Heretic;1811865 wrote:Uh, there are ways to non-lethally incapacitate a person, you know? In fact, from reading about this particular incident, it seems another cop on the scene used one of them (stun gun) around the same time the other one shot him. There's a bit of a difference between "He's making a move!!!!" and "He's not listening and might, in the future, make a move, even though his hands are above his head at the moment..." as far as deciding to use lethal force goes.

The most annoying thing about all of these incidents is how so many people immediately go to pure absolutes in a "one size fits all" logic-fail. The BLM types acting like any incident where a cop shoots a person of color is worth being outraged over is stupid. People acting like cops are justified in everything they do -- even if it's murdering a dude because he wasn't complying with orders in a non-aggressive manner is equally stupid.

I agree.

I back the police when there is any benefit of the doubt, but I am not going to give them blanket immunity on all shootings. That is just retarded.

Every single day thousands of perps are 'not complying' and the officers do the right thing and dont use lethal force. Simply not complying doesnt give a green light to shoot.

thavoice;1811868 wrote:I agree.

I back the police when there is any benefit of the doubt, but I am not going to give them blanket immunity on all shootings. That is just retarded.

Every single day thousands of perps are 'not complying' and the officers do the right thing and dont use lethal force. Simply not complying doesnt give a green light to shoot.

True, and every single day, 99.99% of interactions with the police by all persons of all colors are handled professionally and legally. Of course, those don't make the news.

Heretic;1811865 wrote:Uh, there are ways to non-lethally incapacitate a person, you know? In fact, from reading about this particular incident, it seems another cop on the scene used one of them (stun gun) around the same time the other one shot him. There's a bit of a difference between "He's making a move!!!!" and "He's not listening and might, in the future, make a move, even though his hands are above his head at the moment..." as far as deciding to use lethal force goes.

The most annoying thing about all of these incidents is how so many people immediately go to pure absolutes in a "one size fits all" logic-fail. The BLM types acting like any incident where a cop shoots a person of color is worth being outraged over is stupid. People acting like cops are justified in everything they do -- even if it's murdering a dude because he wasn't complying with orders in a non-aggressive manner is equally stupid.

And your taking what I said as an absolute. I posted right after this thread was started without any knowledge of anything. My point was, from the videos, you don't know if it was justified or not. We needed more information. As that information is becoming public knowledge, police look very bad in this instance. I simply wasn't ready to say that just from the video.

Laley23;1811874 wrote:And your taking what I said as an absolute. I posted right after this thread was started without any knowledge of anything. My point was, from the videos, you don't know if it was justified or not. We needed more information. As that information is becoming public knowledge, police look very bad in this instance. I simply wasn't ready to say that just from the video.

dude you advocated shooting someone b/c they were walking away.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1811875 wrote:dude you advocated shooting someone b/c they were walking away.

And I admit I should have stated what I said later in that post instead of the one line I posted to get across what I meant.

Wondering what he did before? Why his car was running? Why a second car was called to scene? Why he was waking away and not listening? Did he have a weapon on him earlier? Etc.

At the time of my post, none of that was known.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1811875 wrote:dude you advocated shooting someone b/c they were walking away.

Right because police should just allow people to run away from them.

Is that really what you want? People should be allowed to ignore police and flee if they want and the cops can't do anything about it? I'm not sure I want to live in a lawless society in order to appease the .00000000001% of annual police interactions that end poorly.

sleeper;1811900 wrote:Right because police should just allow people to run away from them.

Is that really what you want? People should be allowed to ignore police and flee if they want and the cops can't do anything about it? I'm not sure I want to live in a lawless society in order to appease the .00000000001% of annual police interactions that end poorly.

Not sure where you got that from.

One officer, who was doing it correctly, started to taze him. That is all it takes.

sleeper;1811900 wrote:Right because police should just allow people to run away from them.

Is that really what you want? People should be allowed to ignore police and flee if they want and the cops can't do anything about it? I'm not sure I want to live in a lawless society in order to appease the .00000000001% of annual police interactions that end poorly.

Ah, I see. Now you're just being all about HOT TAEK SLEEPER to get attention. Cute.

Heretic;1811904 wrote:Ah, I see. Now you're just being all about HOT TAEK SLEEPER to get attention. Cute.

It's not a hot take. Do you want to live in a society where people are allowed to disrupt police activities because .000000000001% of police interactions end in death?

It seems to be what BLM wants. Is that what you want?

http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20/mass-high-court-black-men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police

BTW that's where we are headed. You will be legally allowed to run from the police if you are black.

I'm sure that will go a long way in enhancing public safety.

Facts matter. For example, if the guy had just killed someone, there's no way you let him leave the scene, even if shooting him in the back is the only way to accomplish it. Otherwise, do you allow him to leave in the car risking a high-speed chase that's dangerous to those involved and the public in general, or only let him flee on foot?

thavoice;1811901 wrote:Not sure where you got that from.

One officer, who was doing it correctly, started to taze him. That is all it takes.

In this particular case maybe. We don't know all the facts yet.

I'm more talking about if we want a society where you don't have to obey police orders. That's where we are headed thanks to BLM.

queencitybuckeye;1811910 wrote:Facts matter. For example, if the guy had just killed someone, there's no way you let him leave the scene, even if shooting him in the back is the only way to accomplish it. Otherwise, do you allow him to leave in the car risking a high-speed chase that's dangerous to those involved and the public in general, or only let him flee on foot?

You can just taze him or shoot him in the leg.

kappa.

sleeper;1811908 wrote:It's not a hot take. Do you want to live in a society where people are allowed to disrupt police activities because .000000000001% of police interactions end in death?

It seems to be what BLM wants. Is that what you want?

"People should be allowed to ignore police and flee if they want..." is pure stupidity that doesn't match anything anyone here has said. The issue is the immediate use of lethal force on someone whose level of offense was hovering at "misdemeanor", when there are other options...such as the stun gun being used by another officer on the scene. Gunning down people for being non-compliant in a non-hostile manner is the sort of thing that anyone with a working brain capable of critical thought should know is the incorrect way to handle a situation.

Again, I'm really unsure of what the end game is here for BLM. There's no real way to prevent this kind of thing from happening and we aren't just going to prosecute cops by mob rule instead of evidence. They aren't going to stop heavily policing areas with high crime and they aren't going to let anyone get away with committing crimes.

Oh yeah and this happens to white people far more often than black people so its not a race issue like they want it to be. It's really quite ridiculous overall the response to these things regardless of who is at fault.

Heretic;1811913 wrote:"People should be allowed to ignore police and flee if they want..." is pure stupidity that doesn't match anything anyone here has said. The issue is the immediate use of lethal force on someone whose level of offense was hovering at "misdemeanor", when there are other options...such as the stun gun being used by another officer on the scene. Gunning down people for being non-compliant in a non-hostile manner is the sort of thing that anyone with a working brain capable of critical thought should know is the incorrect way to handle a situation.

Being non-compliant can turn quickly into the police officer being shot in the blink of an eye. That is how the real world works; not the 20/20 hindsight luxury that we get after these situations happen.

Mistakes happen; and this case is looking pretty damning for the officer. But I'd like to at least have an investigation to determine the facts and then if the action isn't appropriate based on those facts then you can be outraged and peacefully protest.

Also, cut the shit with the tazer gun being a viable option. It rarely is and that's reality instead of the fantasy land BLM lives in.

Even if you use a tazer, people are still going to scream POLICE BRUTALITY, WHY USE A TAZER WHEN THEY HUG HIM WITH PILLOWS>!?@>#

sleeper;1811917 wrote:Also, cut the shit with the tazer gun being a viable option. It rarely is and that's reality instead of the fantasy land BLM lives in.

Even if you use a tazer, people are still going to scream POLICE BRUTALITY, WHY USE A TAZER WHEN THEY HUG HIM WITH PILLOWS>!?@>#

Lol.

sleeper;1811912 wrote:You can just taze him or shoot him in the leg.

kappa.

Depending on the situation, shooting at an appendage is not an easy thing to do at any sort of distance especially when one or the other, or both, are moving. They are taught for center mass to drop the suspect because to shoot you are doing so when you are in grave danger and simply shooting in an arm/leg they can still shoot you back.

That is, of course, if they even have a weapon. In this case it appeared the officer was so close she easily could have shot elsewhere, but then again you are only supposed to shoot when you feel you/public is in mortal danger and the best way to actually hit someone and incapacitate them is aiming for center mass. SHooting isnt as easy as tv and movies make it to be so you aim for the best spot to make a hit.

but you already knew all of that.


I am not blaming this cop for shooting center mass. That is the training and she apparently felt threatened. Maybe he had really bad breath or something. She just should not have shot. Period.

thavoice;1811927 wrote:Depending on the situation, shooting at an appendage is not an easy thing to do at any sort of distance especially when one or the other, or both, are moving. They are taught for center mass to drop the suspect because to shoot you are doing so when you are in grave danger and simply shooting in an arm/leg they can still shoot you back.

I'm pretty sure Sleeper's "suggestion" was said with dripping sarcasm.

As far as the taser goes, taser, laser, razor. All good.

queencitybuckeye;1811929 wrote:I'm pretty sure Sleeper's "suggestion" was said with dripping sarcasm.

As far as the taser goes, taser, laser, razor. All good.

Possible, but others have said it in the other situations. Many people who havent shot a weapon think it really is as easy as it looks on TV.

thavoice;1811927 wrote:Depending on the situation, shooting at an appendage is not an easy thing to do at any sort of distance especially when one or the other, or both, are moving. They are taught for center mass to drop the suspect because to shoot you are doing so when you are in grave danger and simply shooting in an arm/leg they can still shoot you back.

That is, of course, if they even have a weapon. In this case it appeared the officer was so close she easily could have shot elsewhere, but then again you are only supposed to shoot when you feel you/public is in mortal danger and the best way to actually hit someone and incapacitate them is aiming for center mass. SHooting isnt as easy as tv and movies make it to be so you aim for the best spot to make a hit.

but you already knew all of that.


I am not blaming this cop for shooting center mass. That is the training and she apparently felt threatened. Maybe he had really bad breath or something. She just should not have shot. Period.

Dude, I even wrote "kappa".

But yes, this looks to be a case of a bad decision by this officer and she should be punished accordingly. Racism has likely nothing to do with this.

sleeper;1811932 wrote:Dude, I even wrote "kappa".

But yes, this looks to be a case of a bad decision by this officer and she should be punished accordingly. Racism has likely nothing to do with this.

No idea what Kappa means...but still many people do wonder why they just dont shoot a leg/arm!

BTW--
You ever get tired of owning those browns fans? Man, I thought just their leadership was brain dead but geesh...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-chief-charlotte-officers-gave-black-man-multiple-42246315

Another case where the facts are heavily distorted to achieve a narrative; riots ensure destroying property and injuring officers; only for the reality and facts to set in.

This is the world Zwick wants to live in though.

This is also the case where the daugher blamed white people even though the cop was black. Muh narrative!

thavoice;1811933 wrote:No idea what Kappa means...but still many people do wonder why they just dont shoot a leg/arm!

BTW--
You ever get tired of owning those browns fans? Man, I thought just their leadership was brain dead but geesh...

kappa = sarcasm