Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Police Shooting USA. Rayshard Brooks.
Options
Comments
-
Warning shots and even leg shots which I've seen repeatedly derided are indeed a thing and they are used. As to how often they're genuinely useful that's another question.
I think in general countries and forces with low incidence of gun crime and in particular gun crime against police are a lot more reticent to fire; and when they do fire they tend to fire a lot more conservatively.
In addition I suspect suspects in these countries are also more likely to be impacted by a warning shot; since there is this perception that police don't shoot people much... but a warning shot might reinforce that it's an option.
In the USA for better or worse they generally treat any situation where they're firing a firearm as a shoot to kill situation; as evidenced by the countless cases of dumping entire magazines into people.
Conversely in Ireland Garda shootings are very often single shots; or shots explicitly designed to wound or deter escalation.
I don't think the Gardai's way of operating would really be suitable in the USA; nor vice versa.
There's a whole conversation to be had around American's attitude to guns. As an avid gun enthusiast I used to from time to time buy an odd American gun magazine. I remember an article where a man said, "In my self defense handgun I want a bore I can damn near crawl though" I'd love a Colt Python revolver purely because, I'm not interested in it's stopping power. There's a totally different attitude to guns over there, they seem to live in a constant state of fear. Odd for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do you remember the "you loot be shoot" type posters outside homes after Katriona on the news? Em yer sitting on yer porch with yer feet in water, trench foot is probably more of a concern than someone robbing yer flatscreen. Whereas we'd be down the road seeing how an elderly neighbor is doing.
Anyway, point being this fear naturally bleeds into th police forces.First they came for the socialists...
0 -
There's a whole conversation to be had around American's attitude to guns. As an avid gun enthusiast I used to from time to time buy an odd American gun magazine. I remember an article where a man said, "In my self defense handgun I want a bore I can damn near crawl though" I'd love a Colt Python revolver purely because, I'm not interested in it's stopping power. There's a totally different attitude to guns over there, they seem to live in a constant state of fear. Odd for the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do you remember the "you loot be shoot" type posters outside homes after Katriona on the news? Em yer sitting on yer porch with yer feet in water, trench foot is probably more of a concern than someone robbing yer flatscreen. Whereas we'd be down the road seeing how an elderly neighbor is doing.
Anyway, point being this fear naturally bleeds into th police forces.
I'm pretty sure the gun culture over there is the primary factor in how their police behave. When you expect everyone you interact with to be armed with a lethal weapon of course that's going to have a massive impact in both your policies and how you operate on a day to day basis.
I mean I know it's a false equivalence to a certain extent but even most soldiers in most conflict zones are under strict orders not to open fire until fired upon: they are required to inherently take on board that additional risk to prevent escalating or instigating conflict.
Whereas in the USA it seems like the police officers have been able to successfully go in the complete opposite direction and constantly minimise risk to the officers are the expense of the people they're supposed to be serving.
I think there's a balance there: and I feel like shooting a man armed with a taser when you have other officers in attendance and members of the public in the immediate vicinity should not be acceptable. Especially when that taser is yours to begin with; the incident has to be used as a learning experience to make things better.
As to what punishment if any would be appropriate for the officer; I'm not sure.0 -
https://youtu.be/DOiKgmCJwls
To be fair, it does look like the police were being reasonable enough until he started to struggle with the arrest. I guess the racism itself might come into play there as we've all been in situations where there was a nod and a wink and you're told to be on your way carefully. They could have handled the arrest a bit smoother all the same, like talking more about it before going to handcuff him.
For anyone who doesn't want to watch the body cam footage, he says he was at his daughters birthday and his girlfriend dropped him back to the parking lot to drive himself home. He says he fell asleep in the car because he wasn't feeling well, and claims to have only drank 1.5 margaritas. He said he could just walk to his sisters house and to forget about the charge etc, but after a breathalyser they go to arrest him...
After a guy gets knelt on until he's dead can you blame the guy for panicking thinking he too might just be beaten to death? Can you blame him for doing anything to get away including trying to defend himself. The guy wanted to get away and live. They had his car, his address, the lot. But they shot him dead anyway.0 -
Sure people are ending up hanged0
-
The autopsy say it was in the back yet?
That's been fairly much debunked by now as a factor determining the legality of a shooting. The Supreme Court ruling of Graham v Connor (1989) rules. It just takes too little time for someone who is armed to shoot and turn forward again, or for someone who even appears to be armed to make such a move.
The standard is the level of threat that the officer reasonably believed was the case. Victim facing is not a definitive characteristic of this.In the USA for better or worse they generally treat any situation where they're firing a firearm as a shoot to kill situation; as evidenced by the countless cases of dumping entire magazines into people.
A firearm is lethal force. There is no such thing as an intentional non-lethal use of firearm in US law. There are cases where the use turned out to be non-lethal as the intent is to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill, but if you're pulling the trigger, there had better be a threat which warrants a verdict of justifiable homicide, because death is a not-unreasonable expectation as a result. Bullets have to go somewhere, which is why warning shots are -not- a thing in the US. If it's enough of a threat to pull the trigger, it's enough of a threat to shoot the threat.
As for emptying magazines, there is a horrible misconception that one bullet is enough to stop a threat, courtesy of most movies. The only single-shot guaranteed to stop a threat is one which hits something absolutely vital such as the brain stem, otherwise, you have to keep punching holes. You start shooting and you keep shooting until the threat is visibly stopped. It's an interesting effect that normally what drops a target is the brain saying "I've been shot, I'm supposed to fall down now", as opposed to actually having to fall down due to physical inability to remain upright.'If he saw bullets fly by'
A bullet...fly...by
**** me....
In fairness, it is possible to see pistol rounds in flight, at least if it's sunny. I've seen it a number of times. Probably more likely to just hear them and see the flash, though.0 -
Advertisement
-
The US is proving again that they are virtually a police state.0
-
Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »The US is proving again that they are virtually a police state.
If you ever visit Washington you will come away convinced that you didn’t see anybody that wasn’t a law enforcement officer, the number of cops in Washington belonging to all the different agencies is just mind boggling0 -
Warning shots and even leg shots which I've seen repeatedly derided are indeed a thing and they are used. As to how often they're genuinely useful that's another question.
I think in general countries and forces with low incidence of gun crime and in particular gun crime against police are a lot more reticent to fire; and when they do fire they tend to fire a lot more conservatively.
In addition I suspect suspects in these countries are also more likely to be impacted by a warning shot; since there is this perception that police don't shoot people much... but a warning shot might reinforce that it's an option.
In the USA for better or worse they generally treat any situation where they're firing a firearm as a shoot to kill situation; as evidenced by the countless cases of dumping entire magazines into people.
Conversely in Ireland Garda shootings are very often single shots; or shots explicitly designed to wound or deter escalation.
I don't think the Gardai's way of operating would really be suitable in the USA; nor vice versa.
I can state for a 100% fact that Gardai are NOT trained to shoot to wound. Gardai are trained to aim at center mass like any other force where possible. Where not possible, biggest target that will achieve the result. There may be rare occasions where a leg is targeted, very rare but they may crop up.
They aren't trained to shoot to kill either. If a person is wounded and that's enough to neutralise the threat, job done. They are also trained to deliver medical assistance to a wounded suspect. In the US they appear to be less inclined that way.
I don't think you can put too much weight on survival numbers alone. Aiming at center mass is going to achieve difference results purely based on where the person's hit regardless of intent.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »After a guy gets knelt on until he's dead can you blame the guy for panicking thinking he too might just be beaten to death? Can you blame him for doing anything to get away including trying to defend himself. The guy wanted to get away and live. They had his car, his address, the lot. But they shot him dead anyway.
Yes, yes I can but naturally you do not. You are as anti cop as they come.
They had his car, yes and he had their weapon and attempted to use it. That's not fitting with the narrative.
It's also not fitting with the narrative that he was going to be returned to jail to finish an existing sentence and that's the most likely reason he resisted arrest.
He was no more at his childs birthday than I was but presumptions about a person are only allowed when it's one way against the police.
If the police become expected to allow suspects to simple run away after such an encounter, I hope you remember your support when it turns nasty in an innocent person.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »I can state for a 100% fact that Gardai are NOT trained to shoot to wound. Gardai are trained to aim at center mass like any other force where possible. Where not possible, biggest target that will achieve the result.
Yes; but they tend to exercise a lot more personal judgement and restraint.
For example during the Abbeylara shooting the suspect was shot twice in the legs, and nearly a minute elapsed before he was shot twice in the torso (Gardai only fired 4 shots in total, all hitting the suspect). As the FBI report stated afterwards he would have been riddled with bullets significantly earlier in the standoff if it had happened in the USA.
And more recently during the Valdez case the suspect was shot a single time in the torso again with one shot fired.
Although thankfully the sample size for Garda shootings in Ireland is pretty small; no doubt if the situation here was more like the USA they would behave a lot more like USA police.Niner leprauchan wrote: »They aren't trained to shoot to kill either. If a person is wounded and that's enough to neutralise the threat, job done. They are also trained to deliver medical assistance to a wounded suspect. In the US they appear to be less inclined that way.
Yeah; the police in the USA can be extremely tentative to move in and render aid after a shooting. At times it's almost comical; they've riddled someone with bullets and are so terrified he might still be alive with a weapon that they dare not approach with multiple officers at a secure scene.
As I stated earlier I don't really like this attitude that the police should be protected at nearly any cost and at the expense of the people they're supposed to be serving.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes; but they tend to exercise a lot more personal judgement and restraint.
For example during the Abbeylara shooting the suspect was shot twice in the legs, and nearly a minute elapsed before he was shot twice in the torso (Gardai only fired 4 shots in total, all hitting the suspect). As the FBI report stated afterwards he would have been riddled with bullets significantly earlier in the standoff if it had happened in the USA.
And more recently during the Valdez case the suspect was shot a single time in the torso again with one shot fired.
Although thankfully the sample size for Garda shootings in Ireland is pretty small; no doubt if the situation here was more like the USA they would behave a lot more like USA police.
Yeah; the police in the USA can be extremely tentative to move in and render aid after a shooting. At times it's almost comical; they've riddled someone with bullets and are so terrified he might still be alive with a weapon that they dare not approach with multiple officers at a secure scene.
As I stated earlier I don't really like this attitude that the police should be protected at nearly any cost and at the expense of the people they're supposed to be serving.
In the first case, Gardai were critisised by just about every organisation in the world. Shot to much, didn't shoot enough. Negotiated too much, not enough. An example to be followed in regards uneducated opinions deciding policy.
Valdez case, he was sitting in a car. Chest shot wouldn't have worked so he aimed for the shoulder. The thing is, if he had only been winged and it turned out that his hostage was indeed in the car, would the Garda have been hung out to dry for not taking a kill shot? Personally I think yes.
And I disagree completely with your last comment, you are putting police lives lower than others. Lower than Criminals in fact. Police have a right to self protection and self defense. That isn't diminished by their uniform. They haven't suddenly become expendable as humans.
Let's be under no illusions here, the police in this situation correctly prioritised their safety and the safety of the public over an armed and aggressive Criminal.
The fact that he is a child abuser probable wasn't relevant at the time but we know this now and the fact that people are still placing his life above the cops is pretty disgusting
If you want to blame the police then I suggest blaming the greatest nation in the world, the USA because ultimately, it comes back to their culture and obsession with having and carrying firearms for protection. They are an absolutely paranoid and fearful people that resort to violence as a primary response way too much.0 -
Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »The US is proving again that they are virtually a police state.
The cops sacked and the chief resigned because the police officer shot an armed suspect.
That's very much not the actions of a police state.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »And I disagree completely with your last comment, you are putting police lives lower than others. Lower than Criminals in fact. Police have a right to self protection and self defense. That isn't diminished by their uniform. They haven't suddenly become expendable as humans.
Lower than others? Absolutely not.
However when I see videos of groups of multiple officers armed with assault rifles sitting motionlessly with weapons trained on someone who has been shot multiple times and is clearly no threat to anyone; I believe they should be much quicker to render aid.
Equally when I see officers using lethal force on fleeing suspects armed with less than lethal weapons such as in this particular case I believe they should do better.
Do I think the officer involved should be charged and prosecuted for murder? That's not what I'm saying either. I'm not even convinced he should have been fired.
Even if I believed the shooting itself was a "good" shooting; I still wouldn't be happy with the encounter. Would you?
The key for me is the taser and the fact they had no reason to believe he was going to be a danger to the public. I don't consider a taser to be a "deadly weapon"; certainly not given the circumstances of this encounter. I also don't consider there to have been any evidence that this man wanted anything other than to escape police custody. As such; I believe the shooting was excessive given the facts.Niner leprauchan wrote: »Let's be under no illusions here, the police in this situation correctly prioritised their safety and the safety of the public over an armed and aggressive Criminal.
I can see how someone would see that differently.
I'm sure the officer in the heat of the moment thought he was doing the right thing or he wouldn't have done it; but I wonder with the benefit of hindsight if he feels as confident as you do in the decision.
I for one wouldn't if I was him; even though I may have done exactly the same thing if I had his training and was put in his position.Niner leprauchan wrote: »If you want to blame the police then I suggest blaming the greatest nation in the world, the USA because ultimately, it comes back to their culture and obsession with having and carrying firearms for protection. They are an absolutely paranoid and fearful people that resort to violence as a primary response way too much.
There were a lot of things which led to this encounter; the police are only one aspect of it.
I'm also not trying to paint the officers involved here as 100% responsible either; I don't see any evidence to suggest they weren't doing what they were trained to do and that they did the best they could given their experience and the reality of being an officer in the USA.
That doesn't mean I don't think this encounter could have gone a lot better for everyone involved; including the officers. I can't imagine either of them are happy with how things turned out.0 -
Lower than others? Absolutely not.
However when I see videos of groups of multiple officers armed with assault rifles sitting motionlessly with weapons trained on someone who has been shot multiple times and is clearly no threat to anyone; I believe they should be much quicker to render aid.
Equally when I see officers using lethal force on fleeing suspects armed with less than lethal weapons such as in this particular case I believe they should do better.
Do I think the officer involved should be charged and prosecuted for murder? That's not what I'm saying either. I'm not even convinced he should have been fired.
Even if I believed the shooting itself was a "good" shooting; I still wouldn't be happy with the encounter. Would you?
The key for me is the taser and the fact they had no reason to believe he was going to be a danger to the public. I don't consider a taser to be a "deadly weapon"; certainly not given the circumstances of this encounter. I also don't consider there to have been any evidence that this man wanted anything other than to escape police custody. As such; I believe the shooting was excessive given the facts.
I can see how someone would see that differently.
I'm sure the officer in the heat of the moment thought he was doing the right thing or he wouldn't have done it; but I wonder with the benefit of hindsight if he feels as confident as you do in the decision.
I for one wouldn't if I was him; even though I may have done exactly the same thing if I had his training and was put in his position.
There were a lot of things which led to this encounter; the police are only one aspect of it.
I'm also not trying to paint the officers involved here as 100% responsible either; I don't see any evidence to suggest they weren't doing what they were trained to do and that they did the best they could given their experience and the reality of being an officer in the USA.
That doesn't mean I don't think this encounter could have gone a lot better for everyone involved; including the officers. I can't imagine either of them are happy with how things turned out.
You still haven't explained the one part that people keep ignoring. What was the alternative? Let him go and it's on your head if an armed fugitive kills someone or hijacks a car and the driver gets hurt.
I would absolutely believe that there was a chance this drunk criminal would use the taser on an unsuspecting motorist and the police as you say, have a responsibility to the safety of the public.
Even if he doesn't. He's an armed fugitive. Should be be allowed head home, sleep it off and hand himself in when convenient? That's a very very long shot. More likely he goes home, arms himself more and flees thereby increasing the risks to those he encounters.
Even in Ireland the days of being able to discount the availability of firearms is vanishing. They are becoming easier to obtain and allowing a suspect to enter their home isn't reducing the risks involved. Hell, he might just pick up a knife while in there but that's still an escalation.
The use of force needs to be weighed in the situation, we agree on that. The least risk answer should be sought BUT that answer still needs to include the effective arrest of a suspect. People can't simple decide they will face Justice when it's convenient for them because it will never be convenient for 99% of them and while they are still at large they will more often than not commit more crime.0 -
I see the TV series 911 has jumped on the BLM now too.
Traffic stop done and officers were white, father daughter and son in the car but the son was asleep in the back, the cops didn't see him and pulled their guns when he jumped up.
It just looked cringe to be honest.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »The cops sacked and the chief resigned because the police officer shot an armed suspect.
That's very much not the actions of a police state.
Well it sure isn’t a just society with fair laws when there is no due process for somebody who may or may not have done wrong in causing the death of a person.
The US anyway is some kind of mongrel version of a Plutocracy / oligarchy founded as a kleptocracy masquerading as a democratic republic.0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »Well it sure isn’t a just society with fair laws when there is no due process for somebody who may or may not have done wrong in causing the death of a person.
The US anyway is some kind of mongrel version of a Plutocracy / oligarchy founded as a kleptocracy masquerading as a democratic republic.
It's also not a badger. Anything else it's not?0 -
And the bias of others is clear when they mockingly suggest throwing bullets at perpetrators.
My only bias is for a properly trained police force that doesn’t leap to deadly force where it wasn’t the Continuum
I was talking about throwing the gun. It’s heavier. Although people would probably complain about that, so maybe throwing the bullets is right.0 -
This campaign to remove trump from office by any means necessary is going to teach a generation of young black men that they should view the cops as the enemy, to non comply and resist arrest and it's gonna lead to more deaths.
Like resisting arrest should be such an alien concept because how in God's name will it help your situation.
It’s ridiculous. When training under 10s in football you tell them not to argue with the referee like players on the tv do. I always ask, have you ever seen a referee change his mind because a player argued with him. The answer is always no.
Do as your told.0 -
lawrencesummers wrote: »The thing that’s important in that scentence is the word IF.
Lethal force isn’t sanctioned in hypothetical what IF situations, it’s clear cut when it can be used. Imminent threat to life.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The Atlanta Police policy manual, says that an officer can use deadly force when "He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others0 -
Advertisement
-
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »After a guy gets knelt on until he's dead can you blame the guy for panicking thinking he too might just be beaten to death? Can you blame him for doing anything to get away including trying to defend himself. The guy wanted to get away and live. They had his car, his address, the lot. But they shot him dead anyway.
The guy wanted to get away and avoid completing his prison sentence as he had violated his parole.0 -
punisher5112 wrote: »I see the TV series 911 has jumped on the BLM now too.
Traffic stop done and officers were white, father daughter and son in the car but the son was asleep in the back, the cops didn't see him and pulled their guns when he jumped up.
It just looked cringe to be honest.
Happened me in LA. We bought a cheap Dodge Ram Van. Cops stopped us for doing a power slide onto Windward Avenue, just beside Venice Beach. Didn’t notice the 4 of us in the back with the tinted window, was chatting with the 2 lads in the front. Once they noticed movement, guns were not and mood changed. Once they realised we are all Irish they stopped writing the ticket and told us to be careful and sent us on our way.0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The Atlanta Police policy manual, says that an officer can use deadly force when "He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others
So based on this definition, the officer should not have used deadly force, based on the police force's own description of a taser.0 -
yourdeadwright wrote: »Can I ask you what where the police to do when there is someone who's just been violent pointing a Taser towards them ?
How about stay out of range and, oh I dunno, deescalate?
Seems that some cops in the US can only escalate situations.0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The Atlanta Police policy manual, says that an officer can use deadly force when "He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others
Whats the effective range of a taser?
Any reason the two cops could have not just backed away?
Why is "engage Rambo mode" the first response? Aren't they trained to deal with these situations without just killing innocent people?
Talk about Judge, Jury & Executioner.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Yes, yes I can but naturally you do not. You are as anti cop as they come.
They had his car, yes and he had their weapon and attempted to use it. That's not fitting with the narrative.
It's also not fitting with the narrative that he was going to be returned to jail to finish an existing sentence and that's the most likely reason he resisted arrest.
He was no more at his childs birthday than I was but presumptions about a person are only allowed when it's one way against the police.
If the police become expected to allow suspects to simple run away after such an encounter, I hope you remember your support when it turns nasty in an innocent person.
Well it did turn nasty in this situation, the guy ran away, pointed non lethal weapon, he was out on parole, so the authorities deemed that he was ok to release on parole. I'm not pro-criminal, but this clearly was an over use of force, correct decision imo to sack this officer, for obvious gross misconduct.
We can talk about due process later if he ends up on trial for murder or appeals his sacking.0 -
timsey tiger wrote: »Well it did turn nasty in this situation, the guy ran away, pointed non lethal weapon, he was out on parole, so the authorities deemed that he was ok to release on parole. I'm not pro-criminal, but this clearly was an over use of force, correct decision imo to sack this officer, for obvious gross misconduct.
We can talk about due process later if he ends up on trial for murder or appeals his sacking.
Less lethal, it ain't non lethal.
It wasn't overboard he showed his intentions and many get shot and don't die, he chose to play that game and lost.0 -
Whats the effective range of a taser?
Any reason the two cops could have not just backed away?
Why is "engage Rambo mode" the first response? Aren't they trained to deal with these situations without just killing innocent people?
Talk about Judge, Jury & Executioner.
Reason to not back away was the drunk and probably high on meth suspect had already shown himself to be very violent.
He had stolen a weapon and was now a threat to wider society and himself.
He was so out of it that he could not be safely let leave, others have right to life as well.
We know now he was a vicious child abuser, what if he had gone home and killed a child?
No one knows that is exactly why he had to he detained.
You may only view them as working class oils but they had the right to defend themselves and in split decisions they couldn't take the risk that this monster wouldn't killing of them..0 -
Advertisement
-
How about stay out of range and, oh I dunno, deescalate?
Seems that some cops in the US can only escalate situations.
Stay out of range ? he would have then easily escaped ?
A drunk dangerous highly violent man with a weapon , ye that's would be serving and protecting the publics intrest0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement