Black Lives Matter
-
Looks like a maximum 3 seconds from when the suspect aimed at the officer and when he hit the ground after being shot. Taking into account lag of shooting to recognising you are hit maybe we are looking at 2 seconds for the police to react. That is not a lot of time to weigh your decisions in a high stress environment.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Looks like a maximum 3 seconds from when the suspect aimed at the officer and when he hit the ground after being shot. Taking into account lag of shooting to recognising you are hit maybe we are looking at 2 seconds for the police to react. That is not a lot of time to weigh your decisions in a high stress environment.
They were talking to him for 25 minutes. They knew he didn't have a gun. I know what you guys are saying and it is easy for an armchair spectator like me to judge. But in real life can anyone with gun experience tell me how hard it is to shoot and hit someone with a taser while running away from that target?
-
It depends on the rules of engagement the police have.
What are the actual rules for use of deadly force?
Are those rules black and white - or is there discretion?This is an increasingly combustible situation.
Police will be increasingly scared to police that gray area for fear of being prosecuted.
Criminals will know this and it will embolden them.I think we will see mass resignations from police on the street.
They are targets now. -
@Crazy-Horse I don't want to put you on the spot so feel free to ignore but I'd be curious as to your take on this in light of the most recent footage. @canefan is right most of us don't really have a clue about this situation, the closest I come is playing shooting games against teenagers in VR and those damn kids clearly have faster processors than this old warhorse.
Really a horrible time to be police right now.
-
@Rembrandt I do have a lot of sympathy for the police. It's not an easy job and I don't doubt it is very difficult trying to attract the right people. I really don't like the way the entire force is being dehumanised at the moment.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
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.
A weapon that was taken from them and they know has a range of a little over 3m (and he was shot in the back it seems, so yeah he was getting away).
-
Interesting discussion. I think it is going to come down to the local Police Force's policy when it comes to the use of lethal force and how well the cop can verbally justify his actions.
I would guess (being too lazy to actually look up the local policy) the policy would be similar to what we see in Aust/NZ. Lethal force can be used when you fear death or GBH. Is it reasonable to fear death or GBH when threatened with a Taser?
In this instance we have one assailant and two police officers. The assailant appears to run away while turning around and firing the taser (did he actually fire or did he only point it? There looked to be a flash as he pointed it leading me to suspect he fired it). As I alluded to earlier, once the taser is fired and the target is missed, unless you replace the cartridge the taser is only effective in drive stun mode. Drive stun mode requires the removal of the spent cartridge and the taser pressed up against the body. You can then give old mate a jolt.
If the taser was fired by old mate the taser would have been ineffective at the time he was shot. It did not look like he replaced or removed the spent cartridge. Is it reasonable to fear death or GBH? Depends on what the cop says.
Let's say for arguments sake, the cop was justified in his fear that he was about to be tasered. Is it reasonable for him to fear death or GBH in this instance? The Taser use of force option is a 'less than lethal' option, where the cop only needs to fear serious injury to justify the use. It is not a 'lethal use of force' option. Therefore, it is not generally used against somebody with a knife or firearm. For example, cops often use, or threaten to use, a taser when someone is threatening to punch on, or is punching on.
If a taser is a non lethal option for police, and one that generally has no lasting effects unless the person has underlying health problems, can a police officer reasonably argue he/she feared death or GBH if they are threatened by one. In some circumstances I would say most definitely because you don't know what old mate is going to do to you following the tasering. In this circumstance, where old mate is running away and there are at least two cops, who knows? It will be an interesting court case.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crazy-Horse I don't want to put you on the spot so feel free to ignore but I'd be curious as to your take on this in light of the most recent footage. @canefan is right most of us don't really have a clue about this situation, the closest I come is playing shooting games against teenagers in VR and those damn kids clearly have faster processors than this old warhorse.
Really a horrible time to be police right now.
I'm also interested in @Crazy-Horse 's view, because my understanding is that this came about from him sleeping in his car and having the staff call the cops? Generally, how would things proceed in such a situation - for a guy to end up dead feels really over the top.
Is there evidence of him driving or is it just that he could drive and was in 'control' of the vehicle (i.e., had the keys) that this all kicked off?
I apologize as I haven't seen the full video and I don't have enough time to do so during my brief lunchtime, but can anyone provide any further context about this? From my briefest view of the incident, wouldn't good policing be to ask for his keys and get someone to come get him?
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
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.
A weapon that was taken from them and they know has a range of a little over 3m (and he was shot in the back it seems, so yeah he was getting away).
Your presumption is they knew that it was the taser and in a split second someone can turn around.
-
@gt12 I early in the video they were asking him how his car got from A to B so there would have been some suggestion he drove. Not sure about the US, but it's an offence over here to be in control of a vehicle while pissed so there may have ben that offence to fall back on.
The conversation seemed very reasonable and the cops were patient with him. It went to shit because old mate resisted. That seems to the thing that is forgotten in a lot of these scenarios, the resistance.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crazy-Horse I don't want to put you on the spot so feel free to ignore but I'd be curious as to your take on this in light of the most recent footage. @canefan is right most of us don't really have a clue about this situation, the closest I come is playing shooting games against teenagers in VR and those damn kids clearly have faster processors than this old warhorse.
Really a horrible time to be police right now.
I'm also interested in @Crazy-Horse 's view, because my understanding is that this came about from him sleeping in his car and having the staff call the cops? Generally, how would things proceed in such a situation - for a guy to end up dead feels really over the top.
Is there evidence of him driving or is it just that he could drive and was in 'control' of the vehicle (i.e., had the keys) that this all kicked off?
I apologize as I haven't seen the full video and I don't have enough time to do so during my brief lunchtime, but can anyone provide any further context about this? From my briefest view of the incident, wouldn't good policing be to ask for his keys and get someone to come get him?
It was reported he fell asleep in the drive-thru. Had he been in the car park the police probably wouldn't have been called.
-
Thanks, I assumed that was the basis for his arrest (although it looks like he might have been in the drive through, clearly establishing him driving).
I agree about the resistance. Once things got out of control, I don't see an operational problem with some one getting shot if they are trying to cause potentially lethal harm to a cop (regardless of how small that potential is).
I'd suggest that he didn't need to be shot, so I can see why there is a debate to be had.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Your presumption is they knew that it was the taser and in a split second someone can turn around.
I suppose it is possible that a guy they had apprehended had a gun that they hadn't found, but I think a reasonable assumption that the weapon was the taser he had just taken off them.
If he had turned around how did he actually get shot in the back as was mentioned? Genuine question.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Your presumption is they knew that it was the taser and in a split second someone can turn around.
I suppose it is possible that a guy they had apprehended had a gun that they hadn't found, but I think a reasonable assumption that the weapon was the taser he had just taken off them.
If he had turned around how did he actually get shot in the back as was mentioned? Genuine question.
In the time I take to aim a pistol and pull the trigger you can easily face the other way. I've seen training videos showing how much physical distance is required to ensure you can remove a pistol from the holster, aim and shoot before someone can close and be within striking distance with a knife. Stationary it looks like a long way - think cricket pitch length.
-
@antipodean Fair enough. Point was more about the fact that he was unarmed to anyone more than 3m away and was retreating. It just reeks of "trigger happy" to me.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Your presumption is they knew that it was the taser and in a split second someone can turn around.
I suppose it is possible that a guy they had apprehended had a gun that they hadn't found, but I think a reasonable assumption that the weapon was the taser he had just taken off them.
If he had turned around how did he actually get shot in the back as was mentioned? Genuine question.
In the time I take to aim a pistol and pull the trigger you can easily face the other way. I've seen training videos showing how much physical distance is required to ensure you can remove a pistol from the holster, aim and shoot before someone can close and be within striking distance with a knife. Stationary it looks like a long way - think cricket pitch length.
We often practice it in training. Cricket pitch distance is not wrong. And that is also why a taser is not a primary option when it comes to knives. Tasers take longer to draw and you'll probably not have time to refurbish the cartridge if you miss.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
Your presumption is they knew that it was the taser and in a split second someone can turn around.
I suppose it is possible that a guy they had apprehended had a gun that they hadn't found, but I think a reasonable assumption that the weapon was the taser he had just taken off them.
If he had turned around how did he actually get shot in the back as was mentioned? Genuine question.
In the time I take to aim a pistol and pull the trigger you can easily face the other way. I've seen training videos showing how much physical distance is required to ensure you can remove a pistol from the holster, aim and shoot before someone can close and be within striking distance with a knife. Stationary it looks like a long way - think cricket pitch length.
We often practice it in training. Cricket pitch distance is not wrong. And that is also why a taser is not a primary option when it comes to knives. Tasers take longer to draw and you'll probably not have time to refurbish the cartridge if you miss.
Does that not reinforce the point that lethal action was not necessary?
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@antipodean Fair enough. Point was more about the fact that he was unarmed to anyone more than 3m away and was retreating. It just reeks of "trigger happy" to me.
Many of these cases scream of a trigger happy yipee kayaye mentality amongst some officers. The examples Dave Chappell gave in that video, of a black guy who was shot while trying to show the cops his papers for his legally possessed gun and a guy who was shot moments after a cop yelled out (no time to even register it was him that was being shouted at before the shots were fired, if I remember correctly he was just minding his own business), the case of the aussie lady who called the cops and was shot by a cop shooting through his car window at a shadow in a dark alley, these seem like crazy irresponsible acts to me
-
This video is a good example of decision making: