Race thread (will be moved on Monday night)

[ZagHouse]

You can watch multiple video angles online. The suspect, running away from the cop turned around while running away to point the taser on the officer who then grabbed his gun and shot the guy while running away next to a drive through line with people in cars. Thankfully no one else was killed. The officer will now need to live with this homicide and may be charged. A family will never be the same. A man is dead. Why? Because the cop couldn't let the guy run away and call for back up to arrest him on the next block.

The killing could have been avoided, like many others.

Or he could have complied and not resisted. That may have avoided the outcome as well. We always have the benefit of watching from afar. Studying eye witness accounts, camera angles (if there are any) and making a judgement from the safety of our phones. What cop wants to be under the microscope right now? But you throw in adrenaline from the struggle, night time, and whatever hardwiring from being in that job and you have another tragic outcome. Could they have cited him, taken his keys and called him an Uber? Maybe, but that’s not the law. Just like getting on the coaches after a loss, everyone’s an expert. Go on a ride along sometime and then get back to me about the need for law enforcement.

[CB4]

Or he could have complied and not resisted. That may have avoided the outcome as well. We always have the benefit of watching from afar. Studying eye witness accounts, camera angles (if there are any) and making a judgement from the safety of our phones. What cop wants to be under the microscope right now? But you throw in adrenaline from the struggle, night time, and whatever hardwiring from being in that job and you have another tragic outcome. Could they have cited him, taken his keys and called him an Uber? Maybe, but that’s not the law. Just like getting on the coaches after a loss, everyone’s an expert. Go on a ride along sometime and then get back to me about the need for law enforcement.

Running from police or assaulting an officer shouldn't be a death sentence. Yes he could have complied and avoided the situation. I have police in my family, active and retired, so please don't lecture me on the need for a ride along. Their view of things, like many police, differ significantly from the Law & Order people on this board. They realize there's a problem with the culture.

This shooting wouldn't have happened in other countries, plain and simple. Again, this wouldn't have happened in other countries but happens right here in the "Land of the Free."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ted-countries/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ers_by_country

[Zagceo]

This thread has gotten dumber and dumber ....

100%

[CB4]

The other thing I hear a lot is something like, "it's a dangerous job with dangerous and potentially dangerous people so if I am in severe physical danger I am justified using lethal defense as an officer."

Ok. Let's break down the Atlanta shooting.

Option One: commence pursuit of man with taser, lethally shoot him, commit a homicide, get charged with a crime, lose job, be cast as a racist, jeopardize financial livlihood for wife and family.

Option 2: Call for backup. Pursue criminal at safe distance to monitor location. Write report. Go to work the next day. Keep pension. Wife won't divorce me.

This is where people will say "well under option 2 the DUI suspect could have taken hostages, threatened other lives." Setting aside that this was a drunk person who by all accounts was in good spirits (watch the video) and assuming those risks are real as presented, we have 2 more outcomes, which do y'all prefer:

A: Shoot the DUI suspect who is running away
B: Call for backup and risk that suspect takes hostages or commits other crimes.

A is the preferred choice. The cop would still have his job and his pension he would have been safer and more likely to return home to his family given that he is not pursuing a criminal at close distance. The suspect would be alive, this wouldn't be another issue for police. The Atlanta police chief wouldn't have resigned.

So if this is such a bad outcome for everyone, why does it occur in the USA when it doesn't in other countries at the same egregious rate. That's the question that needs to be answered. People have given the answers to this question but are responded to with generalized disagreement.

[DZ]

This thread has gotten dumber and dumber ....

Yep.

Started good, though.

[ZagHouse]

[QUOTE=CB4;1521108]Running from police or assaulting an officer shouldn't be a death sentence. Yes he could have complied and avoided the situation. I have police in my family, active and retired, so please don't lecture me on the need for a ride along. Their view of things, like many police, differ significantly from the Law & Order people on this board. They realize there's a problem with the culture.

This shooting wouldn't have happened in other countries, plain and simple. Again, this wouldn't have happened in other countries but happens right here in the "Land of the Free."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ted-countries/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ers_by_country[/

Yikes. I wasn’t aware I was lecturing. My intention was to provide a counterpoint on how his death could have been avoided and by stating that it’s easy to armchair these situations from afar. I used your post to comment and to add my two cents, but I don’t think I ever mentioned you or said you were wrong, but that in hoping for more nuance from the police it’s hard to know what was going through their minds.

[CB4]

Yikes. I wasn’t aware I was lecturing. My intention was to provide a counterpoint on how his death could have been avoided and by stating that it’s easy to armchair these situations from afar. I used your post to comment and to add my two cents, but I don’t think I ever mentioned you or said you were wrong, but that in hoping for more nuance from the police it’s hard to know what was going through their minds.

Yeah sorry I didn't mean to be snappy with you. I've just never seen an occupation get so much deference and immunity in light of what are obvious and ongoing problems. It can be a dangerous job, no doubt. The easy solutuon is often to deesculate and realize that as a cop you don't need to dominate every situation.

No one defends basketball coaches, teachers, judges, athletes, doctors, or any other profession with the same vigor as we do police, which I think is a problem.

[ZagHouse]

[QUOTE=CB4;1521117]

Yeah sorry I didn't mean to be snappy with you. I've just never seen an occupation get so much deference and immunity in light of what are obvious and ongoing problems. It can be a dangerous job, no doubt. The easy solutuon is often to deesculate and realize that as a cop you don't need to dominate every situation.

No one defends basketball coaches, teachers, judges, athletes, doctors, or any other profession with the same vigor as we do police, which I think is a problem.

This is a passionate subject. I just wanted to point out that I wasn’t trying to be confrontational. To your point: I don’t know that’s it’s deference, but maybe because other professions don’t have the same risk or threat level associated with them. I try to look at it through the lens of a country with 320 million people and with close to 800,000 working in law enforcement. How many interactions happen on a daily basis in a country our size? How many happened today? How many last week? Now consider that most of the population has a phone with a camera. I can decry what happened to Floyd. I can think there must have been a better option in the shooting last night. I can also agree there are sensible reforms that need to take place, but I can also acknowledge that the media tends to amplify the instances of police brutality and malfeasance to fit certain narratives. When it happens and it’s wrong, it should be called out and people should demand Justice, I just don’t believe that it’s as wide spread or happening with as much frequency as some are claiming. I’ll give police officers the benefit of the doubt because they’re doing a job I wouldn’t want to do.

[CB4]

This is a passionate subject. I just wanted to point out that I wasn’t trying to be confrontational. To your point: I don’t know that’s it’s deference, but maybe because other professions don’t have the same risk or threat level associated with them. I try to look at it through the lens of a country with 320 million people and with close to 800,000 working in law enforcement. How many interactions happen on a daily basis in a country our size? How many happened today? How many last week? Now consider that most of the population has a phone with a camera. I can decry what happened to Floyd. I can think there must have been a better option in the shooting last night. I can also agree there are sensible reforms that need to take place, but I can also acknowledge that the media tends to amplify the instances of police brutality and malfeasance to fit certain narratives. When it happens and it’s wrong, it should be called out and people should demand Justice, I just don’t believe that it’s as wide spread or happening with as much frequency as some are claiming. I’ll give police officers the benefit of the doubt because they’re doing a job I wouldn’t want to do.

Fair points. But police are nearly 25x as likely to kill a citizen than in Germany. Something is up. Needs to change. As a cop nowadays the message needs to be quit playing "hero ball," de-esculate, call for backup.

[willandi]

I shared this back on page one. Almost a full circle.

“Stole the this concept from someone else, but I’ll tweak it and put my 2 cents on top of it....

You see Billy badass Marine right here? With his big ass dip in his lip, 50lbs of bull#### on, a rifle, and a face that screams “I’m tired, I’m dirty, and I’m over this ####”?

Why is it this plowhorse of a Marine can detain someone in a combat zone without beating him, or killing him?
Why is it that this pissed off, overworked, sleep deprived, likely stressed and hungry grunt can detain someone due course of a war, and not mistreat, abuse, maim, wound, or kill them?
I’ll tell you why.
Accountability.

How many stories have you heard of a soldier or Marine sent to prison for shooting the wrong person in a combat zone?
Why is it that every time a soldier or Marine discharges their weapon in a COMBAT ZONE a 15-6 investigation is launched, sworn statements are written and reviewed, and that soldier or Marines entire future is on the line?
Every Combat Soldier, and Marine, knows that if they don’t do the right thing (and sometimes even if they do) they’re facing hefty repercussions.

On the flip side of that, how many times has a police officer drew their weapon on someone for no reason? Because they’re scared? With zero consequence?
How many times has a police officer shot and killed someone when it was wholly unnecessary and could have been avoided?
And how many times have those things been swept under the rug, brushed aside, covered up, and nothing happened?

WHY do we have soldiers and marines, overseas, in combat zones, shackled with overly strict ROE and expected to use discretion and act as police? Soldiers and Marines who have spent their time and efforts training learning how to KILL.....
And then we hammer their ass when they do?
Yet, we have police officers and deputies here in the US, who have spent their time and efforts learning how to avoid killing, how to diffuse situations, and how to detain people...
That seem to think they’re soldiers instead of police...
And every time they KILL someone, excuses are made and punishments are avoided???

Can anyone answer that question for me?
And don’t come at me with “it’s a stressful job being a cop, you don’t understand”
You know what’s more stressful than being a cop?
Being a 19yr old kid, in a country you were sent to, with people actively trying to kill you, and having to second guess and stress and worry about shooting back and going to prison.

Something about all of this is terribly terribly wrong.
We expect our military members to act like police... Yet we make excuses for and cover for our police acting like they’re soldiers in an occupying army in a foreign country, here at home.”

[Markburn1]

Geez Will,

You don’t think Marines break under wartime situations? Abuse innocents and combatants alike?

Marines are badass. No doubt. But, if you don’t think they have some bad apples doing things that would curl your nose hairs you are living in fantasy land. If you don’t think bad stuff happens in a combat zone and gets swept under a mountain of rugs, I don’t know what you are thinking.

The military of this country has been extraordinary throughout our history. But, war is definitely hell and some men break. Some men shouldn’t have been there to start with. Just like cops. Although, I would bet the military vets it’s people better than some city police forces.

I could point to several instances where innocent, unarmed victims were murdered by bad men in the military with guns. You can start with a little hamlet called My Lai.

That doesn’t indict the whole armed forces just as a bad cop doesn’t condemn the majority of a police force.

[willandi]

Geez Will,

You don’t think Marines break under wartime situations? Abuse innocents and combatants alike?

Marines are badass. No doubt. But, if you don’t think they have some bad apples doing things that would curl your nose hairs you are living in fantasy land. If you don’t think bad stuff happens in a combat zone and gets swept under a mountain of rugs, I don’t know what you are thinking.

The military of this country has been extraordinary throughout our history. But, war is definitely hell and some men break. Some men shouldn’t have been there to start with. Just like cops. Although, I would bet the military vets it’s people better than some city police forces.

I could point to several instances where innocent, unarmed victims were murdered by bad men in the military with guns. You can start with a little hamlet called My Lai.

That doesn’t indict the whole armed forces just as a bad cop doesn’t condemn the majority of a police force.

The message, despite what you read into it, is accountability.

Those Marines that snap are held accountable. Police should be too.

That is all.

[ZagDad84]

A lot of current Leos were former military.

ZagDad

[willandi]

So they understand the accountability rules already.

[ZagDad84]

No justification for the actions of the Atlanta Police Officer.

The victim took a simple DUI and then added resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, and I am sure a lot of other crimes.

NOT justified being shot over, but why turn a simple DUI into a possible felonies. You have control over your own actions.

Stupid on the part of the victim, borderline murderous on the part of the Leo.

ZagDad

[Markburn1]

The message, despite what you read into it, is accountability.

Those Marines that snap are held accountable. Police should be too.

That is all.

Most of the cops are too. Every time they discharge their weapons there are investigations. Ask Hoopaholic how rigorous the criteria is for discharging a weapon and how many bad cops he’s held accountable.

What’s your point?

[willandi]

Agreed. I have the utmost respect for LEO and support them in every way, despite some juvenile events of mine which ended up involving them, but not when they are out of control.

[MDABE80]

Hey Will,

I think it would be more useful if you stopped copying and pasting and gave us your own thoughts instead.

Or give credit where credit is due....... like Obama said "you didn't think or write that""! lol yep that's what he said!!

[Hoopaholic]

The other thing I hear a lot is something like, "it's a dangerous job with dangerous and potentially dangerous people so if I am in severe physical danger I am justified using lethal defense as an officer."

Ok. Let's break down the Atlanta shooting.

Option One: commence pursuit of man with taser, lethally shoot him, commit a homicide, get charged with a crime, lose job, be cast as a racist, jeopardize financial livlihood for wife and family.

Option 2: Call for backup. Pursue criminal at safe distance to monitor location. Write report. Go to work the next day. Keep pension. Wife won't divorce me.

This is where people will say "well under option 2 the DUI suspect could have taken hostages, threatened other lives." Setting aside that this was a drunk person who by all accounts was in good spirits (watch the video) and assuming those risks are real as presented, we have 2 more outcomes, which do y'all prefer:

A: Shoot the DUI suspect who is running away
B: Call for backup and risk that suspect takes hostages or commits other crimes.

A is the preferred choice. The cop would still have his job and his pension he would have been safer and more likely to return home to his family given that he is not pursuing a criminal at close distance. The suspect would be alive, this wouldn't be another issue for police. The Atlanta police chief wouldn't have resigned.

So if this is such a bad outcome for everyone, why does it occur in the USA when it doesn't in other countries at the same egregious rate. That's the question that needs to be answered. People have given the answers to this question but are responded to with generalized disagreement.

Ummmmm
Option 2 was utilized. Several officers a present.
You left out some key factors and events

Several officers engaged in making a lawful arrest.......could have simply walked away once determined he was intoxicated driving a car......but society has asked us to intercede and make an arrest to save lives

At that point a fight occurred. Could have quit trying to make an arrest And walked away but once again society has implemented laws against fighting officers...I wont even mention the right to protect ones self.

Could there had been hesitation by the officers in applying proper use of force while trying to effectuate the arrest due to current political climate?Video indicates lack of command and control when deciding to make the arrest. Was this approach a causation of current climate? Asked him to put hands behind back several times, with no engagement of arm control once he refused after the first request........

Subject during the fight stole the taser from the officer, ripping it out of the holster.....not a benign act, a conscious act
The use of a taser against an officer can have serious consequences
Could have simply stopped and let him get away with the taser

Subject fled on foot with officers giving chase

Subject made a conscious choice to slow down turn and point the taser at the officer
In video you can see the officer who was running with HIS taser out, switch to his firearm
*does an officer have a legal right to defend himself against potential serious injury or death? That is the crux of this event and some are starting to pulll back on this and again if society wants to create that rule (counter to current laws and court cases) then they can but I hope they think through the unintended consequences of that decision

While his firearm is out, the suspect shoots the taser (suspect you can see the electronic flash of the taser device)

So this is where science comes into play that most people don’t understand. Delayed reaction response is a scientific finding on human decision making..you have to recognize the threat, process that recognition, then trigger the training response....generally .38 to .75 seconds before engaging in a decision point. Firing three quick successive shots adds approximately .22 to .31 seconds (but the breakdown of the film will provide exact timing)

So from the time the subject shoots the taser to the time to engage in the use of the firearm Is probably close to 1 second, thus a scientific demonstration of why the subject was shot in the back........


So the question will be does the officer have a right (legal, moral, ethical) to protect himself against someone who is trying to harm him in a serious manner (untrained use of a taser could have easily hit the officer in the face, could have hit the officer and then put the officer down with firearm available)



Bad outcomes come daily in America as we lead the world in violent criminal crime....so if we as a society want to protect others from violent crime we ask law enforcement to intercede and make arrests for the violent crime

To me the current state of afffairs centers on two key questions for communities to consider
1. Do we want an entity to continue to make lawful arrests of crimes that are on the legislative books
2. If so do we as society want to give those individuals the right to protect themselves and others from injury and death

Tough questions for society to face today.......

[GoZags]

Ummmmm
Option 2 was utilized. Several officers a present.
You left out some key factors and events

Several officers engaged in making a lawful arrest.......could have simply walked away once determined he was intoxicated driving a car......but society has asked us to intercede and make an arrest to save lives

At that point a fight occurred. Could have quit trying to make an arrest And walked away but once again society has implemented laws against fighting officers...I wont even mention the right to protect ones self.

Could there had been hesitation by the officers in applying proper use of force while trying to effectuate the arrest due to current political climate?Video indicates lack of command and control when deciding to make the arrest. Was this approach a causation of current climate? Asked him to put hands behind back several times, with no engagement of arm control once he refused after the first request........

Subject during the fight stole the taser from the officer, ripping it out of the holster.....not a benign act, a conscious act
The use of a taser against an officer can have serious consequences
Could have simply stopped and let him get away with the taser

Subject fled on foot with officers giving chase

Subject made a conscious choice to slow down turn and point the taser at the officer
In video you can see the officer who was running with HIS taser out, switch to his firearm
*does an officer have a legal right to defend himself against potential serious injury or death? That is the crux of this event and some are starting to pulll back on this and again if society wants to create that rule (counter to current laws and court cases) then they can but I hope they think through the unintended consequences of that decision

While his firearm is out, the suspect shoots the taser (suspect you can see the electronic flash of the taser device)

So this is where science comes into play that most people don’t understand. Delayed reaction response is a scientific finding on human decision making..you have to recognize the threat, process that recognition, then trigger the training response....generally .38 to .75 seconds before engaging in a decision point. Firing three quick successive shots adds approximately .22 to .31 seconds (but the breakdown of the film will provide exact timing)

So from the time the subject shoots the taser to the time to engage in the use of the firearm Is probably close to 1 second, thus a scientific demonstration of why the subject was shot in the back........


So the question will be does the officer have a right (legal, moral, ethical) to protect himself against someone who is trying to harm him in a serious manner (untrained use of a taser could have easily hit the officer in the face, could have hit the officer and then put the officer down with firearm available)



Bad outcomes come daily in America as we lead the world in violent criminal crime....so if we as a society want to protect others from violent crime we ask law enforcement to intercede and make arrests for the violent crime

To me the current state of afffairs centers on two key questions for communities to consider
1. Do we want an entity to continue to make lawful arrests of crimes that are on the legislative books
2. If so do we as society want to give those individuals the right to protect themselves and others from injury and death

Tough questions for society to face today.......

That's the way I saw it. Suspect was aggressive at several key points in the interaction. His death is unfortunate, but he wasn't murdered. At least that's my opinion.

[GoZags]

https://airmail.news/issues/2020-6-1...all-over-again

Aimail.news did a piece featuring the twins the other day (link is above). They ask for an email address to read the interview, but I found that 123@abc.com worked just fine. Newer boardmembers may not be aware of family history (not my side of the family). I'd introduced our God Daughters to the Board with this short video, first shown on CBS the night of President Obama's first Inauguration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EST8rmZRrNk

BTW Mrs GoZags and I are in the opening scene of the CBS video (can't make us out unless you know where to look) and in one of the closing scenes at Arlington we were there as part of the family, but out of camera range as Aunt Myrlie placed the flowers. I try to get to Arlington once a year to say hello and pay respects, but haven't made it this year.

And speaking of Arlington, their Twitter account recognized Uncle Medgar the other day, the anniversary of his assassination.
https://twitter.com/ArlingtonNatl/st...13158729654272

This photo was taken shortly after Myrlie placed the flowers and the camera was turned off .... this was MLK Day in '09 ... the day before President Obama's Inauguration.
207391_1048205459632_3475_n_zps8c6c67aa by tbkd1, on Flickr

[sonuvazag]

Ummmmm
Option 2 was utilized. Several officers a present.
You left out some key factors and events

Several officers engaged in making a lawful arrest.......could have simply walked away once determined he was intoxicated driving a car......but society has asked us to intercede and make an arrest to save lives

At that point a fight occurred. Could have quit trying to make an arrest And walked away but once again society has implemented laws against fighting officers...I wont even mention the right to protect ones self.

Could there had been hesitation by the officers in applying proper use of force while trying to effectuate the arrest due to current political climate?Video indicates lack of command and control when deciding to make the arrest. Was this approach a causation of current climate? Asked him to put hands behind back several times, with no engagement of arm control once he refused after the first request........

Subject during the fight stole the taser from the officer, ripping it out of the holster.....not a benign act, a conscious act
The use of a taser against an officer can have serious consequences
Could have simply stopped and let him get away with the taser

Subject fled on foot with officers giving chase

Subject made a conscious choice to slow down turn and point the taser at the officer
In video you can see the officer who was running with HIS taser out, switch to his firearm
*does an officer have a legal right to defend himself against potential serious injury or death? That is the crux of this event and some are starting to pulll back on this and again if society wants to create that rule (counter to current laws and court cases) then they can but I hope they think through the unintended consequences of that decision

While his firearm is out, the suspect shoots the taser (suspect you can see the electronic flash of the taser device)

So this is where science comes into play that most people don’t understand. Delayed reaction response is a scientific finding on human decision making..you have to recognize the threat, process that recognition, then trigger the training response....generally .38 to .75 seconds before engaging in a decision point. Firing three quick successive shots adds approximately .22 to .31 seconds (but the breakdown of the film will provide exact timing)

So from the time the subject shoots the taser to the time to engage in the use of the firearm Is probably close to 1 second, thus a scientific demonstration of why the subject was shot in the back........


So the question will be does the officer have a right (legal, moral, ethical) to protect himself against someone who is trying to harm him in a serious manner (untrained use of a taser could have easily hit the officer in the face, could have hit the officer and then put the officer down with firearm available)



Bad outcomes come daily in America as we lead the world in violent criminal crime....so if we as a society want to protect others from violent crime we ask law enforcement to intercede and make arrests for the violent crime

To me the current state of afffairs centers on two key questions for communities to consider
1. Do we want an entity to continue to make lawful arrests of crimes that are on the legislative books
2. If so do we as society want to give those individuals the right to protect themselves and others from injury and death

Tough questions for society to face today.......

Agree that we do have to face these questions and it's not easy.

A couple of things I'm wondering that I don't know:
1. Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to shoot and kill a non-LEO person who points a taser at me?
2. What are the countries that have fewer law enforcement killings doing differently? Are their police officers victimized more often?

[Bogozags]

My problem with the shooting was that he was shot in the back, running away and not facing the officer and he had already "fired" the taser so there were no other "shots" to be fired. The man was arrested for being intoxicated while driving a motorized vehicle not a felony. Once the taser was fired at the officer, he was no longer in danger. He could have kept running after him and help would have been on the way as they had his car and address so he could have been found if he would have gotten away. This officer used his service revolver unnecessarily...lethal use of force was not necessary, since the offer and no other "by-standers" were in danger. I believe the officer was pissed, which is why he shot the man in his back. This reminds me of the black man in Charleston, SC that was driving, was stopped, had a warrant for not paying child support. The man got away from the officer and tried to grab his taser and began running away from the officer. The officer took out his weapon, aimed and fired "SEVEN Times" hitting the suspect in the back with each shot. The man took several steps, fell down and died! This officer was found guilty and imprisoned for 25 years.

I expect a similar outcome for the shooting in Atlanta.

I am not keen about drunk drivers nor those that don't pay child support but the sentence of death is a bit over the top.

What really gets me is the two young black people that were dragged out of their car during the protests for being there, the two officers in Buffalo who pushed and knocked down a 75 year old man and then the shooting of the black man in Atlanta. One would think that with all the protests going on in ao many of our major cities, a little common sense would have been applied by these officers. I can imagine that the Mayor of Atlanta had a pretty stern conversation with her Chief of Police about those six idiots involved with removing those two young black people from the car AND THEN on top of that issue, another officer shoots a black man in the back killing him! No wonder the Chief resigned, she evidently lost the ability to communicate to her immediate subordinates to use proper police procedures regarding use of force.

[kitzbuel]

Hey Will,

I think it would be more useful if you stopped copying and pasting and gave us your own thoughts instead.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CB4]

The bottom line is the Atlanta cop's career is over because he wanted to play hero ball and ended up shooting a guy who was running away in the back.

This shooting wouldn't have happened in Canada or Germany or France. It wouldn't have happened in Small Town America. They would have let the jack ass run, wrote up a warrant, and picked him up the next morning or at his place of work on Monday.