warnschüsse waren abgegeben worden. "


I merely asked "what happened to warning shots", and got some cunt replies.

But, a few searches on the web shows that this isn't just something that happens on TV(as was smugly rattled off) and there are law enforcement agencies who believe that it should be open to a LEO as an option.

You got c.unt replies because it's an idiotic idea that anyone with a lick of sense would realise. Which is apparently asking too much here.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

No 2shenanigans" here at all. I asked what happened to warning shots and got a couple of smug replies.

The text I posted is off the wiki page on warning shots.

They happen. Simply saying it's just something that goes on on tele is not true.

As far as I know, in Florida, even a citizen can fire a warning shot if they feel they are under threat.

Again, can you post links from actual sources? Wiki links to pages about national police forces don't mean squat.

Even the wiki about warning shots means nothing, they can and are frequently written by people who don't know the subject and are using questionable sources. Is there anything from the forces your mentioned?

Edit: ok an article about the Germans. Fair enough on that score. About the only time they gave someone a warning .....


I'll get my coat

Tony EH

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You got c.unt replies because it's an idiotic idea that anyone with a lick of sense would realise. Which is apparently asking too much here.

Except the police in Germany and organisations like the IACP.

In any case, I am not condoning warning shots. I merely asked "what happened to them".

They aren't just something that happen on TV.

And if you can't discuss it without the shitty remarks, perhaps you should just go back to abusing your toilet.

AbusesToilets

Tony EH wrote: »

Except the police in Germany and organisations like the IACP.

In any case, I am not condoning warning shots. I merely asked "what happened to them".

They aren't just something that happen on TV.

And if you can't discuss it without the shitty remarks, perhaps you should just go back to abusing your toilet.

Nothing happened to them, they're a figment of the media.

Perhaps you could back to the real world where professionals don't discharge weapons willy nilly .

Tony EH

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Nothing happened to them, they're a figment of the media.

Except in Germany, which took all of 2 minutes of googling to find out.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps you could back to the real world where professionals don't discharge weapons willy nilly .

Germany is part of the "real world" last time I checked and nobody is talking about "willy nilly".

Feisar

Does anyone know what the protocol is in place for discharging a firearm as a police officer in Atlanta?

Feisar

Also, yer man was drunk, don't we vilify drunk drivers here? This lad was straight out of hell, thank feck he's been sent back into the abyss.

Tony EH

Feisar wrote: »

Does anyone know what the protocol is in place for discharging a firearm as a police officer in Atlanta?

I've been trying to find this out myself over the last hour. But can't get anything solid.

As an aside, continuing with Terry Cunningham and the IACP though:

"There was a lot of discussion," says the IACP's Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.

The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:
1. The use of deadly force is justified;
2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and
3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.


But Cunningham says the motivation for the change is to give officers a little more wiggle room when faced with a threat.


"We're kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate," Cunningham says.
Many police trainers have come to believe that overly rigid use of force rules, however well-meant, may sometimes leave officers with no other option than to kill someone. The new model policy is a response to those concerns.


"Why not give the officers more tools?" Cunningham says. "I think it's the right thing to do."


It's still up to local departments and trainers to decide whether to follow the national groups' lead on warning shots. So far, reactions have varied. In an email to NPR, the NYPD says its policy banning warning shots "will not be amended."


But trainers and experts are more positive. Greg Meyer, a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain and use of force expert, calls the new policy an "overdue good idea."

So, I don't know if this policy went through or not, or how much of an embrace it's seen. But there certainly seems to be some push for it among certain quarters.

ronivek

Warning shots and even leg shots which I've seen repeatedly derided are indeed a thing and they are used. As to how often they're genuinely useful that's another question.

I think in general countries and forces with low incidence of gun crime and in particular gun crime against police are a lot more reticent to fire; and when they do fire they tend to fire a lot more conservatively.

In addition I suspect suspects in these countries are also more likely to be impacted by a warning shot; since there is this perception that police don't shoot people much... but a warning shot might reinforce that it's an option.

In the USA for better or worse they generally treat any situation where they're firing a firearm as a shoot to kill situation; as evidenced by the countless cases of dumping entire magazines into people.

Conversely in Ireland Garda shootings are very often single shots; or shots explicitly designed to wound or deter escalation.

I don't think the Gardai's way of operating would really be suitable in the USA; nor vice versa.