Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[jal123]

They killed my mate when he edged out onto a main road and was hit by a plod car the investigators estimated to have been travelling at between 48-58 mph (IIRC) in a 30. No blues 'n' twos.

Plod wasn't breathylysed, but Hoppy's corpse was tested (Clean). It broke his dad's heart...

Of course, it was 'accidental'. They tried to blame it on a luton van being parked close to the junction...Except it was at legally parked distance.

Its disgusting, because it happens constantly with them and innocent people are the ones that get hurt. May your mate rest in peace, not that his family ever will.

These are the people that are entrusted with our safety, it makes me sick.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Its disgusting, because it happens constantly with them

Aye.

And that's just on the streets. You're no safer in the station...

 

[joey_macmo]

Allegedly one of the officers involved in the Alton Sterling shooting

 

[john jako]

Be interesting to see what there ROE is in the US. Everytime I've been there with a rifle I have only been under the UK ROE until I step on there land which I would be breaking the law anyway.

Our ROE makes it perfectly clear if you don't get the call right your going down.

 

[bizzaro]

Be interesting to see what there ROE is in the US. Everytime I've been there with a rifle I have only been under the UK ROE until I step on there land which I would be breaking the law anyway.

Our ROE makes it perfectly clear if you don't get the call right your going down.

Rules of Engagement?

This is policing. Under civil and criminal law.

Not Military or military law.

US citizens and visitors to the USA have constitutional rights under law.

From the US constitution.


When the Federal government says its investigating 'civil rights violations' thats what they mean.

e.g. protection from cruel or unusal punishment. the right to due process. etc.


Don't be stupid with posts like this. This isn't a military environment nor martial law declared.



The UK has similar laws. From English common law and statutes. The police can't just go around shooting people. If they want to stop someone they have to comply with law and face sanction in the event of wrongful arrest. Fact.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just something to put out there, but given that owning a gun is legal in America and therefore makes it riskier for police to apprehend people with a gun, I can't help wondering why on earth the police put themselves into situations whereby it's the assailant that is getting anything from their own pockets?

In the original case, for instance, the two coppers had him on the floor, why did they not handcuff him and check his pockets themselves? Likewise with the bloke in the car, get him out of the car with his hands where they can be seen and search his pockets yourself. I'm not sure why you'd ever put yourself in a position where you have a bloke that says he has a gun and you ask to see something that might feasibly be where the gun also is.

But then I'm not a copper so who knows...

 

[bizzaro]

You're watching a different video to me, because what I see is a man who won't keep still and moments before he was shot made a move with his right arm as his head comes up.

Changes nothing. He doesn't resist arrest, that doesn't happen.

Resisting arrest doesn't justify a lethal response.

A lethal response is only due legally, from a potential threat to kill.

At that point there was two officers one on top of him, another pressing his weapon into his back.

Until a firearm is in in the process of being pointed at a member of the public or a police officer there is - NO - justification for a police officer to kill a member of the public.

I didn't see any firearm, weapon or loss of control over that indiviudal and to my mind - bearing in mind I have no bias here.

That police officer lost control of his own emotions and illegally shot that man.

Through his own poor discipline.

 

[bizzaro]

Just something to put out there, but given that owning a gun is legal in America and therefore makes it riskier for police to apprehend people with a gun, I can't help wondering why on earth the police put themselves into situations whereby it's the assailant that is getting anything from their own pockets?

In the original case, for instance, the two coppers had him on the floor, why did they not handcuff him and check his pockets themselves? Likewise with the bloke in the car, get him out of the car with his hands where they can be seen and search his pockets yourself. I'm not sure why you'd ever put yourself in a position where you have a bloke that says he has a gun and you ask to see something that might feasibly be where the gun also is.

But then I'm not a copper so who knows...

I think part of it is police officers patrol alone in the USA.

They should never patrol alone. Ever. One officer to control a suspect. One to search or assist in controlling.

They've got fundamental issues in poor training. Discipline. Organisation. Prevalence of firearms. Public carrying of firearms. Poor political situation and community relations. Extreme violence criminals.

The lot.

 

[PhilM]

In addition, @Bruce Wayne I do not feel that it helps that it appears (well as an outsider) that they almost automatically draw their firearm.

Now the situation in the US is very different from over here, but if you draw a side arm then it must heighten the situation for both parties.

I'd question on how many occasions whether brandishing their weapon is actually necessary, and from that how beneficial actually it is doing so?

Once you draw you're firearm then in most cases you're accepting that you're willing to use it - by doing it then it increases the likelihood of use.

 

[Aqui1a]

Just something to put out there, but given that owning a gun is legal in America and therefore makes it riskier for police to apprehend people with a gun, I can't help wondering why on earth the police put themselves into situations whereby it's the assailant that is getting anything from their own pockets?

In the original case, for instance, the two coppers had him on the floor, why did they not handcuff him and check his pockets themselves? Likewise with the bloke in the car, get him out of the car with his hands where they can be seen and search his pockets yourself. I'm not sure why you'd ever put yourself in a position where you have a bloke that says he has a gun and you ask to see something that might feasibly be where the gun also is.

But then I'm not a copper so who knows...

Mhm... And they're two big fellas sitting on the guy, so why not grab his arm if you see him trying to reach for his pocket? But no, their response was to reach down to their holsters, pull the gun out, and point it at his face.

 

[roydo]

I have actually been pulled over, in the UK, by heavily armed anti terrorist police.

Believe you me, you make 10000000% sure you dont give them any excuse to even think about squeezing the trigger. Being asked for ID, to open the boot, then stand with your hands on the car with a high calibre assault rifle pointed at your forehead is not pleasant. Nor relaxing.

 

[bizzaro]

I have actually been pulled over, in the UK, by heavily armed anti terrorist police.

Believe you me, you make 10000000% sure you dont give them any excuse to even think about squeezing the trigger. Being asked for ID, to open the boot, then stand with your hands on the car with a high calibre assault rifle pointed at your forehead is not pleasant. Nor relaxing.

Dodgy looking Roydo.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

I have actually been pulled over, in the UK, by heavily armed anti terrorist police.

Believe you me, you make 10000000% sure you dont give them any excuse to even think about squeezing the trigger. Being asked for ID, to open the boot, then stand with your hands on the car with a high calibre assault rifle pointed at your forehead is not pleasant. Nor relaxing.

All them suspect parcels, mate.

 

[john jako]

Rules of Engagement?

This is policing. Under civil and criminal law.

Not Military or military law.

US citizens and visitors to the USA have constitutional rights under law.

From the US constitution.


When the Federal government says its investigating 'civil rights violations' thats what they mean.

e.g. protection from cruel or unusal punishment. the right to due process. etc.


Don't be stupid with posts like this. This isn't a military environment nor martial law declared.



The UK has similar laws. From English common law and statutes. The police can't just go around shooting people. If they want to stop someone they have to comply with law and face sanction in the event of wrongful arrest. Fact.

Chill out fella. I wasn't defending the coppers or anyone. I also wasn't been stupid. I was just asking a question about there ROE. Regardless of if there military or not, the police would still be required to have a ROE. If not they could shoot anyone. There ROE could be shoot to kill, it doesn't matter. An ROE offers guidance to the person holding the weapon.

 

[bizzaro]

Chill out fella. I wasn't defending the coppers or anyone. I also wasn't been stupid. I was just asking a question about there ROE. Regardless of if there military or not, the police would still be required to have a ROE. If not they could shoot anyone. There ROE could be shoot to kill, it doesn't matter. An ROE offers guidance to the person holding the weapon.

The police don't have 'rules of engagement'.

They have to follow the law. The law doesn't allow them to shoot anyone.

Look up the US Constitution.