Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Worse case scenario is he kills someone else, an innocent bystander. THATS the worse case scenario.

No such thing as not shooting to kill, no police force trains to aim to injure.

US policing mirrors the US as a whole. Turn on the TV, they are a very full on, all or nothing violent people.

We can all agree on that.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Circular argument. The answer to that is they wouldn't be shot if they obeyed a police order to stop.

so you dont have an issue with the police shooting somebody in the back as they run away? a simple yes or no will suffice.

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

He disagreed and felt he shouldn't be shot at or threatened with a weapon.
A jumped up prole I guess.

joe40

Joe Columbo wrote: »

Cops in America know that guns are extremelly prevalent within American society so when they have to deal with someone they have to be aware for the potential for a gun being pulled on them and as a result are going to be a lot more jumpy and make more mistakes than a guard in Ireland who knows 99.9% of people will be unarmed and the can be comfortable in dealing with them. It's understandable there are so many police shootings in the USA when you have such a violent society. Black people tend to live in poor urban areas and poverty combined with high population density tends to add up to crime so it's understandable that more black people end up getting involved with and shot by cops because they are going to have more interaction with them due to where they live.

Cops like most people just care about getting home alive each day so expecting them to be extremely calm and rational when someone points a weapon at them is ridiculous, it must be an unbelievably stressful job. Cops in America are too violent and this needs to stop but the population is too violent also and a violent population is going to result in a violent police force. There are root causes of the issue that are being ignored and it would be more responsible of the media to allow some nuance in there coverage and not the pathetic rabble rousing they have indulged in thus far.

I take your point, probably the main problem is the massive inequality that exists, which disproportionately affects black communities. Poor education, poor health care, poor mental health support, no social welfare.
And of course gun control.

They're all long term problem that America does not seem to be able to get a handle on.

Police brutality is another problem and obviously violent crime is a factor but how many controversial deaths have we seen where the police were not in danger but still killed someone.

They're not all down to over anxious nervous cops.

Even some of the ways protestors were handled show that a police mentality that is far too macho and aggressive.

It's simply not working and is totally counterproductive.

The police are not the only issue but the way some police behave and they are part of the problem.

Mrsmum

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the police should just shoot them in the back if they run away?

Circular argument. The answer to that is they wouldn't be shot if they obeyed a police order to stop.

Stablelad123

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

He did lay a hand on the cops and he took their tazer. He then fled. The cop chasing him had his tazer out which meant he just wanted to apprehend him. This all changed when the guy turned and shot the tazer at the cop. Cop drew his gun and shot him because he felt his life was in danger. It went from a case of the guy resisting arrest to wanting to harm the cops. End of story.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and tasers are not a deadly weapon. shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with a non-lethal weapon is not an appropriate response.

Amnesty International has documented over 500 deaths that occurred after the use of Tasers.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Stop making it out like he done nothing, many on here commenting and not even looking at all the footage.
He was wrong, he shouldn't have fought the 2 officers, he shouldn't have hit them and taken their taser, he tried to use it against them also, he ran but so do many and look at how many will kill anyone to get away.....

He could have gotten into a car with people inside, used the taser, he could also have a knife or actually have a gun as they hadn't searched him....

I know what way I would have done it and that's absolutely no different and those two officers were professional to the end.

He chose to do what he did.

3 shots were fired doesn't mean all hit their target either.

I'd actually love to see you all hating thrown into a similar scenario or he'll even a training centre for officers and see what they have to put up with.

he was searched for weapons. he had none.

punisher5112

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not going to slag of the cops because he got away.

But the guy does not deserve death because he resisted arrest and got away.

There has to be proportionality in police actions.

Stop making it out like he done nothing, many on here commenting and not even looking at all the footage.
He was wrong, he shouldn't have fought the 2 officers, he shouldn't have hit them and taken their taser, he tried to use it against them also, he ran but so do many and look at how many will kill anyone to get away.....

He could have gotten into a car with people inside, used the taser, he could also have a knife or actually have a gun as they hadn't searched him....

I know what way I would have done it and that's absolutely no different and those two officers were professional to the end.

He chose to do what he did.

3 shots were fired doesn't mean all hit their target either.

I'd actually love to see you all hating thrown into a similar scenario or he'll even a training centre for officers and see what they have to put up with.

Mrsmum wrote: »

For general law and order, there has to be some sense of people, even if unarmed, understanding they cannot run from cops too though. Is it not the fear of being shot that makes alot of people put their hands up in these situations and worse ones. Otherwise sure why would anyone stay and face the music. They would all just run without a bother on them.

so the police should just shoot them in the back if they run away?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a non-lethal weapon.

They had bo idea what he drew, also a taser can incapacitate so he could maybe have taken the gun and shot the officer on the ground.

If he had no weapon and made a cocked hand and pointed that back it would still have been a justified shooting, they could not know at the time.

Hindsight is 2020.

Look, we'll never ageee I think a working class cop should have the right to defend his life from violence

Mrsmum

For general law and order, there has to be some sense of people, even if unarmed, understanding they cannot run from cops too though. Is it not the fear of being shot that makes alot of people put their hands up in these situations and worse ones. Otherwise sure why would anyone stay and face the music. They would all just run without a bother on them.

Donald Trump wrote: »

In Ireland you would likely be done for being found asleep in the drivers seat of a car while drunk if you have the keys in your possession

In many US states you could be similarly convicted.

No such offence in Ireland. Dunno about the US.

Had he not resisted, but he did. If he stole the Gardas baton or spray then used them on the Garda they would have used force to stop him as is their right and expectation. They most certainly would not have allowed him jog home and called in after breakfast tomorrow

Joe Columbo

Cops in America know that guns are extremelly prevalent within American society so when they have to deal with someone they have to be aware for the potential for a gun being pulled on them and as a result are going to be a lot more jumpy and make more mistakes than a guard in Ireland who knows 99.9% of people will be unarmed and the can be comfortable in dealing with them. It's understandable there are so many police shootings in the USA when you have such a violent society. Black people tend to live in poor urban areas and poverty combined with high population density tends to add up to crime so it's understandable that more black people end up getting involved with and shot by cops because they are going to have more interaction with them due to where they live.

Cops like most people just care about getting home alive each day so expecting them to be extremely calm and rational when someone points a weapon at them is ridiculous, it must be an unbelievably stressful job. Cops in America are too violent and this needs to stop but the population is too violent also and a violent population is going to result in a violent police force. There are root causes of the issue that are being ignored and it would be more responsible of the media to allow some nuance in there coverage and not the pathetic rabble rousing they have indulged in thus far.

Granadino wrote: »

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

Worse case scenario is he kills someone else, an innocent bystander. THATS the worse case scenario.

No such thing as not shooting to kill, no police force trains to aim to injure.

US policing mirrors the US as a whole. Turn on the TV, they are a very full on, all or nothing violent people.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a non-lethal weapon.

a Less lethal weapon

Can you get even one aspect correct?

Granadino

It's obvious that if someone lays a hand or tries to take a weapon off a police officer in the USA, it's game over. It's either death or a serious hiding.
They always seem to approach a crime scene or suspect full on.
Screaming/shouting/excessive force etc. Maybe that's just the way it is, as it means they try and rule out the risk of getting injured themselves.
But they seem to apply this scenario for anyone a lot of the time.

e.g. this guy was boozed up, struggled with the police. He ran off with a tazer gun, so is it in the police manual that if someone resists arrest and runs, you're allowed shoot them and are allowed shoot to kill?

Worse case scenario, the cop gets shot with a tazer. It's hardly death, the guy was running away, his car was left behind. I mean, all they needed to do was call in a backup car, or just wait until the morning and pick him up. He's then done for resisting arrest, stealing a weapon, DUI etc. There's absolutely no need for what happened.

Donald Trump

In Ireland you would likely be done for being found asleep in the drivers seat of a car while drunk if you have the keys in your possession

In many US states you could be similarly convicted.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and tasers are not a deadly weapon. shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with a non-lethal weapon is not an appropriate response.

Pity you weren't there to fill them in on every detail you heard in hindsight.

They weren't willing to die in the absence of that. It must be false Consciousness.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

In all fairness the cops had his car so knew who he was, Jesus let him off catch up with him the following day, im starting to think its more a lack of common sense then racism with some of these cops.

Are you forgetting or ignoring the part where he took a cops weapon and fired it before fleeing with that weapon?

Would you take responsibility for his future actions under these circumstances?

There seems to be a mentality here that criminals will saunter home and therefore we should calmly allow anyone who chooses not to be arrested, to leave and catch up with them when it suits the criminal more. What if he still didnt want to be arrested later? What if the car was in fact not his or he no longer lived at the registered address?

Worse still, what if he used the police taser to hijack a pregnant woman using said taser? Theres a lot of possibilities at play here. Possibilities that would not have been in play had he not taken the course of action that he chose to.

He chose to drink drive, something a lot of people here are downplaying.
He chose to resist arrest, something people here seem to consider acceptable
He chose to steal a cops weapon, something people here seem to ignore
He chose to fire that weapon, again something that is being ignored
He chose to run away.

If we woke up tomorrow and the policing that people here are calling for was actually enacted, those same people would be screaming about lack of police action and criminals acting with impunity

Danzy wrote: »

Lol.

Back to pretending he didn't point a weapon and switch to race.

More money than sense.

a non-lethal weapon.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

black lives certainly dont. you can shoot a black man in the back as they are running away and people like you will defend the cop.

Lol.

Back to pretending he didn't point a weapon and switch to race.

More money than sense.

weldoninhio wrote: »

As stated multiple times, police tasers have three rounds in them.

and tasers are not a deadly weapon. shooting somebody in the back while they are running away with a non-lethal weapon is not an appropriate response.

joe40

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I guess Blue Lives Dont Matter.

Nobody said that at all.
I think everybody acknowledges that if the police man's life was at risk then shooting is appropriate.

In this instance the guy way running away, he was not confronting them, he had already escaped.

The weapon he pointed was their taser they knew it was a taser. He took it from the cop.

There would be outrage in Ireland if the same situation played out and we do value Garda lives.

And since he has been sacked the policeman didn't comply with American standards of policing

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a weapon he fired while running away which they should have known would have no effect. he had already fired. he was holding a piece of plastic.

As stated multiple times, police tasers have three rounds in them.

joe40 wrote: »

A guard would not have shot the man in that circumstance drunk or not.
Drunk people walk home all the time.

You cannot make that claim. Armed suspects are shot. thats what ARMED police do. Drunk people walk home all the time in the US too. So whats your point? Drunk drivers drive home a lot as well, but not all the time because sometimes they encounter police who use the 'IFS' to make decisions on how to proceed. Sometimes they will arrest, sometimes not. Sometimes they will use force and if you believe pointing and fireing a weapon at an armed detective wouldnt result in being shot, I have a bridge to sell.

You need to research this topic a lot, lot more. Theres case studies, court cases that refer to this.

However, once again I point out that the US is not Ireland. We do not have the same systems as they do nor even the same legal system. What would happen here makes no odds to how it happened there.

weldoninhio

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Nope, I'm talking absolute sense here... Two completely sober and heavily armed cops allowed one unarmed drunk man to take control of the situation. The fact he had to draw his weapon and shoot 3 rounds at a drunk man running away, is proof that they lacked the requisite ability to control a fairly routine situation!

The drunk man was dumb, but that's hardly unusual for drunk people... he didn't deserve to die for his stupidity. And in most other western countries, he would almost certainly still be alive and in a court answering to a judge! But in braindead America, he gets gunned down like a scene from bad hollywood movie!

Too many twitchy and trigger happy people in America... far too eager to take their firearm out and start shooting, before they've fully engaged their brain! It's just too easy to take a lethal weapon out and end someone's life in that country... you can spend years in multiple court cases and appeals to decide if someone should be given a death sentence... but then end someone else's life in milliseconds with no trial at all... that's illogical and disturbing for any so-called civilized society!

Plenty of cops fire off a warning shot or one non lethal round - Nonsense

He was being civil and co-operative. - Nonsense up until he punched a cop threw another, stole a taser and ran.

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. - Nonsense

he parked his car up when he realised he was too drunk to drive - Nonsense he was going through a Drivethru so drunk that he passed out and car horns, banging on his window couldn't wake him.

You are talking nonsense.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

naturally, and beinf reasonable you must concede that he did a little more than resist and flee. He fired a weapon at armed police. The day that is not considered to be enough reason for a police officer to shoot someone, you may as well disband the police. Who in their right minds would become a US cop under those circumstances?

Let them be shot at, they are cheap working class lives when they lose out and are readily replaced.

That's the view of many.

iebamm2580

In all fairness the cops had his car so knew who he was, Jesus let him off catch up with him the following day, im starting to think its more a lack of common sense then racism with some of these cops.