Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,823
Who is advocating that?
The behaviour of US police officers
- Thread starter Nessie
- Start date
- Status
Who is advocating that?
Yes. I think 2 is key. 18,000 organisations with police powers is a recipe for disaster.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,193
There was a similar incident in Scotland, where police arrested a black male and his death certificate recorded death due to;
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...ificate-confirms-presence-zombie-drug-flakka/
"“Sudden death in a man intoxicated by methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstacy) and alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone whilst being restrained.”
He had numerous injuries, including a broken rib, but the prosecutor in Scotland declined to prosecute the police officers involved.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
By the wiki it seems that it was more than two officers though the police refuse to comment on how many officers shot at that wrong make and color pick up truck with two hispanic women in it. There were two other trucks they opened fire on that were also the wrong make and color.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt#Truck_misidentifications
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Cities all over America dropping charges against BLM protesters
Partial transcript.
In cities across the country charges against BLM protesters are being dropped in at least 90% overall, and in some specific areas, much higher rates than that. The reason is because police cannot provide a shred of evidence to suggest that any of these individuals committed crimes
Here are some specific numbers for you
Houston and Los Angeles - 93% of charges were either dropped or never filed
Dallas and Philadelphia - 95% of charges dropped or never prosecuted
San Francisco - 100% of the 127 cases related to peaceful protesting were dropped
And yet each one of these individuals, hundreds , perhaps thousands of them actually arrested, taken off the streets, put in handcuffs, stuffed into a paddy wagon, taken down to the station for processing and then never charged because there was no evidence.
So what does that tell us? Well, it tells me that there's probably going to be some pretty massive civil lawsuits coming for violation of first amendment freedoms. That they took these people off the streets just because they wanted to. Not because it was a reason to, not because these individuals were breaking the law, but at least 90% of them were removed, had their first amendment right to peaceably assemble violated because the cops just said, yeah, I want you gone. Here's your handcuffs. Come with me.
That's what we're dealing with with policing here in the United States today - that's what we have to work with in this country. The first amendment rights of American citizens are just being trampled on because these wannabe little Rambo, thin skinned cops don't want people in the streets. They don't want people to protest them because let's not forget. That's what all was. That's what these protests were about. It was about over policing. It was about police brutality. And so in response to police brutality, protesters, they say, we're going to go another step further now. And we're going to violate your first amendment freedoms. That's what American police do. They do it in Republican controlled cities. They do it in Democrat controlled cities. It doesn't matter who is in charge. If police wants you gone, they're going to make you gone. And you're going to sit there for months like these people did waiting to find out if you're going to be charged, waiting to find out if you need to pay big money to hire a lawyer, raise money for a legal defense. These people were essentially left in limbo, not knowing what to do or what the next steps were going to be. Until finally recently they got some closure and learned that not only did they do nothing wrong, but they had their first amendment freedoms trampled, because cops are a little sensitive.
Partial transcript.
In cities across the country charges against BLM protesters are being dropped in at least 90% overall, and in some specific areas, much higher rates than that. The reason is because police cannot provide a shred of evidence to suggest that any of these individuals committed crimes
Here are some specific numbers for you
Houston and Los Angeles - 93% of charges were either dropped or never filed
Dallas and Philadelphia - 95% of charges dropped or never prosecuted
San Francisco - 100% of the 127 cases related to peaceful protesting were dropped
And yet each one of these individuals, hundreds , perhaps thousands of them actually arrested, taken off the streets, put in handcuffs, stuffed into a paddy wagon, taken down to the station for processing and then never charged because there was no evidence.
So what does that tell us? Well, it tells me that there's probably going to be some pretty massive civil lawsuits coming for violation of first amendment freedoms. That they took these people off the streets just because they wanted to. Not because it was a reason to, not because these individuals were breaking the law, but at least 90% of them were removed, had their first amendment right to peaceably assemble violated because the cops just said, yeah, I want you gone. Here's your handcuffs. Come with me.
That's what we're dealing with with policing here in the United States today - that's what we have to work with in this country. The first amendment rights of American citizens are just being trampled on because these wannabe little Rambo, thin skinned cops don't want people in the streets. They don't want people to protest them because let's not forget. That's what all was. That's what these protests were about. It was about over policing. It was about police brutality. And so in response to police brutality, protesters, they say, we're going to go another step further now. And we're going to violate your first amendment freedoms. That's what American police do. They do it in Republican controlled cities. They do it in Democrat controlled cities. It doesn't matter who is in charge. If police wants you gone, they're going to make you gone. And you're going to sit there for months like these people did waiting to find out if you're going to be charged, waiting to find out if you need to pay big money to hire a lawyer, raise money for a legal defense. These people were essentially left in limbo, not knowing what to do or what the next steps were going to be. Until finally recently they got some closure and learned that not only did they do nothing wrong, but they had their first amendment freedoms trampled, because cops are a little sensitive.
Last edited:
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I seem to recall it being two that opened fire, but I'm remembering back to news stories of the time.
The two other trucks were other incidents, and actually another department (Torrance versus LAPD). One guy both had his truck rammed and was shot at. Its a major miracle no one was killed in any of the incidents. I also recall being really mad at some official (maybe LAPD chief, not sure), who basically said since it was a cop that was killed they were just going to go around and bust open doors do whatever they wanted, screw the 4th amendment, and screw anyone that has a problem with that. Because cops lives are worth more than normies civil rights or something.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I'm just picking your comment as an example... this is more of a general response.
OK.. so I finally forced myself to watch yet another video of police shooting someone. A member of the public was being immediately threatened with a deadly weapon, cop on the scene had very very little time to react and use force. If he hadn't there is a very real chance the other girl would be dead or severely wounded. Its an appropriate time to use deadly force. She didn't drop the knife, she wasn't running away, in fact it sure looks to me like she was trying to stab the other girl in the neck.
I'm all for looking at European policies etc on shoot to wound... in certain controlled circumstances. You have a sniper setup capable of .5 MOA accuracy 100 yards away, aiming at a suspect in a street thats been cleared, who has a pistol in his hand. OK aim for his hand. But there wasn't time for any of that in this situation. Cop tries to shoot the knife and theres a really good chance he misses and hits the victim!
You've identified the single biggest issue and easiest fix in US law enforcement.
Your entire post boils down to LEO's being unable or unwilling to dedicate themselves to the same, rigorous standards as a serving soldier despite being in a "friendly" zone.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I will repeat on this one: If he gave an order which could not be complied with, it was a bogus order, whatever the "policeman's perspective." The argument that he could not see when his order had been complied with is clear evidence that it was, for all practical purposes no different from no order at all. Maybe it makes the difference between manslaughter and outright murder, but I think it's a technicality if the difference is in the giving of an order that cannot be followed.
You got there in the end.
That's irrelevant, what point are you trying to make?
portlandatheist
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,725
It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that a police officer with far better training than the one in the video would have responded in a different way than the officer in the video or in a better way with a better result. I'm sure better training exists, and there are numerous situations where better training would have saved somebody's life but I cannot see how it would have made much of a difference in this specific circumstance. I also don't understand why some people are taking issue with 4 shots being fired as if that was in some way undisciplined and USAian.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,823
Where has anyone mentioned shooting the knife or snipers?
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
The Columbus incident makes me wonder if most police shouldn't be required to be armed with a single action revolver, hammer down on an empty chamber. Might not stop them shooting people but at least they couldn't unload four rounds into someone in two seconds.
Would probably have prevented the Daunte Wright incident altogether.
Would probably have prevented the Daunte Wright incident altogether.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,823
It's difficult or impossible for you to imagine because you are USAian and it's the only way you know.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No one is talking about shooting anyone in the hand or shooting a gun out of a hand.
Really you guys, if you want to argue shoot to kill is the only option if you are going to shoot, at least stop with this BS straw man.
The girl who was just killed had a very large body mass. The cop was very close. If he had shot her below the waist there's no doubt she wouldn't have stabbed the other girl. Shoot the girl in the hip and she likely wouldn't be dead.
But the cop was following his training.
The discussion is about dropping the shoot to kill or don't shoot mantra. Allow some cops to take an alternative shot if they think they safely can. Look at other police models in other countries.
Open the discussion. Change the paradigm. Don't think just because it is ingrained in your belief system that you can't possibly challenge that belief.
Last edited:
portlandatheist
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,725
What exactly do you think a very well-trained Danish cop would have done in this specific circumstance? I can imagine they would do better than US cops in many other circumstances mentioned in the thread but not in this one. I think they would have done exactly the same thing.
A question on the highlighted stat.
You say that 46 rounds hit people. As phrased, that's the number of rounds, not the number people that were shot. I'm curious because I'm looking for the percentage of police shootings that were fatal. If those 46 rounds hit 20 people, then you are looking at a 35% fatality rate in police shootings. If there were 46 separate people hit (one bullet each), then you have more like a 15% fatality rate in police shootings.
I haven't found reliable statistics for police shootings in the US, but I think the fatality rate is around 55% based on this: https://thecrimereport.org/2021/01/06/data-lacking-on-non-fatal-shootings-by-police/
But that's an article specifically about the fact that we don't have data on non-lethal shootings.
Basically, I'm looking for a way to compare those numbers to US numbers in a meaningful way.
- Status