Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence of the video. He repeatedly punched the officers, took their tazer and shot them with it.

If the police want to arrest you, you don't get to defy their authority without consequence.

Your continuing harping about shooting him in the leg or whatever is absolute fantasy nonsense. I've done a lot of pistol shooting, hitting a moving target in a non stressful environment, at that range, is hard enough to begin with while aiming center mass. I'd also add, there's nothing non-lethal about shooting someone in the leg. You can easily sever an artery and bleed out in minutes.

The famous John Philpott Curran shot a man in a duel, he aimed for his leg, but hit the artery and your man bled out.

Something he regretted all his life

AbusesToilets

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

You are deliberately ignoring the evidence of the video. He repeatedly punched the officers, took their tazer and shot them with it.

If the police want to arrest you, you don't get to defy their authority without consequence.

Your continuing harping about shooting him in the leg or whatever is absolute fantasy nonsense. I've done a lot of pistol shooting, hitting a moving target in a non stressful environment, at that range, is hard enough to begin with while aiming center mass. I'd also add, there's nothing non-lethal about shooting someone in the leg. You can easily sever an artery and bleed out in minutes.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I wonder will the jury use this thread as part of the deliberations

This will replace the Jury.

ExMachina1000

I wonder will the jury use this thread as part of the deliberations

The Nal wrote: »

Not to harp on about it but yep

That will occasionally kill people, especially as seen recently when the person has a bad heart and opioid drug use.

In reality any form of restraint will kill some and that will be recorded and used.

Where to from here.

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

I think the events are clear , theres lots of video of it,

as he was being placed under arrest for dui he fought the two cops on the ground punching one , but that's not aggression or harmful. the cops didn't pull him over he was passed out in a drive thru , again your trying to paint this as something it isn't for whatever reason ...

if brooks hadn't resisted a very lawful action by the police he would be alive an well and a lot of people would still have jobs .

its on him , on America for being a mess

Charles Babbage wrote: »

He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't going to kill anyone, they knew where he lived, just arrest him some other time.

You have no idea on that, he had already shown that he had no concern with public safety, shown he was violent, had a weapon, he might have hijacked a car, crashed it killed others.

He was facing a return to Folsom prison, few more years to serve for torturing his children, he got a 7 year sentence so he had no reason to be at home the following day.

Letting the violent drunk take a weapon and hope it works out ok for the general public was not an option.

The Nal

joseywhales wrote: »

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

Not to harp on about it but yep

Charles Babbage

mynamejeff wrote: »

he was armed , he fought the police and stole a tazer then aimed it at the police

A tazer is not a lethal weapon in Georgia.

mynamejeff wrote:

he was being arrested for DUI , that cant be done the day after ,

In Ireland, if you refuse a test then you get the same penalty anyway. He was also resisting arrest, which can be prosecuted anyway.

He wasn't going anywhere, he wasn't going to kill anyone, they knew where he lived, just arrest him some other time.

mynamejeff wrote: »

youll have to try at least one more time ,

he was armed with less that lethal , I ll let you google the difference .

he was a threat to officers , he turned and pointed the weapon at them, and discharges it at them . what do you think he was gona do next ?

how did he resist arrest with out showing ant signs of aggression ?

finally why would you post this if you have no understanding of firearms ?

Its seems that you are trying to assert that this sweet innocent young black man was mowed down by racist cops out to carry out some kind of genocide against black people.

like I said your trying to make it something that it isn't

Well I can assure you, I am not trying to assert that, I am trying to understand if there was a non lethal option available to the police officers.

I believe that defensive action is not aggression. He has defied their authority but he has not harmed them and he did not initiate contact.

My original post was a question not an assertion.

My original post for context:

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

.....

To make it much simpler, was there a way for the police to resolve the situation without lethal force?

The Nal

The taser is not non lethal. Over 1000 people have died in the last 20 years in America after being tasered by police. So did Dalian Atkinson.

But people have issues with choke holds.

joseywhales wrote: »

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.

youll have to try at least one more time ,

he was armed with less that lethal , I ll let you google the difference .

he was a threat to officers , he turned and pointed the weapon at them, and discharges it at them . what do you think he was gona do next ?

how did he resist arrest with out showing ant signs of aggression ?

finally why would you post this if you have no understanding of firearms ?

Its seems that you are trying to assert that this sweet innocent young black man was mowed down by racist cops out to carry out some kind of genocide against black people.

like I said your trying to make it something that it isn't

joseywhales wrote: »

I think so, although from the ballistics expertise, I could be mistaken and be in a shooting forum

Very good.

Danzy wrote: »

Are you on the correct thread?

I think so, although from the ballistics expertise, I could be mistaken and be in a shooting forum

joseywhales wrote: »

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.

Are you on the correct thread?

declanflynn wrote: »

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

No, but the target is so much bigger and the mass will stop the bullet travelling.

Bullet will go through the most of a leg easily.

So you are aiming at a target an Olympic shooter might miss and if you hit, it may have no effect and the bullet might bounce off the tarmac.

declanflynn wrote: »

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

a lot of police forces in the US issue bullets that are designed to expend all or most of their energy on what ever they hit specifically to prevent over penetration.

mynamejeff wrote: »

by repeating that he was unarmed is trying to claim something that is not true , I don't know why anyone would do that as its a lie and not discussion

your suggestions of trying to find him later are nonsensical in the extreme.
let a man you may or may not have correctly identified run off with a police weapon after assaulting officers ? do you think that would happen anywhere ?

as for the leg shot thing , I along with most other posters here assume that it is common sense

Ok I will try this again, he was armed with a non lethal.

He was not a threat to officers, he may have been a threat to others, there is no evidence that he would be more dangerous than any other citizen who carries a tazer.

He resisted arrest but showed no signs of aggression.

So why was lethal action required is what I am trying to discuss, was there some other non lethal action that could have been taken?

You believe the officers had no choice but to kill the man?

Finally, I am glad you are here to represent most of the posters here, Why would the "the leg shot thing" be common sense, I have never shot a gun, I imagine most people here have never tried a leg shot on a moving target. I appreciate the information from the replies.

declanflynn

weldoninhio wrote: »

If they aim for his leg and miss, do you think the bullet just stops??

fire 3 or 4 times at the upper body and miss do u think the bullet stops?

joseywhales wrote: »

I am not sure how discussing something can turn it into something it isn't. Perhaps we should wait for your statement on all such incidents in case our opinions are wrong.

I stated he had a non lethal weapon. He was running away, police officer was not in danger. I am trying to understand if there was a way for the police officer to de-escalate without taking lethal action. How is that changing the story?

The ineffectiveness of a leg shot was explained to me 3 times within 9 minutes before a reply from me, I think you need to chill.
Why is it you are so defensive about a discussion?

In terms of the dui, I assume resisting arrest and pointing a tazer at an officer are greater crimes. Can these not be resolved with a follow up? Rather than escalation to lethal action?

by repeating that he was unarmed is trying to claim something that is not true , I don't know why anyone would do that as its a lie and not discussion

your suggestions of trying to find him later are nonsensical in the extreme.
let a man you may or may not have correctly identified run off with a police weapon after assaulting officers ? do you think that would happen anywhere ?

as for the leg shot thing , I along with most other posters here assume that it is common sense

joseywhales wrote: »

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

Few could do that with any regularity.

That's an exceptional level of marksmanship even in training, never mind when in a stressful situation.

It's good shooting to hit a leg If standing, with a handgun.

walshb

Can folks quit the nonsense comparisons between the 340 million people of such diverse backgrounds in the U.S. and European countries...

Not saying cops do not exhibit trigger happiness. They do. But the exaggerations and comparisons to Europe are juts ridiculous.

mynamejeff wrote: »

he was armed , he fought the police and stole a tazer then aimed it at the police

he had not been checked , he was patted down not searched

he was being arrested for DUI , that cant be done the day after ,

the leg shot has been explained to you a number of times already and you are choosing to ignore it

you are trying to turn this into something its not

why are you doing that

I am not sure how discussing something can turn it into something it isn't. Perhaps we should wait for your statement on all such incidents in case our opinions are wrong.

I stated he had a non lethal weapon. He was running away, police officer was not in danger. I am trying to understand if there was a way for the police officer to de-escalate without taking lethal action. How is that changing the story?

The ineffectiveness of a leg shot was explained to me 3 times within 9 minutes before a reply from me, I think you need to chill.
Why is it you are so defensive about a discussion?

In terms of the dui, I assume resisting arrest and pointing a tazer at an officer are greater crimes. Can these not be resolved with a follow up? Rather than escalation to lethal action?

yourdeadwright

Also why do people keep saying non violent crime,

It started as a non violent crime, but when he fought with the cops , stole there Taser and pointed at them it became a violent crime ,

The Nal

mynamejeff wrote: »

choke hold is an awful idea , dangerous even bone by a professional never mind a poorly trained panicky cop

it should not ever be used in policing , its a military thing that was brought over by vets joining the police in America ,

compressing some ones neck is way to dangerous as seen in the Floyd murder

If done correctly all it does it make the person basically faint for a few seconds. And it only takes a few seconds. Floyd had his neck kneeled on for 7 minutes or something and for a few minutes after he passed out.

yourdeadwright

joseywhales wrote: »

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

eh your wrong , He was ARMED when he was shot

weldoninhio

joseywhales wrote: »

Just to be clear in this case the man was unarmed.

Fair enough if he has a handgun but this guy had been checked for a gun , he had a none lethal weapon and was out numbered, even if you aim at his leg and miss, you still have a very high chance of apprehending him. You have his car, you have his id logged.

I am saying a none lethal shot on an unarmed suspect of a non violent crime, seems a lot more acceptable than what happened.

If they aim for his leg and miss, do you think the bullet just stops??

The Nal wrote: »

You also run the high risk of missing and the bullet bouncing off the ground and hitting someone else.

Certainly resisting arrest, stealing a police stun gun and then running away while aiming the stun gun at the police is guaranteed to get you shot.

They need to bring back the choke hold where possible. In this case, one cop puts it on, one observes. Would've been over in 10 seconds and left a living suspect.

choke hold is an awful idea , dangerous even bone by a professional never mind a poorly trained panicky cop

it should not ever be used in policing , its a military thing that was brought over by vets joining the police in America ,

compressing some ones neck is way to dangerous as seen in the Floyd murder

weldoninhio

joseywhales wrote: »

The one thing that strikes me from all of the shooting scenarios, is why they always shoot to kill. Like surely a bullet in each leg will stop a man?

The should just shoot the weapon out of the criminals hands. Cheaper than the medical bills of two shot legs.