Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Danzy

lawrencesummers wrote: »

A non lethal weapon,

the time for three shots in the back never arrives

Did he notify them it was non lethal. He played a grown up game and he lost.

zpehtsfd

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I was fairly clear, but you didn’t grasp it, so here goes again.

I think the cop is entitled to due process, he is entitled to give his version of events, to be judged when all the facts are assembled.

Not told to clear out his locker because of one or two videos.

I think he will have a very hard time justifying this shooting to keep his job, but he deserves the opportunity to do so.

Eh no. You clearly said both of these statements:

"Firing somebody that immediately and without due process is probably in a bid to quell the protests - (but it hasn’t) But it can’t be right, surely these matters need investigation, statements and the a just decision, which may well be dismissal / charges filed etc."

"Has the cop in this instance actually violated the procedures That are given to him for arresting people? If a cop needs to be fired then fine, fire hundreds of them but only after due process."

Clearly you were happy to let due process decide his fate. Since then you have done nothing but condemn his actions and harp on about the court system. You can't have it both ways. Your opinion has gone from reasoned to radical.

joe40

Danzy wrote: »

No the proper course was taken, it was the direction that the weapon was pointed that meant public safety, the lives of the police, had to see him shot.

It's immaterial to the case but his community is now better for his death, others lives have likely been saved.

That is a truly disgusting comment. No one has the right to sit in judgement like that. He pointed a taser, not a gun.

There was zero public safety risk.

Talk about "radicalised" the community is better off because he is dead. What kind of person thinks like that

Wombatman

Danzy wrote: »

Only 1000 are shot in America out of 10 million recorded police interactions.

The very most of them are armed

So given how armed and crazy America is, there are an amazingly small number of innocents killed.

African Americans only represent 25% of the deaths, given they account for half of crime, especially serious crime, that's a significant under representation.

So while there are problems in Americans policing and reform is badly needed, this has been blown out all proportion.

A study carried out at the University of California found "evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans compared to unarmed white Americans". In this study, the probability of being shot by the police as a black, unarmed person versus as a white, unarmed person was 3.49 times higher.

screamer

Seems like resisting arrest or not complying with cops orders are big similarities in these types of cases. America is too weaponised or armed to the teeth, the very freedom they cling to to bear arms is now strong arming their society. They’ve learned nothing as a society from mass shootings, even after sandy hook which was particularly heartbreaking, they didn’t change the rules around arms. Hence in these tense situations with cops, not knowing who is armed or not, it’s a fight or flight situation, or comply or die. It’s not right, but so much about America is wrong, and they seem to lack any sort of understanding of the need to change things, so it takes these huge rallies and protests to try and bring about change. Pity that it’s pulling the rest of the world down the toilet with it.

Danzy

joe40 wrote: »

That is a truly disgusting comment. No one has the right to sit in judgement like that. He pointed a taser, not a gun.

There was zero public safety risk.

It wasn't the first time he drove his pickup so drunk he couldn't even stay awake behind the wheel, that's a guarantee.

He pointed a weapon and reaped the harvest.

You can't expect people to have a violent drunk point a weapon at them and hope it is not a gun.

weldoninhio

frag420 wrote: »

HOw do you know he was a criminal before this happened?

I don’t. But DUI, resisting arrest, stealing a taser are all criminal offences

the purple tin

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

The police officers voices sounded very panicked... I think it was an excessive use of force. But mostly they just handled a co-operative drunk man very poorly. They should be aware that most black guys will be very nervous about being arrested in light of recent events....

More calm officers would have handled this much better imo. They were on edge and trigger happy... (3 shots for a guy with a taser? Why not one in the leg to incapacitate him if you're going to use your gun at all?)

The US police aren't trained like that. If they fire their gun at someone it is shoot to kill, aim for the centre of the chest. All that shooting people in the leg and shoulder stuff is just TV fiction.

sydthebeat

screamer wrote: »

Seems like resisting arrest or not complying with cops orders are big similarities in these types of cases. America is too weaponised or armed to the teeth, the very freedom they cling to to bear arms is now strong arming their society. They’ve learned nothing as a society from mass shootings, even after sandy hook which was particularly heartbreaking, they didn’t change the rules around arms. Hence in these tense situations with cops, not knowing who is armed or not, it’s a fight or flight situation, or comply or die. It’s not right, but so much about America is wrong, and they seem to lack any sort of understanding of the need to change things, so it takes these huge rallies and protests to try and bring about change. Pity that it’s pulling the rest of the world down the toilet with it.

Its not even the "not complying" aspect.

Did you see the murder of Daniel shaver??

There's a twisted "high on power" aspect to these killings.

weldoninhio

frag420 wrote: »

The other cop could have used the supposedly three cartridges he had in his taser?

Other police officer is more than 15ft away when taser was fired. Not in range.

frag420

Danzy wrote: »

The suspect was pointing a weapon, the time for tasers was long gone.

But it was a taser he was pointing, a non lethal taser!?

The time for lethal force was not then!

weldoninhio

Wombatman wrote: »

A study carried out at the University of California found "evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans compared to unarmed white Americans". In this study, the probability of being shot by the police as a black, unarmed person versus as a white, unarmed person was 3.49 times higher.

What’s the probability of a black person being involved in a violent crime versus a white person??

wandererz

Simple solution.
Call comes in, dispatcher asks colour of person involved.
If black then dispatcher assigns black cops to deal with the situation.

No black cops available?... Sorry we can't help your ass.

lawrencesummers

Danzy wrote: »

No the proper course was taken, it was the direction that the weapon was pointed that meant public safety, the lives of the police, had to see him shot.

It's immaterial to the case but his community is now better for his death, others lives have likely been saved.

No point discussion anything with you anymore, it’s either trolling, ignorance , simple racism or a combination of all 3. Good luck.

lawrencesummers

weldoninhio wrote: »

Other police officer is more than 15ft away when taser was fired. Not in range.

Not in range of taser? Yep correct.

ExMachina1000

wandererz wrote: »

Simple solution.
Call comes in, dispatcher asks colour of person involved.
If black then dispatcher assigns black cops to deal with the situation.

Call comes in, dispatcher asks colour of person involved.
If black police ignore the call.

If they want to attack police then do not come to their aid

joe40

Danzy wrote: »

It wasn't the first time he drove his pickup so drunk he couldn't even stay awake behind the wheel, that's a guarantee.

He pointed a weapon and reaped the harvest.

You can't expect people to have a violent drunk point a weapon at them and hope it is not a gun.

He pointed a taser.

How many people in Ireland are arrested for drink driving. Would the community be better served if they were shot dead?

I'm not condoning drink driving but to say they deserve death is ridiculous.

Nobody has answered why the cops couldn't have simply let him run and arrest him later. The previous poster is correct shots are always to kill.

The guards don't do high speed chases through towns very much, the risk to loss of life is to great for all involved, including the criminals.

It is a real rot in society when people decide some certain people lives don't matter anymore.
I'm not talking about race I'm talking about actions. Even if someone is committing a crime their life is still important.


Some police killings are justified but it must be the absolute last resort when other lives are in immediate risk

lawrencesummers

zpehtsfd wrote: »

Eh no. You clearly said both of these statements:

"Firing somebody that immediately and without due process is probably in a bid to quell the protests - (but it hasn’t) But it can’t be right, surely these matters need investigation, statements and the a just decision, which may well be dismissal / charges filed etc."

"Has the cop in this instance actually violated the procedures That are given to him for arresting people? If a cop needs to be fired then fine, fire hundreds of them but only after due process."

Clearly you were happy to let due process decide his fate. Since then you have done nothing but condemn his actions and harp on about the court system. You can't have it both ways. Your opinion has gone from reasoned to radical.

Clearly I think he is entitled to a trial, I just don’t think in these circumstances after seeing what I have seen (which isn’t everything) that he will get very far with it.

That’s the third time I’ve taken the same consistent stance, how many more time do you need it explained to you?

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Other police officer is more than 15ft away when taser was fired. Not in range.

Also, “It appears one of the officers fires their stun gun at Brooks three times as he runs away.” So it would have been empty.

lawrencesummers

weldoninhio wrote: »

What’s the probability of a black person being involved in a violent crime versus a white person??

It’s probably irrelevant.

frag420

weldoninhio wrote: »

Other police officer is more than 15ft away when taser was fired. Not in range.

So not a threat then?

weldoninhio

joe40 wrote: »

He pointed a taser.

How many people in Ireland are arrested for drink driving. Would the community be better served if they were shot dead?

I'm not condoning drink driving but to say they deserve death is ridiculous.

Nobody has answered why the cops couldn't have simply let him run and arrest him later. The previous poster is correct shots are always to kill.

The guards don't do high speed chases through towns very much, the risk to loss of life is to great for all involved, including the criminals.

It is a real rot in society when people decide some certain people lives don't matter anymore.
Some police killings are justified but it must be the absolute last resort when other lives are in immediate risk

He wasn’t shot for drink driving. He was shot for aiming and shooting a weapon at a police officer.

y0ssar1an22

weldoninhio wrote: »

What’s the probability of a black person being involved in a violent crime versus a white person??

I suspect that variable has been controlled for, but it prob skews the argument the other way, so is ignored

Timberrrrrrrr

frag420 wrote: »

If he was not running away then how could he turn and take aim?

Its like there is a logic vacuum in here?

Watch the video

joe40

weldoninhio wrote: »

He wasn’t shot for drink driving. He was shot for aiming and shooting a weapon at a police officer.

The weapon was a taser, he was running away.

The poster I was responding to said the community was better off because he was now dead.

weldoninhio

frag420 wrote: »

So not a threat then?

If he had incapacitated the first officer what would stop him getting his gun? He was a threat. Threat was eliminated. Bravo to the police officer.

weldoninhio

joe40 wrote: »

The weapon was a taser, he was running away.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. Don’t aim a weapon at armed police. Righteous kill. The cop should currently be suing his PD.

joe40

weldoninhio wrote: »

If he had incapacitated the first officer what would stop him getting his gun? He was a threat. Threat was eliminated. Bravo to the police officer.

The second officer would have stopped him there were two of them.

frag420

weldoninhio wrote: »

If he had incapacitated the first officer what would stop him getting his gun? He was a threat. Threat was eliminated. Bravo to the police officer.

If if if if....

But he didn’t, he took an non lethal weapon and ran away. While running he attempted to aim a non lethal weapon at the officer. They did. It need to kill him.

frag420

weldoninhio wrote: »

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. Don’t aim a weapon at armed police. Righteous kill. The cop should currently be suing his PD.

How about the police don’t use weapons they are obviously incapable of using?