Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Good to see apparent actions of Irish people over 300 years ago mean that we today have responsibility for racism in America. Good ol' collective guilt.

lawrencesummers

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I see there was a person shot at the vigil for Rayshard last night,

Seen the video online a gun fight started in the and a (white or Hispanic) women standing beside a guy video recording it got hit,

Seems there was bullets going every where in a large crowd, One black guys just standing there watching it with an AR 15 ,

America has lost the plot ,

I disagree.
The lost the plot long ago.

Personally I think when there was no Real appetite for changing gun laws after Sandy Hook then there never will. If the shooting of twenty kids in elementary school doesn’t bring about change then nothing will ever. Or worse still imagine how horrendous an event would have to happen for there to be widespread support of changing America’s gun culture.

While this isn’t directly related to this incident, The gun culture is.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

Brooks wasn't unarmed. He had the stolen police taser that he had just shot at the cops with. By the way, just in case you don't know, the Fulton County DA was prosecuting different cops for using a deadly weapon (taser) on students just two weeks before the Brooks shooting.

If he still had the capability of using the taser on the cops, then yes, the kick may have been justified. As far as I'm aware the taser had the capability of being used again.

My thinking is that if the shooting was justified, then maybe so was the kick. It all depends on the circumstances and neither you or me can be 100% sure as the video hasn't been released.

Now if the cop kicked Brooks a minute after he was shot, then throw the book at the cop. There's no argument that can be made for something like that. But we'll have to wait for the video or the court case to find out if that's the case.

What was he going to do with the fired taser, throw it at them?

If you've just shot him and are worried that he might tase you, why not do something radical like, dont run over to kick him? Surely the easiest way to get shot is to get closer to him?
Why not wait for backup and EMT's?

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, given that statement, the cop had reason to believe that a gun had been fired at him. Isn't that justification for the shooting?

Erm no? Thats a carte blanche to shoot people. What if it was a car backfiring, or a firework or perhaps a taser?

Taser or gun, both have the potential to cause harm so I guess the jury will decide on that, if it gets that far.

One is designed to incapacitate, the other to kill.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

Erm no? Thats a carte blanche to shoot people. What if it was a car backfiring, or a firework or perhaps a taser?

Not a carte blanche to shoot people, but the ability to shoot back at people shooting at you (thus endangering your safety). There is a difference.

Very difficult to see how a cop could hear a car backfiring, mistake it as a gunshot and know who to target. That's not quite the same as being in an altercation with someone, being assaulted and have them shoot a taser at you. Very easy to know who to target in that scenario.

A taser and a firework have the capability to do harm to the cops so if you attack cops with either of those, I'd like the cop to have the ability to defend themselves.

One is designed to incapacitate, the other to kill.

That doesn't really matter. A golf club is designed for sport but a belt of one on the head can kill you. The taser could have injured the cop so I feel (and I might be wrong) that the cop was justified in shooting Brooks.

Galwayguy35

The right to bear arms was written when half the US was still wilderness and if you went out in it there was a good chance you would end up scalped.

To the outside world the gun culture there is a bit off the wall but no President either Dem or Rep will touch the second ammendment.

Although I agree people shpuld be allowed to have a firearm to defend their home I don't really know what the average American needs an AR 15 for though, its a bit crazy selling guns like that to civilians.

BattleCorp

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Although I agree people shpuld be allowed to have a firearm to defend their home I don't really know what the average American needs an AR 15 for though, its a bit crazy selling guns like that to civilians.

AR15's are allowed in many countries in Europe, including here.

Galwayguy35

BattleCorp wrote: »

AR15's are allowed in many countries in Europe, including here.

Didn't know that.

Mic 1972

The slavery argument is an indication of the revengeful quality of this movement, things that happened 200 years ago that people still use as an excuse to blame others for their own failure. African-Americans and white Americans both live off the exploitation of poorer countries but they dont seem too bothered by it. However we should all feel sorry about events that happened 200 years ago.
BLM is bullying people into silence, it's like fascism with a different skin colour

joseywhales

BattleCorp wrote: »

AR15's are allowed in many countries in Europe, including here.

But how will they protect their homes when the highly sophisticated billion dollar cartel comes to steal their TV's from their homes?

GreeBo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I will observe, again, that the rules on the use of deadly force do not require that the opposition have a deadly weapon, but the possibility of serious injury will suffice. In common parlance, "fear of life, limb or eyesight".

Police tasers are usually fired from a controlled position. What is the barb of a taser going to do if it lands in your eye? What will it do if it lands in your eye and then discharges however many thousand volts? Brooks obviously was not taking the time to aim.

Based on their stats I *seriously* doubt the cops ability to safely discharge a taser if they cant safely discharge a firearm.

Ergo, they shouldnt be firing without due care and attention, which they demonstrably didnt do in this and many other scenarios. We have seen videos where cops are shooting at each other in uncontrolled panic.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think that's relevant to the numbers in the study as you would think that cops shooting a taser would be less likely to shoot someone in the eye (as they would have better aim) than a drunken criminal running and aiming wildly.

What facts or stats do you base this on?
Their hit rate with a deadly weapon is terrible, at least a taser is far less likely to have collateral damage.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not a carte blanche to shoot people, but the ability to shoot back at people shooting at you (thus endangering your safety). There is a difference.

Very difficult to see how a cop could hear a car backfiring, mistake it as a gunshot and know who to target. That's not quite the same as being in an altercation with someone, being assaulted and have them shoot a taser at you. Very easy to know who to target in that scenario.

Except it was a taser shot at them, not a firearm.

Also by your logic, the unarmed person in the car had even more right to shoot back at the cops, since they were taking fire from them.

A taser and a firework have the capability to do harm to the cops so if you attack cops with either of those, I'd like the cop to have the ability to defend themselves.

That doesn't really matter. A golf club is designed for sport but a belt of one on the head can kill you. The taser could have injured the cop so I feel (and I might be wrong) that the cop was justified in shooting Brooks.

In which case any cop can decide that any item is potentially harmful and just shoot first and ask questions (and launch a few kicks) later.
"He had a sharp pencil your honour, I had to use necessary force!"

Mic 1972

Why would you fire a taser at the cops? I think we should start with that before blaming the cops for shooting him down

lawrencesummers

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why would you fire a taser at the cops? I think we should start with that before blaming the cops for shooting him down

Why start that that point?

Why not start elsewhere? Like why would you let a suspect take your taser??
Or
Why can’t two cops restrain a drunk guy?

Manic Moran

GreeBo wrote: »

Based on their stats I *seriously* doubt the cops ability to safely discharge a taser if they cant safely discharge a firearm.

Ergo, they shouldnt be firing without due care and attention, which they demonstrably didnt do in this and many other scenarios. We have seen videos where cops are shooting at each other in uncontrolled panic.

There is almost never an equivalent level of stress or urgency when a taser is discharged by police to where a firearm is discharged. It seems to be an extremely shaky conclusion that just because people miss more when folks believe their life is in imminent danger, they will miss equally when the situation is less critical.

mynamejeff

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Why start that that point?

Why not start elsewhere? Like why would you let a suspect take your taser??
Or
Why can’t two cops restrain a drunk guy?

why would a drunk driver and parole violator attack cops


full of questions but never an answer

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Why can’t two cops restrain a drunk guy?

Honest?

Though we all have seen it in Lethal weapon and that was against a trained mercenary, which Brooks was not.

I've seen a lad 5ft 6", high on something, a whippet have 3 bouncers struggle to take him out of a bar, they both were Judo purples and 1 played rugby for UCC at the time.

Laurence expand your horizons man outside of the internet.

2u2me

The one's complaining about how broken the police system is don't seem to realize it's actually working as intended to.

If the US changed their policy and started letting people like this go instead of shooting them.. what would happen next?
Everything might be fine and rosey for a few weeks, a few months even; but then one day someone let go by the police will end up killing someone else.

What will happen then? Outcries and rage from the public about how the police could have stopped them earlier and instead decided to let them go. Change the policy immediately; no scum should be allowed to endanger other members of the public, etc.. etc..

Whatever way you set it up; it's not going to be perfect. It definitely could be better than it currently is; but this seems to require more funding for training; which is ironically the opposite of what the protestors are advocating for.

ronivek

2u2me wrote: »

The one's complaining about how broken the police system is don't seem to realize it's actually working as intended to.

...

Whatever way you set it up; it's not going to be perfect. It definitely could be better than it currently is; but this seems to require more funding for training; which is ironically the opposite of what the protestors are advocating for.

I think you'll find that defunding is being called for precisely because people believe that the system is indeed working as intended. Many people associated with Black Lives Matter would argue that the "intention" is to keep private and for-profit prisons associated with mass incarceration full of young, black males. That the "intention" is to keep those in the poorest areas (which also happen to be quite often black majority areas) trapped in cycles of poverty and violence such that they'll never gain enough social/civil power to challenge those in power.

So in their minds if the police's funding is reduced they will have less time and resources to focus on broken-window policing and so forth which they claim disproportionately impacts black communities; and will be forced to focus on the "big" crime.

Another aspect of defunding then would be allocating that money directly to trying to break people out of these cycles of poverty and violence; since the justice system as it stands clearly is not working for these communities.

If you agree with the premise that the system is rigged against black communities to begin with it is to me a fairly reasonable response; since if the justice system and existing social structures aren't working then you need to try something else.

Now whether you agree with the premise and that defunding in that manner is the solution; that's a different matter. Many associated with the Black Lives Matter movement seem to agree.

Manic Moran

Danzy wrote: »

Honest?

Though we all have seen it in Lethal weapon and that was against a trained mercenary, which Brooks was not.

I've seen a lad 5ft 6", high on something, a whippet have 3 bouncers struggle to take him out of a bar, they both were Judo purples and 1 played rugby for UCC at the time.

Laurence expand your horizons man outside of the internet.

The Italian Army hired a 77-year-old 5'0 tall woman to beat the crap out of their Parachute Brigade (Folgore) recruits to show them that nothing can be taken for granted, and, I quote, "To teach them humility".

Granted, she is a bit of an exception to the rule, but there have been instances of pensioners beating up people they ordinarily would not be considered to have a chance against.

Not that I'm going to compare a martial arts expert with a drunk driver, mind, but it is an interesting thought exercise.

BattleCorp

ronivek wrote: »

Now whether you agree with the premise and that defunding in that manner is the solution; that's a different matter. Many associated with the Black Lives Matter movement seem to agree.

If the police are defunded, does that mean that they are disbanded as there is no money to pay for them?

Who takes over then?

The US is bad enough at the moment. If there were no cops it would be like Mad Max over there.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

What facts or stats do you base this on?
Their hit rate with a deadly weapon is terrible, at least a taser is far less likely to have collateral damage.

I'll give a stupid example to demonstrate my point.

If I wanted someone to shoot me and inflict a minor wound, I'd rather that there was a marksman shooting at me than a drunk person. There is less chance of the marksman hitting me in a vital area than the drunk person or the toddler simply because their aim is better.

That's why I think a cop with a taser is less likely to hit someone in the eye with it than a drunk person half running and aiming wildly.

ronivek

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the police are defunded, does that mean that they are disbanded as there is no money to pay for them?

I’m pretty sure the vast majority are using the word ‘defund’ to mean reduce funding; not remove it completely. No doubt there are a handful of anarchist types who really do mean zero funding; but they’re a tiny minority.

Galwayguy35

The girlfriend sounds like a real stand up member of the community, it was her that burned down the resturant which put the workers some of whom were black out of a job.

He was a busy lad keeping a wife and a gf on the go at the same time.

Danzy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The girlfriend sounds like a real stand up member of the community, it was her that burned down the resturant which put the workers some of whom were black out of a job.

He was a busy lad keeping a wife and a gf on the go at the same time.

He was gone from the wife, she got tired of him battering her and battering the kids.

BattleCorp

ronivek wrote: »

I’m pretty sure the vast majority are using the word ‘defund’ to mean reduce funding; not remove it completely. No doubt there are a handful of anarchist types who really do mean zero funding; but they’re a tiny minority.

It's a sh1te job with sh1te pay as it is, reduce funding and that means less police with less resources and the only person winning is the criminal.

Galwayguy35

Danzy wrote: »

He was gone from the wife, she got tired of him battering her and battering the kids.

So he was a wife beater as well, something BLM won't ever mention.

Danzy

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So he was a wife beater as well, something BLM won't ever mention.

He was a family beater, young or old, they got full force punches.

GreeBo

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Why would you fire a taser at the cops? I think we should start with that before blaming the cops for shooting him down

Because you are drunk perhaps?