Minneapolis Cop Murders A Black Man

[John Lawrence 244]

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

You mean like the cops have been doing to peaceful protesters?  

I am not sure which incidences you are referring to, but for certain some, yes.  But certainly not all.  Tear gas and rubber bullets are allowed to stop rioting.  Some peaceful protesters will get caught as collateral damage.  They would be wise to stay far away from rioting and looting while protesting peacefully.  And in certain circumstances force is justified against peaceful protesters who are disobeying lawful orders.  That is a right that governments grant law enforcement.  Whether the force is excessive will be a case-by-case basis.

I have seen some that was clearly unjustified.  Tear gassing and firing rubber bullets at people on their own private property.  If they responded with gunfire, I would vote to acquit.

[seven 1,367]

35 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Got to love the CR sock stopping by with the “everyone is racist” drive by. 
 

Go ahead and continue using your "demographics" argument, I'm just letting you know everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. 

[Gatorubet 30,246]

47 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

This person attacked the cops without justification.  He was wrestling with armed officers and creating a dangerous situation.  That justified them using their tasers, as a less lethal option than shooting them.  Once he took the taser and attacked them with it, him getting shot was justified.

This is not a difficult or particularly close case.

 

 A taser is a one deployment device in this situation.  A taser is a non-lethal weapon,  in any event.   Upon deploying it, he would have become a completely unarmed man against cops with guns.  As it was, he was a guy with a non-lethal weapon running away from cops with guns.   Nobody has claimed a reasonable expectation that he had, or was about to, acquire access to a firearm or knife - and thus become a threat of death or great bodily harm to the officers.   Nobody says that he shot an officer with a taser and was about to steal that defenseless officer's gun.   The cop shot a man who was running away from him while pointing a non-lethal taser at him.

Pointing a taser while running away should not get you shot and killed.   Police have to interact with drunks -  and emotionally unstable people - and mentally ill people.   It is PART OF THEIR FUCKING  JOB TO DEAL WITH THAT COMMON SITUATION!     Your conclusion that they  can shoot a person who does not have a lethal weapon and who is running from them as 'justified' and 'not particularly close'  is flat wrong. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8,817]

 
I don't know there answer, but I have seen no one dispute this.
 
 
 
 

What’ll be real jaw dropping is if you polled white america...how many would have remorse for those who were white and gunned down compared to those who are black and gunned down.


And yes I’m guilty af for that bias. If Floyd was white and gunned down(not murdered) for resisting and we saw his track record including drugs and holding a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach..a majority of white america would say good riddance, trash. We disregard human life so quick. Maybe it’s something us whites need to work on ourselves

[Michael Knight 12,988]

1 hour ago, John Lawrence said:

A taser is a weapon, in the way a knife, a bat, a baton, a crowbar, a gun, a replicate gun, or a shard of glass are all legitimate weapons.

The moment you choose to come after someone with a weapon, you get kicked out of the pity party, and risk serious injury and death.

A cop who gets his weapon stolen shouldn't be a cop

[Brew 3,049]

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 A taser is a one deployment device in this situation.  A taser is a non-lethal weapon,  in any event.   Upon deploying it, he would have become a completely unarmed man against cops with guns.  As it was, he was a guy with a non-lethal weapon running away from cops with guns.   Nobody has claimed a reasonable expectation that he had, or was about to, acquire access to a firearm or knife - and thus become a threat of death or great bodily harm to the officers.   Nobody says that he shot an officer with a taser and was about to steal that defenseless officer's gun.   The cop shot a man who was running away from him while pointing a non-lethal taser at him.

Pointing a taser while running away should not get you shot and killed.   Police have to interact with drunks -  and emotionally unstable people - and mentally ill people.   It is PART OF THEIR FUCKING  JOB TO DEAL WITH THAT COMMON SITUATION!     Your conclusion that they  can shoot a person who does not have a lethal weapon and who is running from them as 'justified' and 'not particularly close'  is flat wrong. 

Pretty succinct analysis here that I agree with. Combine that with the fact there were two officers onsite and it’s a problem. I would probably think differently in a one on one situation, but two on one when you know who the guy is and the taser has been deployed just doesn’t feel like a clean shoot.

It’s not a burn the city down deal either though in my opinion.

[Parliament 14,261]

Cop was probably justified in shooting the guy. I think he was within the rules of the PD and even common sense to do it.

That said, I think he woulda been safe to let the guy run. Had he done so, he wouldn't be dealing with death threats, burned Wendys' possible termination, etc. It's also possible this cop is a good person and he feels real bad about it. Lotsa guilt and second guessing when you take a man's life I bet.

[John Lawrence 244]

55 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 A taser is a one deployment device in this situation.  A taser is a non-lethal weapon,  in any event.   Upon deploying it, he would have become a completely unarmed man against cops with guns.  As it was, he was a guy with a non-lethal weapon running away from cops with guns.   Nobody has claimed a reasonable expectation that he had, or was about to, acquire access to a firearm or knife - and thus become a threat of death or great bodily harm to the officers.   Nobody says that he shot an officer with a taser and was about to steal that defenseless officer's gun.   The cop shot a man who was running away from him while pointing a non-lethal taser at him.

Pointing a taser while running away should not get you shot and killed.   Police have to interact with drunks -  and emotionally unstable people - and mentally ill people.   It is PART OF THEIR FUCKING  JOB TO DEAL WITH THAT COMMON SITUATION!     Your conclusion that they  can shoot a person who does not have a lethal weapon and who is running from them as 'justified' and 'not particularly close'  is flat wrong. 

You sure that taser was single deployment?  What’s the basis for that?

[Gatorubet 30,246]

10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Cop was probably justified in shooting the guy. I think he was within the rules of the PD and even common sense to do it.

Not trying to be a dick, but based on what?  I'm basing mine on my years of civil rights and excessive force litigation, my review of loads of LE policy and procedure manuals, hiring and deposing experts on excessive force, and reviewing case law on the issue.   While qualified immunity and the "moment of force/moment of threat" doctrines are good for cops, the whole concept of shooting at people fleeing you has been settled to some extent.  See Tennessee v Garner and the more recent Rickard case.   There are really two justification for the use of deadly force here - to protect the officer's life or the life of another innocent party.  The other is to stop someone from escaping - BUT - only if there is a reasonably objective belief that the officer thinks the escapee poses a dangerous threat to others.

You can shoot the agitated guy with the gun after he points it at you and is running away, as he might shoot anyone he encounters while fleeing.    But are you in the middle of an uninhabited desert road,  or in a populated area?  That decides the reasonableness of the belief that he is a threat to others.   You can't shoot the guy who stole a purse and is running, as an objective belief justifying use of deadly force (a threat to others) does not exist the way it does in the first example.  There is also this: if a person was a threat ten seconds ago, you can't shoot him now, when he is not, because he was.    The license to shoot is not on-going just because once upon a time you were justified.    For example, you can shoot the guy holding a knife who is 15 feet away and advancing, but you can't shoot him twenty seconds later after he decides to back away 30 feet toward a wall. 

This is not some "who could have imagined this scenario?" thing peeps.    This is what every department's officers  should have learned at the Academy, at their own department training, and at refresher classes.  The fact that cops do not think they have to follow the law and procedures, and that they usually can easily make up the reason to get off has been the cultural e problem.   Security cameras and cell phones and body cams have rocked their lying cop world lately.   It is just damn inconvenient not to have your story be the only one told when the guy is dead on the ground. #bodycamsorquit

[Gatorubet 30,246]

20 minutes ago, John Lawrence said:

You sure that taser was single deployment?  What’s the basis for that?

Good point.  Maybe taser technology has advanced in the years since I litigated this stuff.  But in the past the officers had to replace the taser cartridge upon use.   I'm assuming that  the guy was not in possession of that.  Could be wrong.

[CfRhTxStBobcats 602]

Time to start showing some dumbass white guys doing stupid shit and getting shot. You know there has to be plenty of them just not sure why it never makes national news.

[Anastasis 23,477]

10 minutes ago, CfRhTxStBobcats said:

Time to start showing some dumbass white guys doing stupid shit and getting shot. You know there has to be plenty of them just not sure why it never makes national news.

f the police.

 

[Braff Zacklin 13,625]

Shaver's death and the related murder trial made national headlines.

Not only did it end in a predictable acquittal, the city of Mesa, Ariz., later chose to reward the sociopath responsible for Shaver's death with a pension worth millions of dollars.

https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/after-murder-acquittal-mesa-ex-cop-philip-brailsford-made-a-pension-deal

[Braff Zacklin 13,625]

Those protesting, "B-b-b-but it's also happening to white people!" are missing the point. Yes, law enforcement in this country is corrupt and executes its duties with an "us versus them, comply or die!" mentality that needs to change, from top to bottom.

But if you don't think people of color, particularly blacks, are being singled out and harassed simply for the color of their skin--simply because they are less likely to fight back--then you are denying reality.

EDIT: I just want to add that this video encapsulates so much of what is wrong with law enforcement. Not only how police target minorities and work to quotas, but also how there's this pervasive culture of fear and rubber stamping any action, no matter how lethal or unnecessary, so long as the officer could claim mortal fear was a factor.

2nd EDIT: Also, this video was posted nearly five years ago, in August 2015. Note the anecdote about the chase and how the one cop kicked the fully restrained and incapacitated suspect in the head, presumably because he was upset at losing the footrace. Yeah, the guy who passed out in his car at the Wendy's and later fought and ran from police and then half-hearted pointed a less-lethal weapon in the general direction of his pursuers made some very stupid decisions, but make no mistake: he was murdered unnecessarily because the cops were pissed (and embarrassed) that he got away from them. That is not justification for an execution.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Braff Zacklin

[TwiceHorn 31,503]

5 hours ago, John Lawrence said:

Those countries do not have guns like we do nor do they have our demographics.  If you want to talk about confiscating guns, we can have that talk. I don't see how it is done.  But a cop in Sweden and Germany is not facing what our cops face.  I don't want our cops wearing tact gear and whipping out machine guns.  I want drugs legalized and think it will cure a whole lot of this.  But patrolling East St. Louis isn't the same is patrolling Munich, The Hague, or Zurich.

And use of force stats by race are meaningless.  Males make up 95% of police shootings.  Does that mean cops are sexist against males?  Or maybe, and I am just spit balling here, males are more likely to resist, point a gun at, and assault cops?

60 year olds don't have force used against them at the rate 18 year olds do either.  It isn't due to age discrimination.

 

 

 

An interesting add on would be, for 10,000 blacks arrested and subsequently convicted for a violent crime, how many were killed.  Same for whites.

You have to KNOW that more blacks are falsely or incorrectly arrested for violent crimes and subsequently not prosecuted or acquitted.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,446]

23 hours ago, scottsins said:

They tried to taze him but he took one cop’s taser, ran and then attempted to taze a cop while running away from him. Said cop then Un-holstered his pistol and opened fire.

I mean, the cop KNEW it was a taser because it was just taken from his partner while the two of them struggled with the suspect.

 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Wonder why he wasn’t shot 

[Iceman 2,719]

should have been fucking shot.

 

was a threat to the public.  at that point, game over.

[Gatorubet 30,246]

53 minutes ago, Iceman said:

should have been fucking shot.

 

was a threat to the public.  at that point, game over.

  You do not shoot a drunk guy in the back because he is running away with your taser.  In this country.   Under our laws. IOW, your opinion is worthless.

[freyguy 4,278]

I bet if we start raking every single of these cop shootings thru the media and public scrutiny (black, white, whatever), we will see an uncomfortable percentage of them as questionable outcomes.  This data needs to be collected and reviewed for us to improve as a society.

[Sawbonz 27,580]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

  You do not shoot a drunk guy in the back because he is running away with your taser.  In this country.   Under our laws. IOW, your opinion is worthless.

I think he’s talking about the scottsins video

[Murfdogg21 4,413]

Cop should have painted the sidewalk with that crazy white boy’s gray matter. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Murfdogg21

[Gatorubet 30,246]

35 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I think he’s talking about the scottsins video

Fuck.  That video did not come up for me till I went to the link.  I though it was another Atlanta video.  My bad.  Iceman's opinion  is 100% correct - and I am wrong. 

Doubletap to the  chest of that guy as he ran at the cop is within his rights.  That is indeed a threat to the cop.  He does not have to hope the kid is not going to overpower him, take his gun and shoot him. Deadly force is a legitimate option.  

[Brisketexan 105,160]

What about the resisting arrest, and taking of police weapon, and evading arrest... so 4 crimes in succession, each anywhere from misdemeanor to felony... should they just let him run away and sleep it off?

They should take the path that is most likely to preserve human life - other people, the suspect, all human life.

The point of the matter is someone died (I'd say murdered but know that'll cause more contention.) 
Did the cop have to kill him?
I don't believe he should have.

And this here.
I am afraid this is going to be a case where legally, they COULD use deadly force - so it’s not murder. But the question for public servants should NEVER be “can i shoot this guy?” It should always be “SHOULD I shoot this guy?”

whats the response to someone whos forceful and violent, who took your weapon, and brandished it against you? 
 
beat him on the toe with a billy club?

Contain him. He’s a big drunk guy. Pursue him at a safe distance. Make sure he doesn’t hurt anyone else. But you should do everything you can reasonably to to AVOID KILLING A PERSON. Shit, any concealed carry class worth a shit teaches you that. Do everything you can NOT to ever use your gun. That also means avoiding putting yourself in a situation where you have to use it.

[John Lawrence 244]

42 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

  You do not shoot a drunk guy in the back because he is running away with your taser.  In this country.   Under our laws. IOW, your opinion is worthless.

He should have dropped the taser if he just wanted to run away.   He didn’t.  He chose to point it and shoot it at a cop.  
 

Most tasers used these days are capable of multiple shots, by the way. 

[dcar00 14,281]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They should take the path that is most likely to preserve human life - other people, the suspect, all human life.

Contain him. He’s a big drunk guy. Pursue him at a safe distance. Make sure he doesn’t hurt anyone else. But you should do everything you can reasonably to to AVOID KILLING A PERSON. Shit, any concealed carry class worth a shit teaches you that. Do everything you can NOT to ever use your gun. That also means avoiding putting yourself in a situation where you have to use it.

Are you looking for Jordan Rules or maybe a Box and 1?   1-3-1 trap might work?  maybe you can call up Coach Pop(certainly not Shaka).  I'm sure he'd love to come splain to the heathen evil cops.  the suspect, by the way, is 3rd on the list always. regardless of color of skin.

Edited June 15, 2020 by dcar00

[ChickenSandwich 9,843]

7 hours ago, seven said:

Go ahead and continue using your "demographics" argument, I'm just letting you know everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. 

Sure thing Hugo. Go back to your hole. 
 

Asking questions, gathering information (what argument?) it’s not the single variable issue you’d like to make it. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[InkaUtexas 25,998]

nuff said. 

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see
Oh, what's going on
What's going on
Yeah, what's going on
Ah, what's going on

I know where I stand. We are better. Let us prove it. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by InkaUtexas

[Iceman 2,719]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

  You do not shoot a drunk guy in the back because he is running away with your taser.  In this country.   Under our laws. IOW, your opinion is worthless.

Once he was in the vehicle..  Not incorrect.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Iceman

[Hornius Emeritus 12,472]

SIAP   but ... Holy Crap. This is straight up execution in broad daylight.  They don't even bother to turn off their body cameras. Just waste this homeless guy for no reason.  If you haven't seen this, it is VERY disturbing.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,160]

SIAP   but ... Holy Crap. This is straight up execution in broad daylight.  They don't even bother to turn off their body cameras. Just waste this homeless guy for no reason.  If you haven't seen this, it is VERY disturbing.

 
 

The ABQ police have long been a WHOLE different level of psychotic. Seriously....they’re super-murdery.

[WBT 20,620]

Heisenberg still has them jumpy

[EuroHorn 3,265]

That Albuquerque shooting was from last year

 

Quote

Multiple callers had reported 57-year-old Roger Schafer was at the bus stop on Eubank near Copper NE one August afternoon. They said he was armed with a gun, tossing it from hand to hand, “pulling the action back” and pointing it at traffic.

By the time five officers approached him, fanned out in formation with their guns drawn, he was lying on the sidewalk, his arms over his eyes, using his belongings as a pillow.

Quote

But the situation quickly changed, and three officers ended up firing at least 15 rounds at Schafer as they say he grabbed the gun stashed in his waistband. The gun turned out to be a semi-automatic BB pistol resembling a 9 mm handgun.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1380152/apd-man-shot-by-officers-in-august-was-armed-with-bb-gun.html

[bluto 4,932]

After reading the background on that homeless shooting I can’t really fault the cops on that, there was no way of knowing what he was packing. They gave him very clear directions on what to and not to do. (This is all under the assumption they were in fact responding to multiple calls about the guy playing with a gun/pointing it)

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13,119]

15 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

What’ll be real jaw dropping is if you polled white america...how many would have remorse for those who were white and gunned down compared to those who are black and gunned down.


And yes I’m guilty af for that bias. If Floyd was white and gunned down(not murdered) for resisting and we saw his track record including drugs and holding a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach..a majority of white america would say good riddance, trash. We disregard human life so quick. Maybe it’s something us whites need to work on ourselves

Guilty, but it’s not about color for me. I view every incident with an open mind and don’t automatically support police or come at it with a fuck the police attitude. Some people are guilty of disregarding their own lives. I’m a firm believer that society is better off without certain people/cultures  in it and it has nothing to do with the color of skin. I just don’t think it’s the cop’s decision to make, unless it’s absolutely necessary.

[SHOOTER12 8,811]

SIAP

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- The Harris County District Attorney's Office is looking into the arrest of George Floyd made by the former HPD officer who is charged with murder over a deadly botched narcotics raid in 2019 at a home on Harding Street.

READ ALSO: HPD DRUG RAID TIMELINE: Before the raid to now

District Attorney Kim Ogg spoke to the Wall Street Journal last week about Floyd's 2004 drug conviction.

Accordingto the article published on June 12, Ogg concluded that Goines likely lied when he arrested Floyd on a minor drug offense for which Floyd served time in state jail.

Thousands of Goines' drug cases are under review or have been dismissed.

[Armybrat 40,851]

Art Acevedo still defending his narc unit?

[dcar00 14,281]

9 hours ago, bluto said:

After reading the background on that homeless shooting I can’t really fault the cops on that, there was no way of knowing what he was packing. They gave him very clear directions on what to and not to do. (This is all under the assumption they were in fact responding to multiple calls about the guy playing with a gun/pointing it)

nope aaaaargh! those guys are super murdery with quick triggers.  needed to run a 2-3 zone on him and trap him in the corner.

[BabaYaga 15,301]

I"m sure this will end well (SIAP), but 77% of trucker polled indicating they will not deliver to cities that defund the police - citing safety concerns.  

Won't deliver to cities that defund

Quote

Truck driving is historically ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. In 2018, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic reported truck driving as the most deadly job in the country.......Truck drivers have spent the last year on the front line of a global pandemic and protests. Now many are fearful of what might happen if police departments disband or are defunded.

Disbanded, sure.  But nobody is really talking about disbanding.  This seems like one union protecting another.  

[Guest Lobo]

Serious question for LEO's on here for that ABQ shooting.  If you dispatch a squad of 8/two fire teams since y'all like to play military dressup.....why can't just one guy in the group have rubber bullets?  You blend him into the front line, or bring him around the rear or flank?  Everybody in the group knows who he is ahead of time, but obviously the suspect doesn't.  You make your commands, posture your show of force, draw your weapons if they don't comply and get ready to bring the hammer down.  The last command the non-compliant suspect hears is "or lethal force will be used against you."  Fire a warning shot, which I think is insane but a possibility. Or just have the one guy in your squad pop the suspect a few times with rubber bullets, up to, and including the head so the lights go out for awhile and you can search him.  

I mean, honest question---do police understand you can search and disarm someone just as easily when they're unconscious as when they're dead.  And the paperwork is so much easier.  Why does everybody show up with only live ammunition to a call?  Is that some sort of union prescribed law you have to follow, lest you forfeit your pension?  Now, if it's just 1 or 2 cops...then yeah...you can't fuck around with rubber bullets.  It's lethal or nothing.  But if show up with 8 guys, why can't 1 have rubber ammo?  

Now, tactically speaking.  These guys have all the cool gear but it didn't occur to one of them to come around from the north or east side of the bus stop?  You can tell by the shadows that all of them made a single file frontal assault posture to the guy.  Obviously part of this is intimidation to get the suspect to immediately comply, I get that.  But you're not getting your partner's back, not letting him make it home safely tonight to his family, if you're all just in a straight line of vulnerability of a guy who you think may have a handgun.  Also, the sun is in his eyes so you're now inviting a situation where he just starts blindly shooting into traffic and your line of partners in blue.  Also, behind him is a densely crowded parking lot at a retail center.  You opened fire with semi-automatic rifles.  I think the report was 12 rounds went off.  I know you're all crack shots, but that was fucking dumber than dumb.  All that background, and those bus stops mesh backings look "metal" but they're lowest bidder glorified chain link fencing with smaller gaps.  That's not gonna stop rounds from screaming through that parking lot and taking out some kid low to the ground or someone sitting in a subcompact.  That was beyond stupid, even dumber than shooting an unarmed homeless man because he didn't move that fast.  

I miss when law enforcement was mostly ex-military, because at least y'all had some training.  Now it's every other dipshit with 8 weeks on his hands to take a training academy.  Nothing about this situation made sense strategically or tactically.  A junior high student could have simply rammed the guy with that shopping cart, knocking him down, giving you a moment to search his waistband.  Instead you have to confess, now that this video is circulating around social media, to your children that you murdered a man with mental illness in broad daylight, almost taking out some civilians in the process because you're incompetent.  

[freyguy 4,278]

32 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I"m sure this will end well (SIAP), but 77% of trucker polled indicating they will not deliver to cities that defund the police - citing safety concerns.  

Won't deliver to cities that defund

Disbanded, sure.  But nobody is really talking about disbanding.  This seems like one union protecting another.  

riiight.  Sure they won't... 

[Guest Lobo]

Already had our first hazard pay conversation.  These drivers aren't unionized, but collectively they number 500 full-time, and almost that many independent flex guys.  So we'd have to pay attention.  I know it's horrible timing, but all I can picture is that diner scene in "Goodfellas" when the driver exclaims that two gentlemen of color accosted his commercial vehicle.  There's not gonna be hoards of gangs roaming industrial parks looking to knock off trailers. 

That will, however, provide an excellent cover story for organized crime to make a roaring comeback and start bribing drivers to tell them what's inside and then a mile or two before the terminal, make up some story about getting a group of people that forced them into a parking lot where the truck was cross-docked into two or three unmarked panel trucks operated by Vinny and Tommy.  You usually run 2-3% shrinkage anyway with damage unloading, damage during transit, lost to accident, lost to fire, couple of sticky fingers on the client's end, etc.  Cost of doing business.  This could provide a few months runway of 10% shrinkage if the mob does it right.  Which they won't...because they're them.  But it'll be enough to be noticed.  These guys haven't pulled anything like this in so long, the ones who knew how to do it back in the day are mostly dead.  But yeah, not to discriminate, but fuck 'em...you see a group of septagenarian Italian guys hanging out in industrial parks saying shit like, "Feels good to be back together fellas."....that's what's going on.  I smell Netflix series!

[BabaYaga 15,301]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

10% shrinkage

[BabaYaga 15,301]

42 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Serious question for LEO's on here for that ABQ shooting.  If you dispatch a squad of 8/two fire teams since y'all like to play military dressup.....why can't just one guy in the group have rubber bullets?  You blend him into the front line, or bring him around the rear or flank?  Everybody in the group knows who he is ahead of time, but obviously the suspect doesn't.  You make your commands, posture your show of force, draw your weapons if they don't comply and get ready to bring the hammer down.  The last command the non-compliant suspect hears is "or lethal force will be used against you."  Fire a warning shot, which I think is insane but a possibility. Or just have the one guy in your squad pop the suspect a few times with rubber bullets, up to, and including the head so the lights go out for awhile and you can search him.  

I mean, honest question---do police understand you can search and disarm someone just as easily when they're unconscious as when they're dead.  And the paperwork is so much easier.  Why does everybody show up with only live ammunition to a call?  Is that some sort of union prescribed law you have to follow, lest you forfeit your pension?  Now, if it's just 1 or 2 cops...then yeah...you can't fuck around with rubber bullets.  It's lethal or nothing.  But if show up with 8 guys, why can't 1 have rubber ammo?  

Now, tactically speaking.  These guys have all the cool gear but it didn't occur to one of them to come around from the north or east side of the bus stop?  You can tell by the shadows that all of them made a single file frontal assault posture to the guy.  Obviously part of this is intimidation to get the suspect to immediately comply, I get that.  But you're not getting your partner's back, not letting him make it home safely tonight to his family, if you're all just in a straight line of vulnerability of a guy who you think may have a handgun.  Also, the sun is in his eyes so you're now inviting a situation where he just starts blindly shooting into traffic and your line of partners in blue.  Also, behind him is a densely crowded parking lot at a retail center.  You opened fire with semi-automatic rifles.  I think the report was 12 rounds went off.  I know you're all crack shots, but that was fucking dumber than dumb.  All that background, and those bus stops mesh backings look "metal" but they're lowest bidder glorified chain link fencing with smaller gaps.  That's not gonna stop rounds from screaming through that parking lot and taking out some kid low to the ground or someone sitting in a subcompact.  That was beyond stupid, even dumber than shooting an unarmed homeless man because he didn't move that fast.  

I miss when law enforcement was mostly ex-military, because at least y'all had some training.  Now it's every other dipshit with 8 weeks on his hands to take a training academy.  Nothing about this situation made sense strategically or tactically.  A junior high student could have simply rammed the guy with that shopping cart, knocking him down, giving you a moment to search his waistband.  Instead you have to confess, now that this video is circulating around social media, to your children that you murdered a man with mental illness in broad daylight, almost taking out some civilians in the process because you're incompetent.  

Not LEO, but I do think most have 'non-lethal" options in the car, like bean-bags in the shotgun, etc.  Not 100% sure on this.  They all do have tasers for this express purpose, but they are limited in their range and efficacy.  

As for the last paragraph, I think this is the crux of the argument for so many against defunding.  They need more training.  More hours spent learning how to de-escalate and inoculation to stress.  More access to resources, which is why so many are tasked with wearing so many different hats.  They don't have the resources needed to address the myriad of scenarios the face daily.  Hell, mandatory BJJ training would be a hell of a good start.  

[Guest Lobo]

I realize taser would not be possible right there given the range.  However one guy out of 8 could have rubber bullets to use as first couple shots.  They have a range of 100m with true effectiveness tapering off around 60-70m.  They were for sure within that range.  But their brilliant idea is he's got a gun so let's line up in a straight line between him and a blinding sun.  That way if he tries to just move left to right on us with his weapon, he either gets a handful of us or he ends up shooting into the line of stopped cars immediately behind us.  

Also---what the fuck was that all about?  Either turn around and yell to everybody to put their cars in park and slink down or get out on the driver's side and stay low in case this crazy guy does open fire.  Or wait until a green light behind you so the cars start zipping by, rendering a shot by him pretty much impossible.  Nope.  Let's just start shooting with no concern for what's behind us that he might hit or what's behind him that we might hit.  

If you're a cop in a fucking desert and they don't train on how to use the sun to your advantage, or how it can prove disadvantageous to you, that's on your superiors and you should sue their ass for putting you in a position to lose your pension.  

[BabaYaga 15,301]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

I realize taser would not be possible right there given the range.  However one guy out of 8 could have rubber bullets to use as first couple shots.  They have a range of 100m with true effectiveness tapering off around 60-70m.  They were for sure within that range.  But their brilliant idea is he's got a gun so let's line up in a straight line between him and a blinding sun.  That way if he tries to just move left to right on us with his weapon, he either gets a handful of us or he ends up shooting into the line of stopped cars immediately behind us.  

Also---what the fuck was that all about?  Either turn around and yell to everybody to put their cars in park and slink down or get out on the driver's side and stay low in case this crazy guy does open fire.  Or wait until a green light behind you so the cars start zipping by, rendering a shot by him pretty much impossible.  Nope.  Let's just start shooting with no concern for what's behind us that he might hit or what's behind him that we might hit.  

If you're a cop in a fucking desert and they don't train on how to use the sun to your advantage, or how it can prove disadvantageous to you, that's on your superiors and you should sue their ass for putting you in a position to lose your pension.  

Sure.  Be super easy to have a few specialty mags loaded with squibs, rubber bullets, etc.  I can say they aren't accurate for shit.  They yaw and corkscrew all over the damn place, which is why they are fired in mass and at the ground to have them skip up into people - making functional accuracy even less.  I'd rather some guy have a beanbag and punch whomever square in the chest with it.  Those will put you on your ass without much concern for bodily harm.  Mitigates concern for down range casualties as well.  You just have to get in close to use them.  

Everything else is a case study in needing significantly more training.  

[Guest Lobo]

^

absolutely right, we're just talking about issue upon issue that require more training.  Something that is sure as shit not going to come as more and more cities wrestle with significant cuts to police budgets.  We just had a call about the $40-$60mm (can't remember exactly) on Friday, that is still left in the 2 public safety bond floats ago (2012 I wanna say).  Paper has been sold, council wants us to basically verify the amounts to pass on to them to vote that they are just going to reallocate that money to public health and EMS.  Now that's just previous bond money, we're not part of the process that's gonna cut their annual budget appropriation...but I'll say this...the vibe I got from council is it's going to be a pissing contest over which one of them can propose the most draconian cuts.  

And when it comes to budget cuts in whatever form they look like (Bond money is usual a cap-ex obviously for shit like renovations to stations, new cars, etc.), you can bet training is gonna be bottom of the list.  They're not gonna cut protective gear, overtime pay, armored toys, shit like that.  They will live with out-dated buildings, older cars, etc.  They'll take those kinds of cuts, but training is gonna be kicked down the road.  The number one thing they need is de-escalation training, period.  Full stop.  Time and time again, they are called to something that is largely victimless and they just keep raising the bar and raising the bar until of course the person does something out of fear, and they find an excuse to murder them.  Happens every fucking week in this country.  These guys don't know how to keep a nothing-doing situation on a calm plane.  They just cannot fucking handle it.  It's happened to me on a traffic stop on our own campus.  

I'll leave you with this fun future high school civics project for one of y'all with kids looking to write an epic college application essay that'll get them into any college of their choosing.  Police budgets in urban areas are about to take a hit.  Not defunded, not disbanded.  But it's going to happen all over the country.  It's one of the few things pressured city councils and alderman can do right now.  They can't appease police departements anymore if they are voted out of office so a 2-year pissing contest is about to begin (actually it already has) so these elected officials can keep their jobs to fight another day.  And no way are those same councils gonna let PD's make the difference by floating bonds in the next 1-2 election cycles.  You are about to see civil forfeitures, despite all the progress made recently in harnessing them back to Earth, spike massively.  That's how they're gonna make up part of the funding deficit.  In four years time you'll be able to draw a straight fucking line where budget allocations decreased on a straight line for 4 years at 20% cut YOY, and then you'll see overall expenditures stay relatively flat with the delta being made up civic asset forfeiture (I realize I'm not describing the graph well, but you get the point).  This is coming very soon.  Basically as soon as the protests are over, it'll be back to asset grabs on steroids.  

[BradInATX 9,208]

14 hours ago, John Lawrence said:

He should have dropped the taser if he just wanted to run away.   He didn’t.  He chose to point it and shoot it at a cop.  
 

Most tasers used these days are capable of multiple shots, by the way. 

 

"Tasers are a totally cool and non-lethal way for cops to subdue suspects"

Also

"Tasers are so dangerous that the police needed to shoot and kill a suspect who had procured one and was running away from them"

Edited June 15, 2020 by BradInATX

[Eskimohorn 5,635]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but every city, county, state, and our federal government will be facing massive shortfalls in the upcoming budget cycles. We will be defunding just about everything.

[MissingInAction 25,110]