George Floyd Riots

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
4058

How do you know? May have just remembered a clearer avenue of escape.

Edit: Is it your belief that the officers acted criminally, or that things COULD have been done better/differently?

What if the officers had fled at the first sign of resistance? Would that be preferable? That would take them out of harm’s way, while allowing the criminal to safely flee. Perhaps he could be captured in the future. Inside a residence would be a poor time, as that gives the guy much more cover, concealment, and access to weapons. In a car would presumably bring about the same result as this one. On foot would involve constant surveillance, proper positioning of a takedown team, and only one fewer possible weapons(no vehicle).

2nd edit:

Again, put yourself in their shoes. 1:25ish, with a car heading toward you, you don’t feel in danger? You don’t feel like that car is driving toward you?

1 Like
4059

Thank you for explaining the woke position for us all to understand. I find it remarkably similar to the woke position on how nation-states ought to respond to terrorist rocket attacks fired indiscriminately at civilians, but that’s another thread topic.

If the cops have your vehicle surrounded on all sides in an attempt to place you under arrest, how can you “drive around” them without putting an officer under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm by being directly in the path of the vehicle you are operating?

What is your expectation for handling a situation like that? Can you explain a standard operating procedure in that sort of situation?

4060

Watching the footage, I agree. However, a question of importance is: at the time, would it be reasonable to feel a serious threat at the time? Maybe imo. Were the actions took when he was past the cops justified? Imo, no. At the same time, I can see how this would happen as an actual mistake.

Imo, they are probably not fit to be officers. I’m not sure on law, and if they did anything criminal. I think it is reasonable to have a second set of eyes look at the case.

4061

Can you explain something resembling a standard operating procedure for when police surround a vehicle and demand that the driver PUT HIS HANDS UP!!! GET OUT OF THE CAR!!! ETC. ETC…

All in plain English with weapons drawn, just in case there was a language barrier of some kind?

I would be curious to hear your thoughts about how situations like that are best handled. What would an officer fit for duty do in such a situation?

1 Like
4062

I don’t think they should be officers based on their continued shooting once the guy was no longer a threat to them. I don’t think it is justified, but could understand how someone not properly trained could do so. Can cops shoot someone during a chase? I don’t think so. Once he was past them, it was a chase situation. They aren’t even allowed to use spike strips on motorcycles during a chase.

4063

You didn’t answer the question. You skipped ahead to the driving away part.

Can you explain a coherent use of force policy for situations like this?

Cops have the vehicle surrounded, weapons drawn, clear commands being issued.

It seems as though you’re suggesting these sort of commands should be a bluff, and that the cops should clear a path and try not to get injured by the person who ignores their lawful commands/bluffs.

Am I understanding you correctly?

4064

2:17? You believe you would be saying, “No need to shoot; he’s not trying to hit me/my buddy?” One officer had been right in the area he then drove. Full of adrenaline from dealing with a guy possibly trying to kill you and your friends, “No need to shoot; we’ll catch him later.” These guys didn’t have multiple camera views to watch. They couldn’t rewind this shit.

4065

I think my previous post said maybe they were justified in shooting until the car was past the cops. The “maybe” probably means yes in court.

My issue is the continued shooting after he was past. Maybe that is acceptable? Not sure. I think a second set of eyes should look at it.

This perhaps justifies it, but I’m not convinced of it. Again, I think a second set of eyes is needed.

4066

There have been more than two sets, already. Their eyes. Their supervisors’. Their CA’s.

4067

I’m saying someone not working with police. A special prosecutor.

4068

I understand. You don’t like the outcome, but you can’t explain how it should be done differently in the crucial moment when a decision is required.

I suppose “stop shooting when @mnben87 thinks you’ve shot enough bullets” is just as valid of a stance as believing that 30 guns is too many to own.

Believe in your own truth I guess, or some crap like that. Let’s make it use of force policy. Surely the intentions of well meaning liberals will somehow manifest in improved outcomes.

If not, there’s always improved reporting techniques to obscure the outcomes that somehow fail to improve.

1 Like
4069

A CA is not the police.

4070

@mnben87, what do you think was the reason the police shot the guy? Maybe they were just thinking about how easy it’s been recently for police officers doing anything to black criminals? They were like, “Fuck! I really want my life destroyed. I could let this guy go and we’d all go home to our families and everything would be cool, but I really want to be demonized.” What other motivations?

4071

Maybe we need more cops attending the Joe Biden Academy of Double-Barrel Shot-gunnery.

Two blasts, people. That’s how it is done.

1 Like
4072

It’s true. And he knows violence. Just ask Corn Pop.

4073

This is silly. I have already said, I don’t think we should limit how many guns someone owns. Additionally, I didn’t say I thought a round limit was a good idea. I said stop shooting when risk to the officers was eliminated.

1 Like
4074

You think it was eliminated in the second or two right after the guy almost ran into an officer? You’re there, you’re thinking, “Nah, this guy’s not trying to hit anyone. He just misjudged his first turn. Now, he’s leaving. He’s not going to redirect like he just did. But, even if he does, he’s not trying to hit anyone.”?

4075

So you seem to agree they had the right to surround the vehicle. You seem to agree the driver escalated the violence to lethal force levels. You seem to agree they had a right to use deadly force to stop the threat.

So you’re talking about what, a couple of seconds of not just imperfect judgement in a violent moment, but inexcusably bad actions?

You’re calling them unfit to serve?

Do I understand you correctly?

4076

That isn’t accurate. Think of this scenario:

A suspect shoots at the police then, while in possession of the weapon, he turns and runs away. Can they shoot him even though he is, at that moment, not a threat? Do they need to wait for him to turn around and fire again? Wait for him to take cover and have a better position from which to shoot them?

Before answering, this is what the Supreme Court ruled: “… justices ruled 6-3 that shooting fleeing suspects who are not an imminent threat violates the person’s constitutional rights. They said officers can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon only if they have reasonable grounds to think the suspect is a danger to police or bystanders.”

Back to the scenario, is that suspect who has already attempted murder an imminent threat to the police who are trying to arrest him? It is reasonable to say yes.

A car can be considered a deadly weapon and in this case we are talking about, it was. Was it reasonable for the police to think that the criminal fleeing the scene, while in possession of a deadly weapon, posed a threat to them even though in a moment taken out of the entire event, a snapshot, he was not a threat in that no officer was in front his vehicle? So the question is, was it reasonable for the cops to think they were in danger as the criminal was still in possession of his deadly weapon and, quite capable of using it to harm them, again. Do the police, or anyone for that matter, need to give a criminal another opportunity to try and harm them?

If someone throws a punch at you then takes a step back with his hands up, is he a threat? He isn’t punching anymore. Do you have to wait for him to try and punch you again before you can act?

If someone shoots at you and then needs to reload, do you have to wait for him to reload before you can shoot back? I mean, if you shoot him before he can reload, he wasn’t a threat at that moment as his gun was unloaded, but was he still a threat?

1 Like
4077

I’m ok with this, because I think it’s probably a good idea in most cases. I still and confident that this is going to be deemed a good shoot. They knew his rap sheet, his violence, were serving a warrant, and a reasonable person in that situation would very likely consider themselves in imminent danger.

Almost certainly it’s acceptable IMO given the situation and standing procedure. They didn’t pause in shooting, they didn’t know if he was coming around or not, and precedent had already been set by virtue of his rap sheet, his ignoring of direct orders, and what is very easily and act of imminent threat by driving at the. We can say “we don’t know if he was aiming for them or not”, but I don’t think you can say it violates the legal standard.

There is no way to explain how fast 2-3 seconds pass in a situation like this.

1 Like