There are some cases like George Floyd, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice and others where it's real easy to condemn the police and their actions. And there are other cases where yeah, the police made some mistakes and there was a tragic outcome, but their culpability lies more in a grey zone due to the circumstances. I'm not willing to give that cop a complete pass, but I don't see a straight line to murder either.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
Definitely excessive force.
Negative. You reach for a cops tazer or side arm and they have a right to defend themselves. And will.
The tazer was already discharged, so it wasn't a threat.
The inebriated man was running away from not one but two police officers.
He was not a threat in the situation where he was shot twice in the back.
The police officer also shot a vehicle with multiple occupants in it.
It is blatantly obvious that excessive, lethal force was used when it was not required, and that the officer also put other people in danger by his unnecessary actions.
Posted by switch
It is blatantly obvious that excessive, lethal force was used when it was not required, and that the officer also put other people in danger by his unnecessary actions.
That’s easier to say after the fact when you know everything after watching some slo-mo vids that break it all down than when you’re right in the middle of it with someone who’s fought you, taken your partner’s taser and turns and fires it at you while fleeing.
The police officers are supposed to be trained professionals that can deal with that type of incident. If they cannot, they should not be allowed to apply the law while carrying lethal weapons.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
So what about the Rayshard Brooks shooting? How does that one fit into everyone's ideas of police brutality?
Unless the guy running away is an imminent threat to the public, I don't see why cops should ever pull a gun and fire. Or get into a car chase. They could have just gone looking for him later if they are too slow to catch a guy drunk off his ass. It's not like they didn't know who he was. I also don't see why anyone should have to be cuffed and taken in for a DUI. They could take his keys and call him a cab. Charge him later.
I am willing to bet that the majority of cases where death was avoidable go 2 ways. One is like George Floyd where they use overuse force to restrain people and the other is where they use their gun when their hearts are pumping and they can't think straight. If white-collar criminals don't need to be cuffed and hauled away to a cell they can do the same for other non-violent crimes.
Well he had pulled a taser off the one less experienced officer and turned and fired it at the officer who shot him while he was running away. I don't agree with the shooting, but under those circumstances and depending on the training and experience of the office I can see them using lethal force.
Re the DUI the police had been pretty good with him and he had been co-operative up until the point they tried to cuff him. Brooks was a recently paroled felon and would have been going back to the clink if arrested fur DUI. I would guess that's why he tried to run, which wasn't really a smart decision. Considering he was buzzed at least it's no surprise to me that panic took over and he tried to bolt. In terms of the officer pursuing him, well he took a taser off of one guy and the officers were at that point more than likely informed of Brook's recent parole status so I would guess at that point they didn't have much choice but to pursue him. So Brooks was fucker either way, whether they took him in on the spot or let him go to pick him up later - he was going back to jail. Did he deserve to die? No. But what are officers supposed to do in that situation? You can't just let the guy go. Maybe they should have called for more backup before they tried to arrest him so he couldn't bolt?
It's a shitty situation and in the current climate is being treated as another cop killing a black man. I tend to think this situation is far more nuanced than that and I don't know if there is a right answer on what should have been done. I would guess based on the vids if Brooks had just accepted his fate and let the officers arrest him he would still be alive today. He clearly didn't want to do that tho. I would also guess that Brooks would still be alive if there had been more cops and he was fighting to get away, but you never know in that situation. Brooks looks like he was a bigger guy, over 6ft and 200lbs so he wouldn't have been easy to coral. Trying to pin down a larger human who is hopped up on adrenaline and basically fighting for his life is not an easy thing to do. He for sure would have been hurt in some way, maybe he dies in that situation too.
White collar criminals seem to accept their fate and let officers take them in. It seems that most criminals who are from the streets tend t fight to get away. I would guess if you ran the stats that for arrests or police contact, people who put up a fight and try to flee have a much higher incidence of injury or death than for people who don't.
I think they can let him let go. They had no reason to believe he was a threat to the general public and if they just pursued him or picked him up later the situation could have easily been de-escalated by then. The police use the taser as a non-lethal weapon so I also can't see how they can view it in the criminal's hands as anything but a non-lethal weapon as well. IMO, lethal force only makes sense if the lives of the police are in danger or the lives of the public are in danger. This man was only armed with a non-lethal taser with no more shots left.
There is this idea that if someone flees the police they are required to stop them at all costs. That is why I brought up car chases. In this incident, the cop also shot a car with innocent people in it and in that moment he became a far greater threat to the public than Brooks. They knew who he was, so what is the downside to letting him flee other than the feeling that he should be taken in immediately for what he did?
Perhaps there needs to be a focus on hiring practices to keep the little Cartmans (Cartmen?) out of the service. That would be a start.
Posted by: chupacabra
I think they can let him let go. They had no reason to believe he was a threat to the general public and if they just pursued him or picked him up later the situation could have easily been de-escalated by then. The police use the taser as a non-lethal weapon so I also can't see how they can view it in the criminal's hands as anything but a non-lethal weapon as well. IMO, lethal force only makes sense if the lives of the police are in danger or the lives of the public are in danger. This man was only armed with a non-lethal taser with no more shots left.
There is this idea that if someone flees the police they are required to stop them at all costs. That is why I brought up car chases. In this incident, the cop also shot a car with innocent people in it and in that moment he became a far greater threat to the public than Brooks. They knew who he was, so what is the downside to letting him flee other than the feeling that he should be taken in immediately for what he did?
That opens up a lot of what ifs tho. What if Brooks gets away and then goes on to party at the success of his escape and gets in another car and kills someone? Sure the chances of that are low, but it could happen. The reason I bring that up is that it does happen where police don't fully investigate someone or they let them go and when that person does go on to cause harm the police then get blamed for not doing their job of bringing that person in.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
I think they can let him let go. They had no reason to believe he was a threat to the general public and if they just pursued him or picked him up later the situation could have easily been de-escalated by then. The police use the taser as a non-lethal weapon so I also can't see how they can view it in the criminal's hands as anything but a non-lethal weapon as well. IMO, lethal force only makes sense if the lives of the police are in danger or the lives of the public are in danger. This man was only armed with a non-lethal taser with no more shots left.
There is this idea that if someone flees the police they are required to stop them at all costs. That is why I brought up car chases. In this incident, the cop also shot a car with innocent people in it and in that moment he became a far greater threat to the public than Brooks. They knew who he was, so what is the downside to letting him flee other than the feeling that he should be taken in immediately for what he did?
That opens up a lot of what ifs tho. What if Brooks gets away and then goes on to party at the success of his escape and gets in another car and kills someone? Sure the chances of that are low, but it could happen. The reason I bring that up is that it does happen where police don't fully investigate someone or they let them go and when that person does go on to cause harm the police then get blamed for not doing their job of bringing that person in.
In this particular case, I would presume they would chase him on foot and if that didn't work go to his residence. They don't have to give up on him, just refrain from shooting him. I don't see how they could be blamed for doing everything short of shooting him as he fled. He wasn't in his car, and they would impound that so he could come back and get it.
The position the police are in will always put them at risk of blame and that is part of the reason they tend to defend each other at all costs. There is no way to avoid that,
Posted by: switch
The police officers are supposed to be trained professionals that can deal with that type of incident. If they cannot, they should not be allowed to apply the law while carrying lethal weapons.
Ideally yes. Also on that idealistic list is cops are ideally not needed in a civilized society.
Posted by: Couch_Surfer
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
ps: Floyds toxicology is indicating heart failure due to 3x the lethal limit of fetanyl and meth! Thats why he couldnt breathe.. besides being a mannequin.
you heard the sound of that dog whistle and just couldn't pass it by.
Or you heard my whistle and came running like a biiiiiiiiiiitch. lols.
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
Definitely excessive force.
Negative. You reach for a cops tazer or side arm and they have a right to defend themselves. And will.
The tazer was already discharged, so it wasn't a threat.
The inebriated man was running away from not one but two police officers.
He was not a threat in the situation where he was shot twice in the back.
The police officer also shot a vehicle with multiple occupants in it.
It is blatantly obvious that excessive, lethal force was used when it was not required, and that the officer also put other people in danger by his unnecessary actions.
Most tazers have two barbs?
The inebriated man also manhandled those two cops.
Besides Jason Bourne, who is a threat when they get two in the back?
In the grand scheme of things, the last part is agreeable but easy for us to call on the side lines.
Posted by: chupacabra
In this particular case, I would presume they would chase him on foot and if that didn't work go to his residence. They don't have to give up on him, just refrain from shooting him. I don't see how they could be blamed for doing everything short of shooting him as he fled. He wasn't in his car, and they would impound that so he could come back and get it.
The position the police are in will always put them at risk of blame and that is part of the reason they tend to defend each other at all costs. There is no way to avoid that,
So the what if there is what if Brooks goes on the run and gets into greater levels of criminal activity to survive? The story has to stop somewhere and I don't know if we can say it would end in a peaceful outcome like you suggest. Enough about what ifs though, it's a bit of a fools game. I don't really disagree with you and KenN brings up a good point with the "respect ma authoray" bit as to why these things might happen. I'm just thinking I can see how things go bad in these sorts of scenarios and I think that while they need to be addressed, they also need to be separated out from the George Floyd type of incidents. I'd like to see a much greater emphasis placed on the recruitment process, training and education of police officers as well as continuing education and training as a means of trying to stop this from happening or at least significantly reduce the occurrences. I'm not naive enough though to think we can stop all of the negative interactions the police have with the public. No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where shit goes wrong.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
In this particular case, I would presume they would chase him on foot and if that didn't work go to his residence. They don't have to give up on him, just refrain from shooting him. I don't see how they could be blamed for doing everything short of shooting him as he fled. He wasn't in his car, and they would impound that so he could come back and get it.
The position the police are in will always put them at risk of blame and that is part of the reason they tend to defend each other at all costs. There is no way to avoid that,
So the what if there is what if Brooks goes on the run and gets into greater levels of criminal activity to survive? The story has to stop somewhere and I don't know if we can say it would end in a peaceful outcome like you suggest. Enough about what ifs though, it's a bit of a fools game. I don't really disagree with you and KenN brings up a good point with the "respect ma authoray" bit as to why these things might happen. I'm just thinking I can see how things go bad in these sorts of scenarios and I think that while they need to be addressed, they also need to be separated out from the George Floyd type of incidents. I'd like to see a much greater emphasis placed on the recruitment process, training and education of police officers as well as continuing education and training as a means of trying to stop this from happening or at least significantly reduce the occurrences. I'm not naive enough though to think we can stop all of the negative interactions the police have with the public. No matter what you do, there are going to be instances where shit goes wrong.
He could go on a crazy rampage I guess. I am just spitballing here too. I am not sure what the answer is, but I think that we need to rethink the role of the police and it seems like it is when they say "You are coming with me." that things can go sideways. Depending on someone's mental state the instinct for fight or flight can be too much to control, so that situation is a problem waiting to happen. A lot of cops are simply not capable of restraining people that are resisting so they have to rely on their taser and gun. They all need someone trained in MMA as a partner.
Posted by: syncro
So the what if there is what if Brooks goes on the run and gets into greater levels of criminal activity to survive? The story has to stop somewhere and I don't know if we can say it would end in a peaceful outcome like you suggest.
What if he goes home and passes out on his couch?
Posted by: chupacabra
They all need someone trained in MMA as a partner.
Hahaha, I was actually going to suggest something like that in a previous post. IMO it would definitely help.
Forum jump:
