Police abuse

DewieCox · August 2020

He’s armed with a knife, it’s their job to subdue him with less than like force and put themselves in harms way to protect the public.

I could understand if it was a 1v1 or 2v1 situation, resorting to firing as a last resort but he was hopelessly outnumbered and any 3 cops should be able to stop him even hopped on whatever it was that made him walk through the tasing. 11 shots?!?! OOF!!! GTFO

Impossible to say if race played any part.

Halifax2TheMax · August 2020

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

WARNING: Graphic video.

11 times with his back turned. Do the police have any other methods of disabling a threat without shooting 11 times and to kill?

https://apple.news/AYTbspgfNT6imWBxWLdlvqg

If he were white with an AR-15, He’d be alive. Right?

If he was black and not threatening people with a knife he’d be alive too.

Sure.

mace1229 · August 2020

DewieCox said:

He’s armed with a knife, it’s their job to subdue him with less than like force and put themselves in harms way to protect the public.

I could understand if it was a 1v1 or 2v1 situation, resorting to firing as a last resort but he was hopelessly outnumbered and any 3 cops should be able to stop him even hopped on whatever it was that made him walk through the tasing. 11 shots?!?! OOF!!! GTFO

Impossible to say if race played any part.

That’s not true. A knife is lethal force, it is perfectly acceptable to use lethal force to stop it if they feel their life or others are in immediate danger. There is no obligation to use lesser force than what they are faced with.

I don’t have strong feelings about this particular case because the article linked was missing some details. But it does say the police followed him for half a mile and tased him with no effect. If they felt people inside the store were in danger then they did the right thing. There is no obligation for cops to their their bodies at him and get stabbed. At that point they are protecting the people in the store he was entering.
But like I said there’s still some information not released in that article, so I can’t make a judgement yet.

DewieCox · August 2020

A knife isn’t lethal force in a 6 on 1 situation and they could’ve easily cut him off. This was pathetic effort.

mace1229 · August 2020

DewieCox said:

A knife isn’t lethal force in a 6 on 1 situation and they could’ve easily cut him off. This was pathetic effort.

How is a knife not a lea Th al weapon in a 6 on 1? The logic being he could probably only fatally stab 1 or 2 people at most?

RunIntoTheRain · August 2020

Is there a reason they can't shoot him in the leg(s)? Is there a reason they have to shoot him 11 times? I get it that he was running away, non-responsive to tazing and the people in the store were at risk.

mace1229 · August 2020

RunIntoTheRain said:

Is there a reason they can't shoot him in the leg(s)? Is there a reason they have to shoot him 11 times? I get it that he was running away, non-responsive to tazing and the people in the store were at risk.

Yes there is a reason. This question comes up a lot. If the police thought other lives were in imminent danger (the article doesn’t say if that was the case or not, so assuming it is) then yes, you end the threat.

DewieCox · August 2020

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

A knife isn’t lethal force in a 6 on 1 situation and they could’ve easily cut him off. This was pathetic effort.

How is a knife not a lea Th al weapon in a 6 on 1? The logic being he could probably only fatally stab 1 or 2 people at most?

These are supposed to be fucking professionals in apprehending perps to be brought to justice, not try and sentence. If they can’t be trusted with those odds, then why do they have the job.

mace1229 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

Is there a reason they can't shoot him in the leg(s)? Is there a reason they have to shoot him 11 times? I get it that he was running away, non-responsive to tazing and the people in the store were at risk.

Yes there is a reason. This question comes up a lot. If the police thought other lives were in imminent danger (the article doesn’t say if that was the case or not, so assuming it is) then yes, you end the threat.

You can end the threat without killing when you’re trained well. This isn’t a case of mind over matter like getting blasted with a taser. These officers should be able to hit a flea on a gnats ass not aim for center mass.

The lives weren’t in imminent danger but for the half ass police work. If they’re not going to put their life on the line, quit yelling “we put our life on the line”

mcgruff10 · August 2020

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

A knife isn’t lethal force in a 6 on 1 situation and they could’ve easily cut him off. This was pathetic effort.

How is a knife not a lea Th al weapon in a 6 on 1? The logic being he could probably only fatally stab 1 or 2 people at most?

These are supposed to be fucking professionals in apprehending perps to be brought to justice, not try and sentence. If they can’t be trusted with those odds, then why do they have the job.

mace1229 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

Is there a reason they can't shoot him in the leg(s)? Is there a reason they have to shoot him 11 times? I get it that he was running away, non-responsive to tazing and the people in the store were at risk.

Yes there is a reason. This question comes up a lot. If the police thought other lives were in imminent danger (the article doesn’t say if that was the case or not, so assuming it is) then yes, you end the threat.

You can end the threat without killing when you’re trained well. This isn’t a case of mind over matter like getting blasted with a taser. These officers should be able to hit a flea on a gnats ass not aim for center mass.

The lives weren’t in imminent danger but for the half ass police work. If they’re not going to put their life on the line, quit yelling “we put our life on the line”

I m guessing you have never shot a gun before. Literally you have milliseconds to decide between life and death. If your live is on the line are you going to aim for their ankles? This is much easier said then done.

mace1229 · August 2020

I don’t want to gamble with an innocent person’s life. I would be thankful if a guy was coming at me with a knife and the cops shot to kill him rather than shoot a smaller and faster moving target that even if they do hit has doesn’t have a guarantee of ending the threat.

And yes, Mcgruff was right, much easier said than done. Shooting a target like that in a split second on a moving target is going to be much more difficult, even for trained police. I don’t want to gamble with an innocent person’s life and hope to just wound a guy wielding a knife, but wound him enough to where he stops his attack. You’d probably feel the same if that innocent guy was you or your child or wife too.

DewieCox · August 2020

I’ve shot guns plenty and rule #2 is to know where you’re aiming. There are literally people that train for this type of situation. There are certainly situations where center mass is optimal but if they’re using firearms they need to have as many methods at their disposal as necessary.

It was a horrid pursuit of justice in my eyes. These guys need to be able to operate under pressure and held to a high standard in that.

mace1229 · August 2020

DewieCox said:

I’ve shot guns plenty and rule #2 is to know where you’re aiming. There are literally people that train for this type of situation. There are certainly situations where center mass is optimal but if they’re using firearms they need to have as many methods at their disposal as necessary.

It was a horrid pursuit of justice in my eyes. These guys need to be able to operate under pressure and held to a high standard in that.

It’s possible this case was a horrid pursuit of justice. The video posted wasn’t very clear and there wasn’t a ton of information. But using what we do know and filling in the gaps with common sense it doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
They were with this guy for something like half an hour, it wasn’t like they just showed up and shot him. They were with him a long time trying to end it peacefully. They already tried tasing and it didn’t have enough effect to stop him. The fact after all this time that multiple officers decided in the same fraction of a second to shoot is where the common sense comes in and says something happened that made this guy a clear imminent threat to others. Possibly innocent people just feet away on the other side of the door. That’s just a guess of one possible and likely reason this escalated quickly. If that’s the case, don’t shoot in the leg and just hope you can stop him. You save the innocent people. That’s it.

Shooting to injure is a bad idea all around. Aside from the center mass argument of a better target, which I completely agree with. A gun should only be used when lethal force is required. You don’t want cops using lethal force when it isn’t needed and aiming for legs. There’s other means that are less lethal for that, like bean bags, mace, tasers, etc. At least one of those was already attempted in this case. Don’t use lethal force if you don’t intend to kill. That’s just dumb. A gun should always be considered lethal force.

Like I said before, I wouldn’t want to gamble with innocent people’s’ lives. That’s what youre
doing if someone poses an imminent threat of death and you don’t stop the threat and try to play nice for just 1 second.

Ledbetterman10 · August 2020

For fuck’s sake. How on earth was this guy shot seven times in the back? Yeah he might’ve been going for a weapon in his car...but fucking tase him. Three cops need to be able to subdue one guy. Apparently he had an arrest warrant.

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1297721479711334401?s=20

Thankfully he wasn't killed. Though I think he's still in the ICU.

gimmesometruth27 · August 2020

Ledbetterman10 said:

For fuck’s sake. How on earth was this guy shot seven times in the back? Yeah he might’ve been going for a weapon in his car...but fucking tase him. Three cops need to be able to subdue one guy. Apparently he had an arrest warrant.

https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1297721479711334401?s=20

Thankfully he wasn't killed. Though I think he's still in the ICU.

from what i read last night he was trying to break up a fight between two of the women there. the cops arrived and they tried to arrest him. they apparently tased him and then he got up and went to his car where his kids were sitting. the cop could have tackled him. instead he used one of his hands to pull a gun and shoot him 7 times at point blank range. fuck these cops. all of them.

Ledbetterman10 · August 2020

Yeah they definitely should've tackled him.

While the shooting in St. Louis sometime ago was a different because the suspect got ahold of the cops' taser, which I feel justified lethal force in that situation, it shouldn't have even come to that. Two officers (in that situation), or three officers here, need to be able to take a guy down without it escalating to a point where they even have to draw their guns. Taser, pepper-spray, and batons....fucking use them.

gimmesometruth27 · August 2020

Ledbetterman10 said:

Yeah they definitely should've tackled him.

While the shooting in St. Louis sometime ago was a different because the suspect got ahold of the cops' taser, which I feel justified lethal force in that situation, it shouldn't have even come to that. Two officers (in that situation), or three officers here, need to be able to take a guy down without it escalating to a point where they even have to draw their guns. Taser, pepper-spray, and batons....fucking use them.

3 on 1 they should have been able to subdue him. it looks like 2 of them did not even want to touch him. they look like cowards in this video.

they will find a way to justify this.

cops are not there to perform extrajudicial executions.

RunIntoTheRain · August 2020

I'm sure @mace1229 will be able to combine assumption and common sense to explain why he needed to be shot.

PJPOWER · August 2020

mcgruff10 said:

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

DewieCox said:

A knife isn’t lethal force in a 6 on 1 situation and they could’ve easily cut him off. This was pathetic effort.

How is a knife not a lea Th al weapon in a 6 on 1? The logic being he could probably only fatally stab 1 or 2 people at most?

These are supposed to be fucking professionals in apprehending perps to be brought to justice, not try and sentence. If they can’t be trusted with those odds, then why do they have the job.

mace1229 said:

RunIntoTheRain said:

Is there a reason they can't shoot him in the leg(s)? Is there a reason they have to shoot him 11 times? I get it that he was running away, non-responsive to tazing and the people in the store were at risk.

Yes there is a reason. This question comes up a lot. If the police thought other lives were in imminent danger (the article doesn’t say if that was the case or not, so assuming it is) then yes, you end the threat.

You can end the threat without killing when you’re trained well. This isn’t a case of mind over matter like getting blasted with a taser. These officers should be able to hit a flea on a gnats ass not aim for center mass.

The lives weren’t in imminent danger but for the half ass police work. If they’re not going to put their life on the line, quit yelling “we put our life on the line”

I m guessing you have never shot a gun before. Literally you have milliseconds to decide between life and death. If your live is on the line are you going to aim for their ankles? This is much easier said then done.

People that don’t understand why cops shoot at the largest target on a perp need to read up a little on why that is the most viable and safest option. For one, center mass reduces the chances of stray bullets hitting others. They are taught to “stop a threat”, and center mass is the most effective at doing that. Moving legs are a harder target and would reduce the chance of hitting the target. Also, lawsuits. I have heard officers say that they can be sued for purposely shooting someone specifically in the leg because a lawyer will say they were purposely trying to maim and injure the suspect instead of just stopping the threat.

I do think that there needs to be more training on deescalating situations, especially related to mental health. That requires more funding though.....so let’s defund police departments......

DewieCox · August 2020

If you can’t shoot out a knee from 10’ feet away on a slowly moving target, you shouldn’t be in a profession that requires any level of proficiency with firearms.

There’s ammunition and weapons designed for close quarter operation with nearly totally mitigated potential for collateral damage.

I’m not questioning center mass in on all or even most situations.

OnWis97 · August 2020

RunIntoTheRain said:

I'm sure @mace1229 will be able to combine assumption and common sense to explain why he needed to be shot.

This one's actually low-hanging fruit...how do we know he's not going into the car to get a gun?

Police abuse

Comments

Categories