RugbyRebels

FFS

On the one hand, I do have some sympathy for the policeman - they're called to a situation where there's a shooting and armed suspects and they come across someone pointing a gun at someone else. On the other, there's absolutely no doubt that they saw a black man and immediately assumed they'd found their dangerous criminal who needed shooting, rather than talking to.

The whole thing is just an inditement of American gun culture though. Ignoring the lunacy of the criminals being able to get their hands on the guns in the first place, having armed civilian heroes just creates confusion in a fraught situation and is an invitation for trouble. On top of that, having lethally armed police is a terrible idea - they're poorly trained, they're likely to be (at the bare minimum) subconsciously racist, and when mistakes are made they cannot be undone.

Puja

Puja wrote:On the one hand, I do have some sympathy for the policeman - they're called to a situation where there's a shooting and armed suspects and they come across someone pointing a gun at someone else. On the other, there's absolutely no doubt that they saw a black man and immediately assumed they'd found their dangerous criminal who needed shooting, rather than talking to.

The whole thing is just an inditement of American gun culture though. Ignoring the lunacy of the criminals being able to get their hands on the guns in the first place, having armed civilian heroes just creates confusion in a fraught situation and is an invitation for trouble. On top of that, having lethally armed police is a terrible idea - they're poorly trained, they're likely to be (at the bare minimum) subconsciously racist, and when mistakes are made they cannot be undone.

Puja

When all policemen are armed, the standard is hugely diluted. But, having policed some interesting parts of the world, I’d be wary of policing parts of America without a firearm.

If a policeman turns up to an incident and sees a person with a firearm, pretty much everything else becomes secondary. That person need to comply very quickly and not be a threat. But there is a real culture of firepower in the US uniformed services and that’s before any subliminal or overt racism or any other ism comes into play.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:On the one hand, I do have some sympathy for the policeman - they're called to a situation where there's a shooting and armed suspects and they come across someone pointing a gun at someone else. On the other, there's absolutely no doubt that they saw a black man and immediately assumed they'd found their dangerous criminal who needed shooting, rather than talking to.

The whole thing is just an inditement of American gun culture though. Ignoring the lunacy of the criminals being able to get their hands on the guns in the first place, having armed civilian heroes just creates confusion in a fraught situation and is an invitation for trouble. On top of that, having lethally armed police is a terrible idea - they're poorly trained, they're likely to be (at the bare minimum) subconsciously racist, and when mistakes are made they cannot be undone.

Puja

When all policemen are armed, the standard is hugely diluted. But, having policed some interesting parts of the world, I’d be wary of policing parts of America without a firearm.

If a policeman turns up to an incident and sees a person with a firearm, pretty much everything else becomes secondary. That person need to comply very quickly and not be a threat. But there is a real culture of firepower in the US uniformed services and that’s before any subliminal or overt racism or any other ism comes into play.

While a tazer is far from a perfect solution for many disparate reasons, I would still far prefer it to police being armed with guns on the basis that someone who is tazed inappropriately is usually able to recover and sue personally, rather than leaving that to their bereaved relatives. However, I have no experience with policing myself - what's your take on that?

Puja

Tasers, and other non lethal weapons, have a real place. Policemen are trained to use the force pyramid where you escalate the response in response to the threat posed, but try to reduce it again as soon as possible.

So there has to be something between voice and hands to firearm. Batons are good but when dealing with a knife attacker, it’s better for everyone if they can be stopped as a distance. Tasers are great in this situation.

If someone has a fire arm and they appear to be a threat (not sure from the article how the weapon was held and where it was pointed) then they I’d go for the option that met or exceeded the threat. Training would indicate the need to try and control ththe situation, perhaps with a range of options. But if the officer felt th threat was imminent then the use of a firearm could be justified. That assumes that the police officer in question wasn’t just being racist and that other options weren’t available.

Sandydragon wrote:Tasers, and other non lethal weapons, have a real place. Policemen are trained to use the force pyramid where you escalate the response in response to the threat posed, but try to reduce it again as soon as possible.

So there has to be something between voice and hands to firearm. Batons are good but when dealing with a knife attacker, it’s better for everyone if they can be stopped as a distance. Tasers are great in this situation.

If someone has a fire arm and they appear to be a threat (not sure from the article how the weapon was held and where it was pointed) then they I’d go for the option that met or exceeded the threat. Training would indicate the need to try and control ththe situation, perhaps with a range of options. But if the officer felt th threat was imminent then the use of a firearm could be justified. That assumes that the police officer in question wasn’t just being racist and that other options weren’t available.

So how come a firearm is superior to a taser when dealing with someone holding a firearm? From my understanding, a taser incapacitates as well as a bullet does and as quickly, so what's the advantage to using a gun?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Tasers, and other non lethal weapons, have a real place. Policemen are trained to use the force pyramid where you escalate the response in response to the threat posed, but try to reduce it again as soon as possible.

So there has to be something between voice and hands to firearm. Batons are good but when dealing with a knife attacker, it’s better for everyone if they can be stopped as a distance. Tasers are great in this situation.

If someone has a fire arm and they appear to be a threat (not sure from the article how the weapon was held and where it was pointed) then they I’d go for the option that met or exceeded the threat. Training would indicate the need to try and control ththe situation, perhaps with a range of options. But if the officer felt th threat was imminent then the use of a firearm could be justified. That assumes that the police officer in question wasn’t just being racist and that other options weren’t available.

So how come a firearm is superior to a taser when dealing with someone holding a firearm? From my understanding, a taser incapacitates as well as a bullet does and as quickly, so what's the advantage to using a gun?

Puja

You have to consider range of the taser, compared to the range of a firearm. One would hope trained officers could incapacitate someone holding a knife without the need for anyone to lose their life...although, if it was a hostage situation, things could prove trickier, especially if the person holding the knife is completely irrational, unpredictable and unstable.

Also, the law enforcement officer should be afforded adequate protection for the situation. The criminals would have a massage advantage armed with live ammunition against some electricity.

That said, I really hope the latest story isn't another example of a cop just firing without finding out what is happening and who is the threat, but I won't be holding my breath.

It's no doubt a dangerous job being a cop in a country where gun laws are so lax, but you would hope they would only open fire to defend themselves, or if anyone else was in immediate life-threatening danger.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Tasers, and other non lethal weapons, have a real place. Policemen are trained to use the force pyramid where you escalate the response in response to the threat posed, but try to reduce it again as soon as possible.

So there has to be something between voice and hands to firearm. Batons are good but when dealing with a knife attacker, it’s better for everyone if they can be stopped as a distance. Tasers are great in this situation.

If someone has a fire arm and they appear to be a threat (not sure from the article how the weapon was held and where it was pointed) then they I’d go for the option that met or exceeded the threat. Training would indicate the need to try and control ththe situation, perhaps with a range of options. But if the officer felt th threat was imminent then the use of a firearm could be justified. That assumes that the police officer in question wasn’t just being racist and that other options weren’t available.

So how come a firearm is superior to a taser when dealing with someone holding a firearm? From my understanding, a taser incapacitates as well as a bullet does and as quickly, so what's the advantage to using a gun?

Puja

As WiW points out, there is a range issue. Was the officer even armed with one? The taser is normally a one shot affair as well so you have to be confident that you will hit the target first time. That’s why specialist police in this country like to have some backup on hand in case it doesn’t work as advertised.

Although it’s worth pointing out that the accurate range of a handgun isn’t that far. Personally the chief motive would be the risk of using a one shot weapon and being left exposed to a potential aggressor who could then fire back whilst I tried to deploy another weapon.

Training for armed police in the USA is seemingly rubbish, far too often it's stressing the need to deploy guns amongst a group that contains many poor shooters, and we know in live scenarios even decent shooters can see their aim go to pot

Mikey Brown wrote:Everyone following this Amber Guyger / Botham Jean thing? Is this just normal now?

Wow.

https://www.complex.com/life/2019/10/da ... complexmag

This whole equality thing really is boiling over now.

She needed to be held accountable... the story keeps getting stranger though. The key witness was killed in a drug deal gone bad, 10 days after his testimony.

Nowt wrong wi' a bit o'honesty..
She obviously had cause for entering his property and ending his life.
As the poor guy is no longer around and she was going to get banged up for a long time anyway, she may have well come clean..
That may have brought some sympathy, who knows..or opened up a massive can of juicy worms to keep things frothing for a year or two.She may have gleamed something from that whilst in forced vegetation.

Oh cool. They can just murder you from outside now. Don’t even need to break into your house.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnew ... 019-10-12/

Reading now the police department then posted a picture of a gun they found in the home, just leaving people to assume they meant the victim was armed.

Mikey Brown wrote:Oh cool. They can just murder you from outside now. Don’t even need to break into your house.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnew ... 019-10-12/

Looks like a very inexperienced officer (not an excuse for what could be judged to be murder, just a statement of fact).

America has a real problem with guns and this is another manifestation of it where police officers feel such a threat that they go into situations gun first. But I can’t see a solution given the entrenched politics other than arming all police officers and expecting inexperienced officers to make mistakes.

Can anyone think of anything more American than this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...a ... court-says

...
In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
...
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
...
More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.
...
Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.
...

Which Tyler wrote:Can anyone think of anything more American than this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...a ... court-says

...
In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
...
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
...
More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.
...
Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.
...

How to tell if you're living in a police state....

Which Tyler wrote:Can anyone think of anything more American than this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...a ... court-says

...
In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
...
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
...
More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.
...
Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.
...

I can’t believe that’s how that situation works. You’re only entitled to compensation if the police choose to say they weren’t acting to serve the public? Surely that must never happen?

Mikey Brown wrote: I can’t believe that’s how that situation works. You’re only entitled to compensation if the police choose to say they weren’t acting to serve the public? Surely that must never happen?

Remember - USA.

The whole thing seems entirely proportionate to me, I mean, it was 2 belts and a shirt - absolutely deserves that level of response

Which Tyler wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: I can’t believe that’s how that situation works. You’re only entitled to compensation if the police choose to say they weren’t acting to serve the public? Surely that must never happen?

Remember - USA.

The whole thing seems entirely proportionate to me, I mean, it was 2 belts and a shirt - absolutely deserves that level of response

2 belts? Fucking monster.

Remarkable restraint in all honesty.

Just hope the officers involved are offered counselling and the appropriate amount of time off to recover from their horrific experiences.

Which Tyler wrote:Can anyone think of anything more American than this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...a ... court-says

...
In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
...
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
...
More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.
...
Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.
...

That happened in 2015, and the reason the police were there is because he fled with a gun, in to a home with a 9 year old boy who called 911. The guy was in a strangers home, with a weapon, endangering the childs life. When police got there, he was shooting at them. They had to evacuate 7 homes around that house. Thank God the child got out safely.

Coco wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Can anyone think of anything more American than this?
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/7747...a ... court-says

...
In an attempt to force the suspect out, law enforcement blew up walls with explosives, fired tear gas and drove a military-style armored vehicle through the property's doors.
...
A federal appeals court in Denver ruled this week that the homeowner, who had no connection to the suspect, isn't entitled to be compensated, because the police were acting to preserve the safety of the public.
...
More than 100 officers from agencies around the Denver area responded to the incident.
...
Authorities say the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.
...

That happened in 2015, and the reason the police were there is because he fled with a gun, in to a home with a 9 year old boy who called 911. The guy was in a strangers home, with a weapon, endangering the childs life. When police got there, he was shooting at them. They had to evacuate 7 homes around that house. Thank God the child got out safely.

Context makes an awful lot more sense, so thank you for that. Although I'm still amazed at a police force both having access to and using explosives and an APC.

Puja

It still demonstrates how american the story is. In the UK no one is getting into a shoot out with the police over a couple of belts but I'm guessing that here he was facing some bullshit minimum sentence. In the UK no police are chasing the suspect of a shoplift with guns, let alone explosives and an armoured vehicle. Police state is about right.

This situation with the UPS driver taken hostage is insane. 4 people dead.

I'm sure this is the most biased, anti-American slant I could find and I've been duped yet again, but the civilian-shields part isn't a great look.