I see we have headed off into the realm of it being about MY beliefs, with your last sentence basically confirming your lack of interest in the issue.... Well... That was a response... Soooo...
Let's apply some of your training to this situation. Just citing your "split second “shoot-don’t shoot” " decision making.
At what point with your training, understanding the victim 'fought' the police, do you consider the 'split second' decision to draw your weapon? We've seen plenty of people killed by gun and by hand at the 'fighting' stage.
So, when does "split second thinking" become not this when the perp/ victim has walked back to his vehicle, especially when the 'knife' prose is not seen on video?
Surely the Police Chief would show the weapon at the Press Conference, even by photograph?
I'm yet to see anything supporting the 'knife' claim.
Maybe you could enlighten me...?
And how many shots does it take to "neutralise the threat"? Is it until the person has stopped moving or breathing? And, if the person is still breathing, how do you know the "threat is neutralised" enough?
I find the scared US cop a peculiar entity and the whole gun culture (IN THE US) bizarre.
You strike me as someone who might have had the chance to spend some time with the police, which may have colored your vision.Shite policing, could have just tackled him to the ground if you suspected he was going to his car to grab a weapon. Common sense policing doesn't exist in America just executions the fucking pigs.
If he was reaching for a gun in his car, would that change anything?I assume we have reached the point in the debate where we are now justifying shooting unarmed civilians in the back. Seven times.
I don’t know why some people are keen to have a police force where such actions are ever justifiable or where non compliance is a capital crime, or in this case tasering a guy and then shooting him in the back because he is no longer thinking straight, or indeed shooting a 12 year old boy for ‘looking too old’, but it seems there will always be people that will move heaven and earth to justify these shootings.
At some point the cycle will have to broken, because right now it’s looking pretty fucked and doubling down defending the situation will just mean a bigger fucking further down the line.
It would save a lot of time, trouble and tortured logic if certain posters would just say that they are okay with unarmed civilians getting shot in the back seven times. I think you’ll feel better for it. I know I will.
Not that I know of. But I'm sure more people will describe the interaction soon enough. There were at least 20 to 25 people present.Is there more than one person saying he was tasared ?
I’m surprised it wasn’t 14!He dad says he has eight holes
Soldiers manage what???tbf they are trained to offset the blood pumping,they need better training or guns only reserved for those most highly trained,soldiers manage it
A suspect reaches into his car, what would you do?I assume we have reached the point in the debate where we are now justifying shooting unarmed civilians in the back. Seven times.
I don’t know why some people are keen to have a police force where such actions are ever justifiable or where non compliance is a capital crime, or in this case tasering a guy and then shooting him in the back because he is no longer thinking straight, or indeed shooting a 12 year old boy for ‘looking too old’, but it seems there will always be people that will move heaven and earth to justify these shootings.
At some point the cycle will have to broken, because right now it’s looking pretty fucked and doubling down defending the situation will just mean a bigger fucking further down the line.
It would save a lot of time, trouble and tortured logic if certain posters would just say that they are okay with unarmed civilians getting shot in the back seven times. I think you’ll feel better for it. I know I will.
A suspect reaches into his car, what would you do?
I figured I'd wait to get a clearer picture before commenting. As it turns out, there is now a 2nd video.
One that shows an earlier portion of the interaction. Apparently the cops had wrestled the man down (you know, what many claimed they should have done), he struggled with them and got loose, you know, as most resisting arrest would. And then they drew their guns as they chased him around the car where he opens the door and reaches in....Then an officer shoots...Yes, multiple times.
There is nothing the naysayers often like suggesting that wasn't attempted here.
2 police officers with guns on their hips struggling to subdue a suspect who was determined to NOT be detained..
@Bigga over to you. What should they have done there?
According to reports, they attempted to wrestle him to the ground and had tased him already.
So officers with gun on their hips try to arrest, wrestle to the ground ( but no knee as that's illegal), and then tased the suspect. He gets loose. Walks purposely or Maybe in a daze around to his car front door with police officers with guns drawn behind ordering him to stop.
I ask everyone on this thread What Should They Have Done? And at what point should they have done it?