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.
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.
If you're firing at a high rate you're going to get more recoil, so yes there's an increased chance of a discharge not hitting the centre mass and being a stray.
But, it must be balanced with the threat that is being faced in the sense that if you've discharged your weapon you're doing so to stop them - i.e. remove the threat.
Unfortunately, in close up situations like this it's much more difficult to grasp when that is and the threat may be heightened (due to proximity).
Some people may have seen the incident on London Bridge, where the CoL cops (as they got out of their car) were instantly engaged in a CQB with the assailants.
Where they'd normally have quite methodical firing routines (two tap... pause) they let off lots of rounds (46) because of how close they were and the threat.
Still, to me it seems that US cops have a tendency in these situations, well all the time, to discharge a lot of rounds regardless of the situation, which is a worry.
By the way, I'm not saying they should have shot him in the back nor am I justifying seven rounds; my point is that it's not clear cut (binary) as some believe it to be.
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.
Not to me it isn't as it's ignoring what their own eyes are seeing.
If it were police brutality or racism, then I'd understand it. I understood George Floyd perfectly well, completely justified reaction - I don't understand this one at all.
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.
He'll be exonerated because he should be exonerated.
Again, your biases are showing. There's literally no scenario whatsoever here that would make you accept the cop made the right call. You simply don't want to see it.
He'll be exonerated because he should be exonerated.
Again, your biases are showing. There's literally no scenario whatsoever here that would make you accept the cop made the right call. You simply don't want to see it.
Oh for God sake. I was right from the off about you. Jesus wept go look it up becuase you dont know it clearly.
Use of deadly force 10 cfr is the bloody law. To which there are two parts self defense and something else which I cannot remember. Part a mentions imminent danger in a scenario.for self defense.
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.
It is a relatively new law so there isn’t a lot of legal cases to see exactly how it is interpreted but my understing of the relevant California law is that the particular situation here, where no weapon was yet present, would not have classified as an imminent threat. Wisconsin could well be different though.
NOTE: Email Jennifer Rojas [jrojas@aclusocal.org] for policy support and to connect with local and statewide networks working on AB 392 implementation. Full AB 392 Implementation Toolkit forthcoming in 2020. CHECKLIST: REVIEW YOUR LOCAL USE OF FORCE POLICY Below is a list of key provisions to...
my.lwv.org
The policy appropriately defines an “imminent” or “immediate” threat. Most use of force policies authorize deadly force against someone posing an imminent or immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. AB 392 clarifies that a threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, “based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.”
Example from an AB 392-compliant policy:
o “A person is an immediate threat if the officer reasonably believes the person has the present
intent, means, opportunity and ability to complete the threat regardless of whether the threatened action has been initiated”
Example from a noncompliant policy:
o “Imminent does not mean immediate or instantaneous. An imminent danger may exist even if the suspect is not at that very moment pointing a weapon at someone. For example, an imminent danger may exist if an officer reasonably believes the person is attempting to access a weapon...”
Oh for God sake. I was right from the off about you. Jesus wept go look it up becuase you dont know it clearly.
Use of deadly force 10 cfr is the bloody law. To which there are two parts self defense and something else which I cannot remember. Part a mentions imminent danger in a scenario.for self defense.
Mare you can't split it up?! It's either the law or its not - I'm not being pedantic, if I'd have known you wanted reference I'd have highlighted paragraphs and subtexts.
And just so we both know, yes it is the law. He was well within his rights to shoot if he felt in imminent danger.
I truly don't mate. He had mental issues and did some stuff to put himself in a crazy position. Most of us felt that he could have not been shot but we understand why. What we wanted to understand why they didn't use less lethal force. In fact, like you have mentioned in this instance they tried that. But no ill will toward that cop even if we disagreed at the time.
There have been times I have sided with the cops in tough circumstances.
Mare you can't split it up?! It's either the law or its not - I'm not being pedantic, if I'd have known you wanted reference I'd have highlighted paragraphs and subtexts.
And just so we both know, yes it is the law. He was well within his rights to shoot if he felt in imminent danger.
The law is called use of deadly force. I am spliting nothing up. Do yourself a favor and read it.
You said imminent danger is the law. Its not is it. It's in the law under self defense.
If you are going to say I don't know laws at least know what the law you are being smug about is called. Then to embarrass yourself and say its still is the law is mad.
my.lwv.org