Rayshard Brooks Killed By Police In Atlanta. Free TVs For Everyone..

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The police are public servants, guardians of the peace. They should only kill people when absolutely necessary. Too often in the US, situations get escalated into shooting homicides that should not have occurred. It’s crazy. Foreigners can see that. 

There's a gray area where cops have to make a monumental decision in the heat of the moment and it's just a really bad idea to put a human in that position. 

Rayshard was a known felon the second he attacked the officers, he was armed with the taser, he attacked officers with the taser, it was just a super-stupid thing to do. 

If that taser hit the other cop in the face and he got zapped it could do a lot of damage. We should all put tasering cops on the list of things not to do imo. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I’m not saying it’s easy to make such decisions in a split moment. Frankly, I’d be more inclined to shoot somebody running towards me, armed or not, with apparent intent to do me harm than somebody going in the opposite direction. I’m also not convinced regular criminal laws should apply in these situations. Quite some years ago, they had a rash of manslaughter convictions of UK doctors who were bad at their jobs until they realized the implications of this for recruitment. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

There's a gray area where cops have to make a monumental decision in the heat of the moment and it's just a really bad idea to put a human in that position. 

Rayshard was a known felon the second he attacked the officers, he was armed with the taser, he attacked officers with the taser, it was just a super-stupid thing to do. 

If that taser hit the other cop in the face and he got zapped it could do a lot of damage. We should all put tasering cops on the list of things not to do imo. 

I agree with the first point. And we certainly shouldn’t be tasering cops. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[Michael Hardner]

Somebody called CTV for reporting that he was running away and shot in the back ... but that is indeed the case ?

[Rue]

In this case yes there appearscto be aggravating behaviour by the civilian escalating  the matter but the shooting  appears not required at the time it was engaged in as the civilian was not in a physical danger zone or approaching the officers at quick speed or from a danger acceleration point from slow to rapid.

So The use of the gun  they will review. Had he turned facing them with the taser and made a move towards their safety zone then the issue changes requiring split second decisions as to use of firearm.

They would be trained to move back each step the civilian took towards them but shoot if it was a run or jump towards them. The tape can be interpreted in different ways.

Deadly force always is reviewed and questioned by internal affairs of the  police department in question in the US. In Canad we have a civilian Special Investigation Unit, a police Internal Affairs unit, the police union, and when requested thd Coroner's office that investigate any death during a police action and the SIU and Internal Affairs  can review  any discharge of a weapon.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Rue

[Boges]

I think it's easy for someone who's never had a bad interaction with the police to say that he should have just listened to the cops. But as with seen with the Shooting of Philando Castile, even if you do everything right, you still can get killed by the cops. 

I concede it doesn't make much sense to fight a tazer away from cops, I'm not sure what the end game was there. Then again, he was drunk. 

The Cops still didn't need to kill him. Where was he going to go? You have his car. 

I think their pride was damaged from being out muscled by a drunk guy. 

[OftenWrong]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There's a gray area where cops have to make a monumental decision in the heat of the moment and it's just a really bad idea to put a human in that position.

Far be it for me to take way control of that situation from cops on the front line, by imposing dumb rules. Nevertheless, they are trained professionals given the sacred duty to protect. Their training gives them the right to be in that position, fully qualified. They say hindsight has 20:20 vision, but in my view they also share a responsibility to protect the perpetrator from themselves. That idea is nothing new, not a huge leap in law enforcement. The sad reality on the ground is that these violent episodes are common daily occurrence in a very large city. Police are quickly conditioned to expect it, and respond accordingly. I don't blame the officers, but a change in training would be in order. The changes should include giving very clear verbal instructions. For example "You must cooperate. This is what is going to happen to you if you try anything stupid."

Edited June 15, 2020 by OftenWrong

[Boges]

27 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Far be it for me to take way control of that situation from cops on the front line, by imposing dumb rules. Nevertheless, they are trained professionals given the sacred duty to protect. Their training gives them the right to be in that position, fully qualified. They say hindsight has 20:20 vision, but in my view they also share a responsibility to protect the perpetrator from themselves. That idea is nothing new, not a huge leap in law enforcement. The sad reality on the ground is that these violent episodes are common daily occurrence in a very large city. Police are quickly conditioned to expect it, and respond accordingly. I don't blame the officers, but a change in training would be in order. The changes should include giving very clear verbal instructions. For example "You must cooperate. This is what is going to happen to you if you try anything stupid."

Which speaks to the defund the police movement. 

If cops aren't social workers and bad people to deescalate situations, then perhaps more of their funding should go towards people that can do that and less money for military equipment and cops that sit around at the bottom of a hill trying to catch speeders. 

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, Boges said:

Which speaks to the defund the police movement.

No, it certainly does not. My message is more funding and better training for police, and for the public as well.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

No, it certainly does not. My message is more funding and better training for police, and for the public as well.

How about real consequences for killing people at the drop of a hat. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

How about real consequences for killing people at the drop of a hat. 

 

So they can keep killing perps as long as there are "consequences" ?

A police officer was shot this morning by a teenager resisting arrest in St. Cloud, MN.

The officers on scene chose not to fire their weapons....got shot instead....YAY !

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So they can keep killing perps as long as there are "consequences" ?

A police officer was shot this morning by a teenager resisting arrest in St. Cloud, MN.

The officers on scene chose not to fire their weapons....got shot instead....YAY !

Want to cite the instances of that? 

There's a difference between shooting an armed suspect and shooting an unarmed suspect. In the instances that have caused outrage, and unarmed person was murdered. 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Want to cite the instances of that? 

There's a difference between shooting an armed suspect and shooting an unarmed suspect. In the instances that have caused outrage, and unarmed person was murdered. 

 

 

Cite instances of what ?    The assault on the police officer happened just hours ago, instead of the gun wielding criminal being shot.

Unarmed people are murdered every day in the U.S.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Unarmed people are murdered every day in the U.S.

And look, you have global protests for going on 3 weeks because of it. 

I can't comment on something you're just describing. I'm not saying there aren't instances where cops have to shoot an armed suspect. 

But often they shoot unarmed suspects. Or in the case of Philando Castille, the shoot a suspect who showed them zero evidence of a threat. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

And look, you have global protests for going on 3 weeks because of it. 

I can't comment on something you're just describing. I'm not saying there aren't instances where cops have to shoot an armed suspect. 

But often they shoot unarmed suspects. Or in the case of Philando Castille, the shoot a suspect who showed them zero evidence of a threat. 

 

???   People being shot happened long before 3 weeks ago.    George Floyd was not shot by the police.

 

Quote

Police: St. Cloud officer shot in hand by teenager resisting arrest

No officers during the encounter fired the weapons, police said. 

https://www.startribune.com/police-st-cloud-officer-shot-in-hand-by-teenager-resisting-arrest/571258362/

 

[Boges]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

???   People being shot happened long before 3 weeks ago.    George Floyd was not shot by the police.

Alright, being killed by the police. 

Or being violently handcuffed for sleeping in your car or jaywalking. 

https://www.startribune.com/police-st-cloud-officer-shot-in-hand-by-teenager-resisting-arrest/571258362/

Oh, so the cop isn't even dead. I suppose his hand is worth the perp's life. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

Oh, so the cop isn't even dead. I suppose his hand is worth the perp's life. 

 

This is the problem / challenge...bleeding hearts demanding that police officers take all the risks while interacting with criminals or the mentally ill.

What part of shooting at cops do you not understand ?

 

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is the problem / challenge...bleeding hearts demanding that police officers take all the risks while interacting with criminals or the mentally ill.

If they think their responsibilities are too great then defund the police. Let's have more qualified people hired to deal with the mentally ill. 

 

Quote

What part of shooting at cops do you not understand ?

Fair enough, my bad for assuming you were comparing the murder of black man to a murder of a cop.  You were only comparing the murder of a black man to a cop being shot in the hand.  

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

If they think their responsibilities are too great then defund the police then. Let's have more qualified people hired to deal with the mentally ill.

 

Go for it....defund law enforcement and see how that works out.    Joe Biden says no....he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill !

 

Quote

Fair enough, my bad for assuming you were comparing the murder of black man to a murder of a cop.  You were only comparing the murder of a black man to a cop being shot in the hand.  

 

Why do cops have to take bullets just to keep the criminals happy ?

The race of the victims is hardly primary, unless you think it is OK to shoot non-black people.

[Boges]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Go for it....defund law enforcement and see how that works out.    Joe Biden says no....he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill !

The Federal government fund local police? That's news to me. 

That's more of an issue in Canada where small communities are served by the RCMP or OPP or whatever, instead of their own on local police. 

The case study of Camden, New Jersey will be how Defund the Police will be sold and not fretting from #45. 

Quote

 

The race of the victims is hardly primary, unless you think it is OK to shoot non-black people.

 

I think the race is primary to many of the people who've been protesting for 3 weeks now. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

The Federal government fund local police? That's news to me.

 

That's OK...you live in Canada, remember.  the 1994 Crime Bill provided funding for 100,000 more police officers.

Quote

...Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/complex-history-controversial-1994-crime-bill

 

Quote

I think the race is primary to many of the people who've been protesting for 3 weeks now. 

 

So it was OK to shoot more non-black people...got it.  

[Boges]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

That's OK...you live in Canada, remember.  the 1994 Crime Bill provided funding for 100,000 more police officers.

I think a lot of people would say that the broken window policies of the Clinton Admin is wrong-headed in hindsight. It allowed cops to criminalize racialized communities at a far greater rate than non-racialized communities. 

Regardless 45 wants to take the mantle of the "Law and Order" President now. 

Quote

So it was OK to shoot more non-black people...got it.  

Is that how you see the BLM movement? Way to be on the wrong side of history. 

[Boges]

The disparity of black people's interaction with police is by design. 

sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/

Quote

 

The rise of mass incarceration begins with disproportionate levels of police contact with African Americans. This is striking in particular for drug offenses, which are committed at roughly equal rates across races. “One reason minorities are stopped disproportionately is because police see violations where they are,” said Louis Dekmar, the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and chief of LaGrange, Georgia’s police department.14) The chief added: “Crime is often significantly higher in minority neighborhoods than elsewhere. And that is where we allocate our resources.” Dekmar’s view is not uncommon. Absent meaningful efforts to address societal segregation and disproportionate levels of poverty, U.S. criminal justice policies have cast a dragnet targeting African Americans. The War on Drugs as well as policing policies including “Broken Windows” and “Stop, Question, and Frisk” sanction higher levels of police contact with African Americans. This includes higher levels of police contact with innocent people and higher levels of arrests for drug crimes. Thus:

More than one in four people arrested for drug law violations in 2015 was black, although drug use rates do not differ substantially by race and ethnicity and drug users generally purchase drugs from people of the same race or ethnicity.15) For example, the ACLU found that blacks were 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though their rate of marijuana usage was comparable.16)

The highest officials in New York City had “turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” Judge Shira A. Scheindlin concluded regarding the city’s stop-and-frisk tactic, declaring it unconstitutional in 2013.17) The policy, which broadly targeted male residents of neighborhoods populated by low-income people of color to uncover drugs and weapons, was shown to be ineffective, and this assessment was further validated when New York City continued its crime decline after scaling back Stop and Frisk. Yet other localities continue to deploy the practice.18)

New York City, like many other cities, remains reluctant to scale back Broken Windows Policing, a public safety approach that relies on clamping down on petty offenses and neighborhood disorder. Between 2001 and 2013, 51% of the city’s population over age 16 was black or Hispanic. Yet during that period, 82% of those arrested for misdemeanors were black or Hispanic, as were 81% of those who received summonses for violations of the administrative code (including such behaviors as public consumption of alcohol, disorderly conduct, and bicycling on the sidewalk.).19) Yet research shows that order-maintenance strategies have had only a modest impact on serious crime rates and have caused great damage to communities of color.20) These strategies also expose people of color to a greater risk of being killed during a police encounter.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

28 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think a lot of people would say that the broken window policies of the Clinton Admin is wrong-headed in hindsight. It allowed cops to criminalize racialized communities at a far greater rate than non-racialized communities.

 

Great....Canada still loves Clinton.    Put all the blame on Trump.

 

Quote

Regardless 45 wants to take the mantle of the "Law and Order" President now. 

Is that how you see the BLM movement? Way to be on the wrong side of history. 

 

Of course he does...same as Nixon in 1968.    That's why it is called politics.

 

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Great....Canada still loves Clinton.    Put all the blame on Trump.

Americans did too, like Obama he probably would have gotten a 3rd term. 

Doesn't mean he didn't make any mistakes. 

 

Quote

Of course he does...same as Nixon in 1968.    That's why it is called politics.

OK but it seems like your narrative wants it both ways. 

Biden can still support BLM even though he was part of the Crime Bill. He can also support BLM even though he's not 100% on board with Defund the Police. That's more of a local policy anyway. 

Seems Trump's only tactic is to try a smear Biden with his Defund the Police narrative. How can that be if he's the dude that wrote the Crime Bill? 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boges