Black Lives Matter
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
The car chase one is a no win, if they speed and kill someone or they speed and kill themselves. After talking to this dude for 25 minutes I think it was clear he wasn't a serious criminal. There is no justification to shoot this guy in the back when he was running away, taser or no taser
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
If the officers are in no immediate danger I think there is no way they can shoot. He was running away from them, he wasn't on a rampage. Call for backup and chase the guy on foot
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
I don't know how that would go from a litigious point of view if the suspect then moved on to attack a member of the public after the police failed to enact an arrest. Would actually be really interesting to see what their procedures are..no doubt the worlds top quality media agencies will be on the case and will help inform the general public rather than try and throw as much gasoline on the fire as possible.
The car chase one is a no win, if they speed and kill someone or they speed and kill themselves. After talking to this dude for 25 minutes I think it was clear he wasn't a serious criminal. There is no justification to shoot this guy in the back when he was running away, taser or no taser
I agree based on the info that is in currently. Did both police bodycams fall off? Being at a Wendy's (that I see has now been burnt to the ground) Id imagine there might yet be some more video footage to come out.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
I'm likely wrong but isn't that policy in New Zealand during a high speed chase? If its getting too dangerous to pursue then they leave it.
Debatable whether they do:
International pursuit-related research reports have been important to establish whether
all safety factors have been considered in the New Zealand policy. However, much of
the research is American based, and care must be taken in drawing comparisons with
New Zealand, as issues such as differences in our roading network, the American
proclivity for litigation against both organisations and private individuals, the policing
environment and operational context is markedly different. It is also important to
remember that often the research does not take into account the "increased risk to the
public if pursuits are discontinued and either serious criminals are allowed to escape or
drunk drivers are not intercepted or arrested."5There are 66 pages of that report which are sort of relevant given the number of chases we seem to have. In the US they could just shoot you of course.
-
I would think the only justification for using deadly force is when there is a serious threat to police or public safety. This latest case doesn't meet either of those, not by a long shot.
I'm amazed at how many (mainly) conservatives I am seeing putting their support behind the police in this one. This is basically state sanctioned violence if you think it is OK for cops to kill people under these circumstances. Weren't all those conservatives against the state having too much power? Doesn't that form the basis of their gun ownership arguments? Why would they be OK with giving police the power to kill people when they see fit?
There just seems to be absolutely no duty of care from the police over there.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
But the question is what is this something "far larger". Is it real?
Yes. The widespread nature of protests clearly indicated this has tapped into something deep-seated and powerful.
You can debate how we came to be here and why, and what the solutions are going forward. But clearly there is very large group of people in the US who still see issues with the treatment of black Americans. That fact can't be denied.
-
Another angle, still missing the crucial last couple seconds but it does still look like the police shot him running away. Back to what their procedures are, are they supposed to shoot an unarmed suspect resisting arrest? Does the forumla change if the suspect has assaulted you? Does a stolen taser now make him 'armed and dangerous'?
-
If I was the cop I would be tying to convince others that I believed the guy was pointing a hand gun at me rather than a taser. Hard to justify killing someone running away while firing a stolen taser, especially considering the taser cartridge can only be effectively 'fired' once if it misses.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
He turns and fires a taser (that he stole during a struggle with police) at the officer. Actions have consequences.
Yes, but they know it is a taser. He took it from them. It isn't (normally) a deadly instrument. The gun was.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
He turns and fires a taser (that he stole during a struggle with police) at the officer. Actions have consequences.
Yes, but they know it is a taser. He took it from them. It isn't (normally) a deadly instrument. The gun was.
Tasers have killed over a thousand people in the USA since their introduction. They're a "less-lethal alternative".
-
@antipodean Yep, hence the "(normally)"
A study led by William Bozeman of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center of nearly 1,000 persons subjected to Taser use concluded that 99.7% of the subjects had suffered no injuries, or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises, while three persons suffered injuries severe enough to need hospital admission, and two died.
-
Yep sorry, Im with the police now. Resisting arrest is one thing. Punching an officer another. Stealing a taser and then pointing it at the officer really is a final straw. Its sad because this guy was drunk and clearly not thinking through his actions but that does not mean a police officer should just 'take a hit' and hope for the best.
-
You guys think the police should not be expected to apprehend a drunk suspect armed with just a taser without killing him?
I have to say I don't agree. He was not a threat at all, and I think this points to very poor training of the police force in the States in how to deal with situations like this without using deadly force.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
You guys think the police should not be expected to apprehend a drunk suspect armed with just a taser without killing him?
I have to say I don't agree. He was not a threat at all, and I think this points to very poor training of the police force in the States in how to deal with situations like this without using deadly force.
You say that like they rolled up to the drive-thru to find their path blocked by him and in frustration shot him.
It was the last action available to the police officer when Rayshard turned around with the weapon and discharged it at them. He had decided he wasn't going to be lawfully apprehended and took every available means to prevent it.
It's entirely possible to side with the police on this and with George Floyd in the other.
-
@antipodean do you think he was a threat to public safety, that they had to use deadly force to stop him getting away?
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@antipodean do you think he was a threat to public safety, that they had to use deadly force to stop him getting away?
I don't think he was shot to prevent him getting away, but because of his decision to turn and fire a weapon at the police.
-
Split second decision to drop the suspect who was firing a weapon on a police officer. I don't know which officer fired either in protection of themselves or a partner but I am comfortable with that decision made. It would be a different story had there been a decent lag between the taser being fired at the officer and the fatal shots but it was all within a couple seconds. It really is sad but the police should not be held liable over this.