Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[zukai12_]

If you see somebody go into a car and your first reaction is to fill them full of bullets, you have absolutely no business being a police officer, let alone one with the ability to kill based on your split second reactions

 

[Nymzee]

 

[d34noj]

Why does that matter? Let me guess so you can call me immature or some dumb point to justify your own silly take.

No, I'm not going to resort to calling you 'silly' or 'dumb'. You're just trying to be portentous without really pulling it off.

Case in point: 'your own silly take'. Silly seems to be a word a child would use in an argument.

 

[d34noj]

If you see somebody go into a car and your first reaction is to fill them full of bullets, you have absolutely no business being a police officer, let alone one with the ability to kill based on your split second reactions

That wasn't their first reaction though was it, first was trying to cuff him. Second was tasering him, third was watching him reach into his car - possibly arming himself, would you take the chance? The answer is no you wouldn't. And neither would any of the other posters in here.

Seems only me and @Tubey are looking at the facts and reality of this situation.

 

[Tubey]

They shot him in the back. Again in the back.

Ah I see, they should have been polite and allowed the guy resisting arrest, ignoring instruction and reaching into his car the common courtesy to turn around first.

And if the cop is then shot in the head, at least he died "honourably".

Next level stupid. Sorry but it really is.

 

[SteveSC]

No, I'm not going to resort to calling you 'silly' or 'dumb'. You're just trying to be portentous without really pulling it off.

Case in point: 'your own silly take'. Silly seems to be a word a child would use in an argument.

Says the guy who used the middle finger twice and then put the guy was dangerous in caps.

Funny how people like you.when called a name then try twist it. Always ignore the rebuttal to go off on a tangent to try insults instead.

Anyway not arsed with your opinion how American cops can and cannot do given you think its OK for them to shoot people for having a history.

Just remember you started off by calling everyone muricans to make a serious point.

 

[PhilM]

They cannot shoot someone just becuase he has history of violence ffs this is dumb.

They can't shoot him for that reason alone. Nevertheless, during the situation when making dynamic risk assessments it is a valid factor in making a decision.

If someone is a violent criminal with a history of using deadly weapons, they will be treated with more caution than someone who isn't and nor is that prejudice.

Does that excuse them shooting him in the back? No, but it's a point that can't be ignored and will have, if known, rightfully gone through the officer's mind.

 

[d34noj]

Says the guy who used the middle finger twice and then put the guy was dangerous in caps.

Funny how people like you.when called a name then try twist it. Always ignore the rebuttal to go off on a tangent to try insults instead.

Anyway not arsed with your opinion how American cops can and cannot do given you think its OK for them to shoot people for having a history.

Just remember you started off by calling everyone muricans to make a serious point.

'You started it'.

Brilliant.

 

[SteveSC]

Ah I see, they should have been polite and allowed the guy resisting arrest, ignoring instruction and reaching into his car the common courtesy to turn around first.

And if the cop is then shot in the head, at least he died "honourably".

Next level stupid. Sorry but it really is.

Jesus wept you cannot shoot an unarmed man in the back even if he is resisting. What part of that dont you understand.

He did not have a weapon. They had no idea there was a weapon in the car and they had the jump on him. They could have restrained him when he leaned into the car. The cop on the other side had the windows covered. He could see him in the car.

Like I said puposely obtuse.

 

[Tubey]

That wasn't their first reaction though was it, first was trying to cuff him. Second was tasering him, third was watching him reach into his car - possibly arming himself, would you take the chance? The answer is no you wouldn't. And neither would any of the other posters in here.

Seems only me and @Tubey are looking at the facts and reality of this situation.

It's fuelled by a media absolutely terrified of going against the "party line" and being labelled racist. So absolutely no one is willing to stand up and go "hang on a minute here". It's terrifying.

So the narrative has been set and that's the end of it. That cop doing his job, acting reasonably and simply protecting his own life must be sat somewhere now wondering what the hell has happened to this planet.

 

[Tubey]

Jesus wept you cannot shoot an unarmed man in the back even if he is resisting. What part of that dont you understand.

He did not have a weapon. They had no idea there was a weapon in the car and they had the jump on him. They could have restrained him when he leaned into the car. The cop on the other side had the windows covered. He could see him in the car.

Like I said puposely obtuse.

The part where he was reaching into a concealed area for something just has absolutely no impact on you does it?

They shouted instruction. He carried on. They grabbed his top in desperation to stop him. He carried on. They had their guns drawn and would have put themselves in serious danger if they holstered and went for something else. They had 1 second to decide and act. They acted.

The police don't do what they do there if an idiot isn't being an idiot. You can try and spin it any way you want; that's the fact of the matter.

 

[d34noj]

It's fuelled by a media absolutely terrified of going against the "party line" and being labelled racist. So absolutely no one is willing to stand up and go "hang on a minute here". It's terrifying.

So the narrative has been set and that's the end of it. That cop doing his job, acting reasonably and simply protecting his own life must be sat somewhere now wondering what the hell has happened to this planet.

So am I.

 

[SteveSC]

The part where he was reaching into a concealed area for something just has absolutely no impact on you does it?

They shouted instruction. He carried on. They grabbed his top in desperation to stop him. He carried on. They had their guns drawn and would have put themselves in serious danger if they holstered and went for something else. They had 1 second to decide and act. They acted.

The police don't do what they do there if an idiot isn't being an idiot. You can try and spin it any way you want; that's the fact of the matter.

They had more than one second come off it now.

Plus the cop in the other side could see what he was doing. Why didn't he shoot first?

Again being an idiot doesn't mean being filled by bullets.

The cops have to wait to see a weapon. They cannot presume he has reached or grabbed one.

Even if he grabbed a weapon he still would have had to turn his body and come up. They then could have reacted. They are trained and I bet the guy was no John Wayne.

Anyway there was no gun in the car and if they had suspected that they should have secured the vehicle and not let him back into it.

 

[Nymzee]

They can't shoot him for that reason alone. Nevertheless, during the situation when making dynamic risk assessments it is a valid factor in making a decision.

If someone is a violent criminal with a history of using deadly weapons, they will be treated with more caution than someone who isn't and nor is that prejudice.

Does that excuse them shooting him in the back? No, but it's a point that can't be ignored and will have, if known, rightfully gone through the officer's mind.

Sorry but anyone that shoots someone in the back 7 times is not using any sort of dynamic risk assessment.

 

[d34noj]

The part where he was reaching into a concealed area for something just has absolutely no impact on you does it?

They shouted instruction. He carried on. They grabbed his top in desperation to stop him. He carried on. They had their guns drawn and would have put themselves in serious danger if they holstered and went for something else. They had 1 second to decide and act. They acted.

The police don't do what they do there if an idiot isn't being an idiot. You can try and spin it any way you want; that's the fact of the matter.

It absolutely baffles me that people can't see it any other way than this.