|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Witnesses do describe a struggle and the cop does have marks, so there shouldn't be anyone thinking that he was killed in cold blood. Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option. If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away. I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics.
Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on.
Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2:
![[image loading]](http://www.policemag.com/_Images/news/M-NYPD-OIS2010.jpg)
Link
Yes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position.
|
On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option.
If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away.
I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position.
Didn't the NYPD go through a great deal of reform in the 90s?
|
On August 19 2014 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. No one is suggesting to 'take it lightly' just not shoot him 6 times from ~35 ft away. I would just love to see what the officer says happened. I wonder how long they will keep it secret? It's pretty typical that if you shoot, you shoot to kill. 6 times isn't excessive in the real world - it's normal. No, it's really not. Do you know how many times cops typically fire their weapon when they use it? Or what the trends on that look like?
The NYC average:
In 77 percent of all shootings since 1998 when civilians were the targets, police officers were not fired upon, although in some of those cases, the suspects were acting violently: displaying a gun or pointing it at officers, firing at civilians, stabbing or beating someone or hitting officers with autos, the police said. No one fired at officers in two notable cases — the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo and the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell.
In such shootings, the total number of shots fired in each situation edged up to 4.7 in 2006. However, the figure is skewed by the 50 shots fired in the Bell case. Excluding that case, the average would be 3.6 shots.
The average number of bullets fired by each officer involved in a shooting remained about the same over those 11 years even with a switch to guns that hold more bullets — as did officers’ accuracy, roughly 34 percent. This figure is known in police parlance as the “hit ratio.”
Source
According to the article the data's a bit skewed as well since it includes incidents of officers committing suicide with their gun. Presumably they use fewer shots for that.
Edit: For Portland police:
There appears to be a relationship between the amount of ammunition a weapon holds and a tendency to shoot more. Twelve officers firing six-shot revolvers fired an average of 2.6 times each. Nineteen officers using semiautomatic pistols with capacities ranging from eight to 18 rounds shot an average of 4.6 times apiece.
Source
|
On August 19 2014 09:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Didn't the NYPD go through a great deal of reform in the 90s?
Also needs the context that crime in NY spiked in the 70s and plummeted in the 90s. It is much easier for the police to not shoot people when there is less crime. But I agree that people are decrying increases in police violence without data to back it up. Police militarization and arguably more brutal or intrusive violence is different from violence per se.
|
On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well I don't want to argue over what the phrase was intended to mean but the ambiguous physical struggle was over before he killed him by all accounts. We are yet to hear from the officer why he thought he needed to kill Michael and why he didn't have any other reasonable option.
If he wasn't such a large guy I wouldn't have any idea how the officer could of been remotely close to fearing for his life from an unarmed person ~35 ft away.
I personally am not comfortable with police officers feeling incapable of defending themselves against an unarmed person who is ~35 ft from them without anything less than lethal force even if it is a big guy. If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position.
Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Os2sqAB.png)
I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging.
Source
|
I don't know if a case can be made that cops are necessarily shooting people more. But a shooting per violent crime in progress statistic would be needed anyway. Eric Garner, though, was choked to death.
|
On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If he was unarmed, had just tried to take the officer's gun and was returning to attack, yeah, using the gun may have been justified. We need more info. Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times. If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them. I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source
2 years doesn't really make a trend.
|
On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Yeah not really (for my point[not limited to this particular incident]). I am pretty comfortable in thinking that police officers should be able to defend themselves from an unarmed person ~35 ft away without having to shoot him 6 times.
If he had shot him only during a struggle for the gun that would be entirely different. I am not even arguing about 'justified', from a purely practical standpoint, cops should be able to defend themselves against unarmed people ~35 ft away without having to shoot them.
I'm still curious how many times he actually shot. I know that's obviously much too complicated a piece of information to release though. I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend.
Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not.
But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem
A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.”
The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior.
Source
When it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones).
|
On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'd have to disagree with you there. An officer shouldn't wait for his gun to be taken away before he can use it. LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon. And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem Show nested quote +A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” Show nested quote +The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones).
Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that.
|
On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 07:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
LOL really? Well unless the person is telepathic you shouldn't have to worry about a guy ~35 ft away taking your weapon.
And my point is that if he looks like he is trying to, a police officer should have the skills to avoid him taking the weapon without having to shoot him multiple times (before he is even close). There are similar incidents when officers unnecessarily killed relatively unarmed mentally ill people with similar justifications. There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case. Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Not 'everywhere' just seeing what the cops see. I wouldn't see why a department or more importantly, the citizens they are supposed to protect would object. Particularly if they have high rates of complaints (considering the vast majority of them go nowhere regardless of their validity)
For instance had there been a camera here, surely that would of been the tape released instead of the convenience store footage? And if the officers alleged story was true I can't think of something he would wish to have more than a tape from his perspective.
Of course if the camera was likely to catch officers acting out of order I would expect to see them be resistant to utilizing them.
I forgot have PD's and their reps been pushing for these cameras to help dispel the 'myth' that all the constant complaints they are getting are real and they are just ignoring them, or have they been resisting them consistently, like one would if they didn't want to be seen abusing citizens? Also realized if the police were letting you off for crimes/infractions they shouldn't be you might also be opposed to them being cam'd
|
On August 19 2014 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There is at least one witness why ways that he moved toward the cop before the cop opened fire. It doesn't take long to cover 35ft, so opening fire could be justified in that case.
Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable. Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable. Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug. Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Not 'everywhere' just seeing what the cops see. I wouldn't see why a department or more importantly, the citizens they are supposed to protect would object. Particularly if they have high rates of complaints (considering the vast majority of them go nowhere regardless of their validity)
I meant cops everywhere. A small new england town with two cops doesn't really need lapel cameras on all both of them.
But yeah, if you want your PD to have cameras on them, go right ahead. I'm not even sure who's stopping it from happening. Ferguson is majority black and St. Louis is a pretty liberal area so if they want to make it happen they should just go and do exactly that. If it's a cost issue they could probably get the greater St. Louis area to chip in too.
|
On August 19 2014 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 10:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2014 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 09:25 Jormundr wrote:On August 19 2014 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2014 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Again 'justified' was not my point (though I disagree depending on a lot of factors), it's that we are talking about how an unarmed man allegedly charging toward the cop from ~35ft away left the officer with no reasonable choice but to kill him (apparently at that distance). I just don't consider that acceptable.
Even if it turns out to be completely legal and 'justified' we need to make the necessary changes to prevent that from being true. Because this wasn't the first time something like such has happened and it won't be the last. Killing people should be avoided whenever reasonable.
Maybe eventually when we hear any semblance of a story from the police or the officer about what happened after the officer left the vehicle there will be some information that changes this particular case, but the over-aggression/militarization of the police is a clear and rampant problem that people consistently minimize, deny, and sweep under the rug.
Depending on how it went down it could be acceptable. If the guy went for the officer's gun... that's a very dangerous situation. I wouldn't expect an officer to take that lightly. Edit: What's with the "minimize deny and sweep under the rug" comment? This is getting huge attention from many angles. Moreover, where's the evidence that it's a "clear and rampant" problem? The only statistics I've seen is for police shootings going down. That's not a very useful statistic because it 1. Is not necessarily indicative of the country as a whole (it's only NYC) 2. As a starting point it picks the most violent point (in terms of gun violence and homicide) in our history 3. Doesn't include statistics on race. It also raises the question on why we don't have those statistics. Yeah it's not a great statistic but it's all I have to go on. Here's a longer dated one for police shootings to address no. 2: + Show Spoiler +LinkYes we could use better data on this, but people are saying "it's getting worse" without posting any justifications for that position. Here is the most recent/relevant data for NYC + Show Spoiler +I mean ~30% increase recently is one sign. But again it's not just shooting people that is being suggested as getting worse (it may or may not be depending on where you measure from) it's a much larger issue which you obviously know. So I don't really get the intentional pettifogging. Source 2 years doesn't really make a trend. Well it's more than enough time for people to feel the consequences whether it is a 'trend' or not. But beyond that as for it being a widespread problem A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior. SourceWhen it's not a "he said she said" cops tend to act radically differently. There is no reason they should not all be cam'd up (other than to protect the criminal ones). Cameras everywhere would be excessive, but if you want cops in a given area to carry cams I wouldn't have a problem with that. Not 'everywhere' just seeing what the cops see. I wouldn't see why a department or more importantly, the citizens they are supposed to protect would object. Particularly if they have high rates of complaints (considering the vast majority of them go nowhere regardless of their validity) I meant cops everywhere. A small new england town with two cops doesn't really need lapel cameras on all both of them. But yeah, if you want your PD to have cameras on them, go right ahead. I'm not even sure who's stopping it from happening. Ferguson is majority black and St. Louis is a pretty liberal area so if they want to make it happen they should just go and do exactly that. If it's a cost issue they could probably get the greater St. Louis area to chip in too.
Well yeah if citizens don't have a problem (wouldn't in most small towns) I don't think it needs to be mandated to that degree.
It's certainly not a money issue (although that's what they would say). They have cameras they didn't install that would of cost less then what they spent the first night of the protests. Cops don't want to be seen doing what they are doing.
To put the financial question into perspective an example from Kansas.
The Wichita Police Department, in 2011, spent over $74,000,000, but cannot come up with $450,000 for cameras, which, coincidentally is ten-fold the amount of the settlement being paid to the family of Jerome Dixon, a man fatally shot by Wichita police officers, under dubious circumstances. With five fatal police shootings in one year, at least three of which have resulted, or will result in lawsuits against the City, one can easily see that we will save money by preventing further unjustifiable shootings.
The Wichita Police Department is being sued so frequently that the City was actually forced to hire outside, private counsel to defend against the onslaught of suits, because the City Law Department was unable to keep up.
Source
|
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any.
|
On August 19 2014 11:32 m4ini wrote:
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any.
Legally, deadly force is only allowed if an officer believes it is necessary to save his or her own life, or the life of another, or to prevent the escape of a dangerously violent criminal. Also, tasers can kill people.
|
On August 19 2014 12:03 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 11:32 m4ini wrote:
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any. Legally, deadly force is only allowed if an officer believes it is necessary to save his or her own life, or the life of another, or to prevent the escape of a dangerously violent criminal. Also, tasers can kill people.
If I had a choice between accidentally/unnecessarily getting tazed or shot I'm picking tazed every time.
|
Well, never go to the Netherlands then.
|
On August 19 2014 11:32 m4ini wrote:
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any.
Tasers ARE an option. Most officers have them.
They don't always work though. They have only one shot, so you miss you're done for. The barbs can get caught in clothing and fail to deliver a shock. Also both barbs must penetrate and stick to shock. If one misses or fails to stick, its no worse than a bee sting.
So lets assume this cop is telling the truth 100% for a second. Would you want to risk tasing a guy, when you only have one shot and it's much less guaranteed to stop your assailant, when he's pretty big, running at you, and has already tried to grab your gun once?
|
|
|
On August 19 2014 12:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 11:32 m4ini wrote:
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any. Tasers ARE an option. Most officers have them. They don't always work though. They have only one shot, so you miss you're done for. The barbs can get caught in clothing and fail to deliver a shock. Also both barbs must penetrate and stick to shock. If one misses or fails to stick, its no worse than a bee sting. So lets assume this cop is telling the truth 100% for a second. Would you want to risk tasing a guy, when you only have one shot and it's much less guaranteed to stop your assailant, when he's pretty big, running at you, and has already tried to grab your gun once?
Well in fairness he already had his gun drawn (could of been a tazer instead) and shot him dead outside of the notorious 21 ft rule which is for people with weapons (not unarmed people).
He is going to have to say something besides what has been said for me to come to the conclusion that he had to use deadly force.
|
On August 19 2014 13:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2014 12:40 Millitron wrote:On August 19 2014 11:32 m4ini wrote:
Could someone explain to me why tasers are still not an option for officers? Don't wanna join the discussion about another cop shooting someone, participated in too many of them.
I'd rather ask why deadly force apparently is necessary as soon as something escalates. And don't give me the bullshit about "but what if he the bad guy has a gun", this is an argument told so many times, it just doesn't get smarter.
I would like to hear a reasonable argument against non-lethal weapons in law-enforcement, since i honestly don't see any. Tasers ARE an option. Most officers have them. They don't always work though. They have only one shot, so you miss you're done for. The barbs can get caught in clothing and fail to deliver a shock. Also both barbs must penetrate and stick to shock. If one misses or fails to stick, its no worse than a bee sting. So lets assume this cop is telling the truth 100% for a second. Would you want to risk tasing a guy, when you only have one shot and it's much less guaranteed to stop your assailant, when he's pretty big, running at you, and has already tried to grab your gun once? Well in fairness he already had his gun drawn (could of been a tazer instead) and shot him dead outside of the notorious 21 ft rule which is for people with weapons (not unarmed people). He is going to have to say something besides what has been said for me to come to the conclusion that he had to use deadly force.
The 21 ft rule is any melee opponent.
But anyways, if he had drawn his taser instead of his gun and had it fail him, he would be the dead one. Tasers are great for stopping people who aren't lifethreatening. Basically its for people who are resisting, are too much for one officer to restrain and no or inadequate help is available. The 10 seconds or so the person is down is enough to get cuffs on them. But against someone who has already shown they are both capable of and willing to kill you, they really aren't the answer.
Tasers are most certainly NOT a substitute for a real firearm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
