Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Xantavia]

For everybody saying they should have tackled the guy, have you all forgotten about New York recently where they tackled a big guy with asthma and he suffocated and died "for just selling cigarettes". I seem to recall the rallying cry was that the cops shouldn't have gotten physical in the first place. It seems no matter what they police do, people feel it was too much.

[chazzyphizzle]

you should probably research what happened in that instance. hint: they didnt just tackle him

[Xantavia]

Yeah, yeah. They either put him in a chokehold, or didn't use a chokehold, depending on who you listen too. They also sat on his chest. Point being that they attempted to physically restrain him and something went wrong and he died. All we ever seem to hear is how the police went too far when trying to stop somebody who was doing something illegal. The media picks up on the incidents that went wrong and make it seem like that is the rule, not the exception.

[Boyiee]

Just out of curiosity, when would you guys be ok with the officers using lethal force on the guy throwing rocks?

Never? What if we use the same scenario but add one thing:

Everything we know already happened, taser failed, etc, instead of shooting they decide to move in to tackle and restrain the suspect.

One cop is hit in the head by a rock because it isn't as easy to dodge them as you think or he gets a good swing off at close range. Officer drops to the ground. Officer is on the ground, unknown if he is conscious or survived the severe head trauma at that instant.

Is it now ok for the other officers to open fire on the subject? After one may have been killed?

[Salodin]

The problem is it's so easy to say they could have done otherwise because they were in the position of power...as a group. But even when you have larger numbers it's irrelevant to the individual. If a person feels threatened, he feels threatened. It doesn't matter if it's universally justified or not, all that matters is the individual perspective.

Now, that's not to say it's not ok to not believe the individual (triple negative!), but that's why it's important to have an impartial investigation and save the pitchforks for when you know more about the incident. The video isn't enough, and its like we forget every thread before this where the context leading up to the video is just as important as the video.

[Gokku]

Why does no one acknowledge the fact that that there is a clear and distinct pause, in shooting from the cops?it's not as if the guys dead on volley one. they fire he runs they moved and fired again. That's the only thing I don't understand, they shoot him again before he has any chance to surrender thus killing him. His arms aren't raised or poised to throw anything when he's killed.

That's assuming the rock is still dangerous or he still had rocks to throw. He is killed before any action including compliance is taken.

[Moss]

Yeah, yeah. They either put him in a chokehold, or didn't use a chokehold, depending on who you listen too. They also sat on his chest. Point being that they attempted to physically restrain him and something went wrong and he died. All we ever seem to hear is how the police went too far when trying to stop somebody who was doing something illegal. The media picks up on the incidents that went wrong and make it seem like that is the rule, not the exception.

there is video of the Eric Garner incident. I see the point you are trying to make but you chose a very poor example

[archibaldcrane]

Eric Garner wasn't attacking the police, it's apples and orangutans...

[kuronosan]

Just out of curiosity, when would you guys be ok with the officers using lethal force on the guy throwing rocks?

Never? What if we use the same scenario but add one thing:

Everything we know already happened, taser failed, etc, instead of shooting they decide to move in to tackle and restrain the suspect.

One cop is hit in the head by a rock because it isn't as easy to dodge them as you think or he gets a good swing off at close range. Officer drops to the ground. Officer is on the ground, unknown if he is conscious or survived the severe head trauma at that instant.

Is it now ok for the other officers to open fire on the subject? After one may have been killed?

I understand your point, but are we really traversing into #copslivesmatter territory?

[Yuri-G]

Eric Garner wasn't attacking the police, it's apples and orangutans...

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...49/990/304.gif

[archibaldcrane]

On average, fewer than 3 cops are killed per year in beatings, stabbings, or strangulations (the ways cops die in altercations that don't involve motor vehicles or guns). Its very, very rare given the number of altercations. The cops in this video probably had a better chance of getting struck by lightning while trying to apprehend rockman than dying by rock.


Cop death stats: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-...ta/causes.html

[Boyiee]

I understand your point, but are we really traversing into #copslivesmatter territory?

I'm just wondering when it would be considered okay for them to use lethal force. I feel some people would say never ever when regarding the subject having large rocks even if the above happened.

[Gokku]

I'm just wondering when it would be considered okay for them to use lethal force. I feel some people would say never ever when regarding the subject having large rocks even if the above happened.

to me idealy id have been fine with them shooting if they took effort to try and stop him after he was still alive when they shot at him once. Gunfire alone should have been enough to snap him outtas ROCKS R COOL phase to OH SHIT I ALMOST GOT SHOT. Sadly by the time he hit the "almost" they shot at him again and finished it.

[Yuri-G]

On average, fewer than 3 cops are killed per year in beatings, stabbings, or strangulations (the ways cops die in altercations that don't involve motor vehicles or guns). Its very, very rare given the number of altercations. The cops in this video probably had a better chance of getting struck by lightning while trying to apprehend rockman than dying by rock.


Cop death stats: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-...ta/causes.html

This. No one's debating the inherent risk of serious injury or death from a rock, but how big of a risk that is and whether that risk justifies the use of deadly force is a better question entirely.

Yes, I am saying there are situations where cop lives could be at risk that do not justify deadly force. Where that line should be drawn... that's a debate I'm way too tired to get into, but I'd say rocks fall on the "not justified" side.

[kuronosan]

I'm just wondering when it would be considered okay for them to use lethal force. I feel some people would say never ever when regarding the subject having large rocks even if the above happened.

Fuck that. If a cop's life is in danger and there's no alternative I'm all for them shooting to kill. If a person has zero regard for their life and there is no way the cop can defend themselves without killing then do it.

The problem I'm having with cops and these stories is that it's very apparent in many of the altercations that shooting was a primary instinct and not a last resort.

And yes, having rocks thrown at you is not a last resort when multiple officers are there. I mean, the guy was running. Unless he had a gun or a rock-throwing machine, what real threat did he pose?

That's what I'm trying my hardest to understand. Why is that the first thing that's happening instead of the last? And no, shooting a taser, throwing a stun grenade, and tackling, and everything "failing" is not a last resort. It's a slippery slope to "oh the taser didn't work time to shoot".

Time to avoid shooting if at all possible unless it's absolutely apparent there's no option. And that's a hard judgment, I get it, but right now it appears to be the only judgment. And that is not okay.

[Boyiee]

Ok but if you use my scenario the subject injured/killed the cop before they replied with lethal force. So I'm assuming that the majority of people here rather the officers retaliate with lethal force only after its been used against them.

[Acevalefor]

Ok but if you use my scenario the subject injured/killed the cop before they replied with lethal force. So I'm assuming that the majority of people here rather the officers retaliate with lethal force only after its been used against them.

Not after it is used against them, but when it is imminent. Not when an officers fears that it MAY be imminent, but when it actually is. The problem: When do you know deadly force is imminent? When can you assume deadly force is imminent? Kuro said it right. The problem is that firearms are primary weapons and are no longer looked at as last resort. Do you feel threatened? SHOOT EM!!!

[kuronosan]

Ok but if you use my scenario the subject injured/killed the cop before they replied with lethal force. So I'm assuming that the majority of people here rather the officers retaliate with lethal force only after its been used against them.

Unless the guy is obviously surrendering, and I don't mean surrendering while still holding or wielding a weapon.

[Aragon of Odin]

I don't know, people just honestly need to smarten up and realize that cops are the authority, and you must respect that. It's pretty plain and simple, whether you like it or not, it just is.

Just like I accept the fact that if I tell my boss off I risk losing my job, I also accept that if I escalate a situation with a cop I risk losing my life. I just can't feel for someone when they very well know what the consequences may be, yet they make their choices anyways.

This was posted by noblemountain last page and didn't see any comments on this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/in-fair...ting-1.2960995

This is a clear case of the police crossing the line, and the city/state trying to bury it. This is the type of thing I can see people being up in arms about, where a man followed every instruction he was given and he was still shot, that's the kind of upsetting thing to me, is when you do obey and still end up dead, and why the DA hasn't pursued this.

It's one thing to disobeys direct orders and end up dead, but it's another thing to obey all of them and end up dead.

[kuronosan]

Cops are AN authority. Their job is to uphold the law and protect the citizens from criminals and/or harm. Not be a babysitter and get disgruntled with the "because I said so" argument.

You see, that mentality is dangerous. It's not really different from shitty parents who treat kids like shit and abuse them because they're the parent. It's a bad excuse, and not one we should be encouraging.