Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[longers]

This is the part that truly baffles me. There are people on here who genuinely, with no semblance of irony, seem to believe the police cannot wait to shoot black people. Any excuse. Absolutely dying to do it.

Why would that baffle you given the decades long history of police brutality and systemic racism within the police forces and the countless cases of police shooting unarmed black men ? Rightly or wrongly plenty of black people in the US believe lots of cops are just itching for a reason to shoot them. Its easy to make judgements about it being baffling when you live on the other side of the Atlantic and have never had to experience their experiences with police.

 

[Tubey]

What if a guy was leaning in to get his license? To turn a radio down? To grab a wallet? Are we now to assume it must be for a weapon and we must empty the clip into them.

Again, it's not like a traffic stop where a cordial conversation happened and the guy just out of the blue decided to do it. It's about context.

Are you seriously telling me, under gunpoint, with orders being shouted, for about five straight seconds, there's any likelihood whatsoever of the reason for that guy walking around his car, opening his door and reaching in is to "turn the radio down". Seriously??!

 

[PhilM]

Particularly as the bullet might very well pass right through the assailant and kill the child as well.

A 9mm parabellum round, as often used here in the UK, is not likely to do that if hit on the centre mass.

 

[SteveSC]

No they don't and yes they can. Police in America are legally entitled to shoot to kill a known felon if they feel in imminent danger.

You are filling this thread with 'what if's' - they could have reacted? How do you know? If they had suspected there was a gun? Who was there to secure both the car and the felon if 2 of them can't contain him? Even after being tasered?

Sorry mate but in America if you have a criminal record for firearms offences, resist arrest multiple times and reach into a car - I'd say thats being an idiot, and that's legal grounds to be shot.

Oh and the doors on the vehicle aren't transparent, so the other officer obviously couldn't see what he was doing could he.

I'm sorry but you are saying I am filling the thread with what if's considering you and tubey determine he was shot becuase what if he got a gun. Thats your main argument.

I mentioned that about imminent danger and said that it will be hard for them to justify that in this case. How about you read? and don't just jump on a point.

Also there is no legal ground for a cop to shoot someone with a criminal past. Even if he is guilty of something. Unless.he has a weapon and does not comply.

Mate I have a friend who was killed by cops and two of my good friends and neighbors are cops. I have lived here for a long time. I think I know how cops operate here and how they have operated.

The cops messed up here. Neither you or tubey have compelling arguments much lile them that justify any of this.

They could have secured him and kept trying before he got back into the car. While he was in the car with his back turned. Better yet secured the car.

They shot him in the back because he was not complying not becuase he had a wrapon. That in itself is not allowed. Given the cameras pointed at the incident imminent danger is hogwash.

 

[verreauxi]

Welcome to the USA...

 

[Nymzee]

Again, it's not like a traffic stop where a cordial conversation happened and the guy just out of the blue decided to do it. It's about context.

Are you seriously telling me, under gunpoint, with orders being shouted, for about five straight seconds, there's any likelihood whatsoever of the reason for that guy walking around his car, opening his door and reaching in is to "turn the radio down". Seriously??!

I wasn’t referring to this incident I was talking generally. I’m not saying him resisting arrest is right I’m questioning why 7 bullets need to be fired from a foot away to possibly incapacitate a possible threat.

I don’t even have enough info to know if tasering/beating him before all this was justified.

 

[Nymzee]

Bowing out of this thread me; full of some scary people.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Seven shots to the back is excessive in my opinion, but in the legal sense as @Tubey has mentioned a person can use the force that they feel appropriate...

... as long as they can justify it within the context of the event. Can he do that? I'm not sure, but there are cases when one or two rounds aren't enough.

I suspect that he will argue that he used x-rounds to ensure that the threat was removed, and it'll be up to the prosecutors to device - there isn't a set number!

But if we're talking about training of where to shoot, I'm not being facetious but it isn't like the Westerns or the films: you shoot to disable them and not to miss.

One stray round or one that passes through the arm etc (less mass.) could easily ricochet off the metal work or you could miss and kill or injure a bystander.

Therefore, you are trained to shoot the largest mass to reduce the chance of this. Does that mean he should have shot him? Personally, no... but he has.

As such, I'm simply explaining how or why he may have done what he has done. For me, there were far more suitable options than deciding to shoot him...

... whether he was justified in doing so or not.

Isn’t this one of reasons why shooting 7 bullets, even if aimed at central mass, was a risk though given there were 3 kids in close proximity?

I know it was a close distance but from my friends that do shoot I understand keeping your hand steady and fixed on the initial target for that many rounds is difficult even under low stress situations.

 

[Tubey]

Why would that baffle you given the decades long history of police brutality and systemic racism within the police forces and the countless cases of police shooting unarmed black men ? Rightly or wrongly plenty of black people in the US believe lots of cops are just itching for a reason to shoot them. Its easy to make judgements about it being baffling when you live on the other side of the Atlantic and have never had to experience their experiences with police.

It's irrational. My own father was deliberately harmed stealthily to make him scream by police to justify his arrest when in cuffs in the 70s. Does that mean all police or even most police would do that? No. You'd have to be stupid to think so.

And yet you have people genuinely seeming to believe that US police officers sign up to serve as an excuse to live out their deepest fetish of shooting black people. I don't have to experience "it" to know that's utterly stupid.

There is institutional racism in the US police. There's hundreds of examples of it. This isn't one of them - it's not even close to being one of them - but because there's a desperation to jump on any incident right now as an excuse to protest then it's being used as an example of it. It's insane.

 

[longers]

Still cracks me up seeing people call ANTIFA both purple haired soy boy cucks and terrorists at the same time.

 

[BlueTX]

Still cracks me up seeing people call ANTIFA both purple haired soy boy cucks and terrorists at the same time.

Bipolar projection.

 

[Tubey]

I'm sorry but you are saying I am filling the thread with what if's considering you and tubey determine he was shot becuase what if he got a gun. Thats your main argument.

I mentioned that about imminent danger and said that it will be hard for them to justify that in this case. How about you read? and don't just jump on a point.

Also there is no legal ground for a cop to shoot someone with a criminal past. Even if he is guilty of something. Unless.he has a weapon and does not comply.

Mate I have a friend who was killed by cops and two of my good friends and neighbors are cops. I have lived here for a long time. I think I know how cops operate here and how they have operated.

The cops messed up here. Neither you or tubey have compelling arguments much lile them that justify any of this.

They could have secured him and kept trying before he got back into the car. While he was in the car with his back turned. Better yet secured the car.

They shot him in the back because he was not complying not becuase he had a wrapon. That in itself is not allowed. Given the cameras pointed at the incident imminent danger is hogwash.

Tell you what mate, when this is investigated and the officer is completely exonerated, perhaps try and look at why it was the correct decision.

You're letting your biases show through crystal clear.

 

[d34noj]

I'm sorry but you are saying I am filling the thread with what if's considering you and tubey determine he was shot becuase what if he got a gun. Thats your main argument.

I mentioned that about imminent danger and said that it will be hard for them to justify that in this case. How about you read? and don't just jump on a point.

Also there is no legal ground for a cop to shoot someone with a criminal past. Even if he is guilty of something. Unless.he has a weapon and does not comply.

Mate I have a friend who was killed by cops and two of my good friends and neighbors are cops. I have lived here for a long time. I think I know how cops operate here and how they have operated.

The cops messed up here. Neither you or tubey have compelling arguments much lile them that justify any of this.

They could have secured him and kept trying before he got back into the car. While he was in the car with his back turned. Better yet secured the car.

They shot him in the back because he was not complying not becuase he had a wrapon. That in itself is not allowed. Given the cameras pointed at the incident imminent danger is hogwash.

You need to have a read up on your laws.

We are clinging to the 'what if he has a gun' because that's why he was shot. He posed an imminent danger to the lives of the police officers. They had tried to apprehend him, and failed - they can't just leave him be to go secure his car can they, both of them had just tried to arrest him and he brushed both of them and the taser off.

He was shot in the back because they felt they were in imminent danger, which in American Law is absolutely legal for a Police Officer to do. If he wasn't a felon with an arrest warrant out, it would have been illegal - as he was, and he was resisting arrest, plus the reaching for a weapon means the Officer was well within his rights, also they are trained to shoot at the mass regardless.

 

[SteveSC]

Tell you what mate, when this is investigated and the officer is completely exonerated, perhaps try and look at why it was the correct decision.

You're letting your biases show through crystal clear.

Oh ffs of course he will be exonerated. Did you gloss over where I said that is always the issue. That they get away with stuff and always get off scott free. The powers that be refuse to hold cops accountable.

Thats the main reason there are many protests

Obtusr mate thats what you are.

You are defending them and completely ignoring why there is outrage.

I have no bias. I have had a friend killed and understand why it might have happened but it was still investigated and it was murky. At the same time i have friends who are cops and I understand how difficult their job is.

If i had bias they wouldn't be friends now would they.

 

[longers]

It's irrational. My own father was deliberately harmed stealthily to make him scream by police to justify his arrest when in cuffs in the 70s. Does that mean all police or even most police would do that? No. You'd have to be stupid to think so.

And yet you have people genuinely seeming to believe that US police officers sign up to serve as an excuse to live out their deepest fetish of shooting black people. I don't have to experience "it" to know that's utterly stupid.

There is institutional racism in the US police. There's hundreds of examples of it. This isn't one of them - it's not even close to being one of them - but because there's a desperation to jump on any incident right now as an excuse to protest then it's being used as an example of it. It's insane.

Whether this is one of them or not is irrelevant to my point, you said the reaction is baffling... it's not, it's the opposite, it's entirely understandable given the history of police brutality and racism. You have the comfort of being able to sit back outside of the bubble within which this happens and have a more rational opinion. You bring up something which happened to your dad but there is no long history of systemic racism and police brutality against white people in the UK (im presuming you're white, apologies if incorrect) so for you it sticks out as being an isolated incident. If you lived in the hood and people are getting shot by police and being forcefully arrested for nothing every day your perspective would probably differ.