AbusesToilets wrote: » The second he started attacking the police, it became a potentially lethal confrontation. He could have grabbed a pistol, fatally injured them with strikes, or with the tazer. The police are entirely within their right to respond proportionally at that point.
Danzy wrote: » Class divide.The working class cop should have been willing to take a bullet to conform to middle class activists views. One above says yes he could essily have had a hidden gun but it doesn't change his view, the prole should have been open to dying.
Donald Trump wrote: » Right ok. You are correct and the supreme court is wronghttps://app.justis.com/case/dpp-v-byrne/overview/c4CZm1aJnZWca You can stick in qualifications about "pocket" etc. to try to obscure things. Doesn't change the fact that you would likely be done for it. Once there exists a prima facie case that you are in charge of said vehicle, the burden would fall on you to disprove it. Not impossible, but not easy
joseywhales wrote: » Proportionally would be running in the opposite direction with a tazer in their hands. The fact is they initiated the only lethal action that took place on a fleeing person. Was this the only option they had to resolve the situation?
vetinari wrote: » This is exactly the bad faith argument I was talking about. Police use tasers every day and I bet you have no issues with it. Now that someone robs a taser, it's this lethal weapon?
joe40 wrote: » What are you talking about the millions of people on BLM are far from middle class. If you're so sure the police man did nothing wrong why was he sacked. Bowing to media pressure is nonsense, plenty of controversial things have happened where police haven't been sanctioned. I know it will be investigated fully but the initial reaction is that the police action was not appropriate. That not me, some randomer on an Irish discussion forum it's his own bosses.
The Nal wrote: » Its a lethal weapon regardless. It kills people. Police shouldn't be using them when they could be using a choke first. If they choked out Brooks he'd still be alive.
yourdeadwright wrote: » It was the only option because he mad it there only option , Have to remember the police have a job to do, Why was he acting like such a loon for such a small thing,
Danzy wrote: » True but the optics of a knocked out black man being dragged into a car would have it's own problems.
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.
The Nal wrote: » No one would've known, happens all the time. Its much better than the optics of a black man being shot in the back while running away. The choke started to become banned in the early 80s because cops didn't release it as they didn't know how to use it properly. A half day training course could get cops using it effectively and reduce the need for tasers and the like. You resist, you get choked.
Danzy wrote: » He went full psycho because arrest was a parole violation and he had 4 years left to serve on his sentence for torturing his kids. Not beating.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » He wasnt shot in the back while running away. Watch the video
Danzy wrote: » Certainly worth considering rationality is out of the debate now. When you have phrases like Defund the police in operation, it's fantasy land time. Even though some of the the points are valid on spending but the term is shock value and that is driving so much activism now. Look at Chaz calling for the abolition of courts, it's laughable politics. The take over of the broader left by middle class ideologues seeking meaning.
PonchoMcHoncho wrote: » https://twitter.com/Ginoma32/status/1272308158170492928
weldoninhio wrote: » Police in the states use tasers with 3 shots in them.
Danzy wrote: » Easy for you to know that from your comfy chair. They couldn't take the chance in the heat of the moment. His pointing back cost him his life. There is a real class divide I feel in this, lots of middle class activists thinking that working class cops should be more willing to let violent people threaten them in the most gun over loaded society in the world. They may be cops, they may only be working class people but they still have an instinct for self preservation, a desire to live and that is understandable. In a highly volatile situation with a violent criminal, the moment he brings a weapon to point, he has to be shot. The threatening motion leaves no choice. Their life depends on it and he has set it in motion.
Danzy wrote: » Pointing a weapon, that left them no choice. It's all very well for Middle class activists from the safety of their homes to say working class cops should allow violent drunks to point weapons at them because they can tell with hindsight that the threat to life wasn't too severe.
Danzy wrote: » The desire to stay alive when someone drew a weapon overwhelmed their desire to conform to middle class Americans idea of how they should respond, which is largely based on no experience of such situations.
Danzy wrote: » You should have informed them exactly what weapon he had drawn then.
Danzy wrote: » 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.
Stablelad123 wrote: » 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.
ExMachina1000 wrote: » They are not out calling er doctors murderers, scum, racist nor are they asking for er doctors to be defunded or abolished. Why would a police unit put themselves in danger going into a ghetto at 1 o clock in the morning in response to a call. Many individual officers womt do it. They have young families at home. Why help these people who hate them so much. Rioters and protesters have made their bed now.
Overheal wrote: » If they thought a taser was going to kill them then they weren’t adequately trained to be on the force. Good they were fired then.
AbusesToilets wrote: » He attacked the cops, took their weapon and used it against them. Why is this continually hand waved away as being justifiable? Stating the police didn't follow proper escalation of force protocols IS the bad faith argument being made here.
Danzy wrote: » The police have a monopoly on violence. It's the basis of any fair or functioning society. It can be abused, no doubt but without it, life as a society is not possible.
Danzy wrote: » His sacking is political, the Chief of Police, a black woman resigned in protest over it. If police officers aren't allowed shoot a suspect that is threatening their lives, then no one will stay in the force, black or white or whatever. Why would they? It's not a well paid job, decent pension though. Maybe if America had no guns, maybe if there wasn't such disparity in crime rates, actually I can't see how it would ever come about.
Overheal wrote: » Erika Shields is black now? Wow you’ve been talking some serious hole in this game
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
