airdvr 196 #1 Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) https://youtu.be/29kj9uQtCUM We have to find a different way to deal with these situations. Edited June 16, 2020 by airdvr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #2 June 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, airdvr said: https://youtu.be/29kj9uQtCUM We have to find a different way to deal with these situations. I think a big first step is not discharging a Fire Arm. I don't know if it is possible to effectively retrain the existing forces to not fire, unless there is absolutely no other choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 196 #3 June 16, 2020 In this situation it's obvious the choke hold would have helped but they had all this guy's info. They would have caught up with him in a day or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 896 #4 June 16, 2020 31 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: I think a big first step is not discharging a Fire Arm. The law is that you cannot shoot unless your life is in danger. There have been several Blacks shot while running away. 13 minutes ago, airdvr said: In this situation it's obvious the choke hold would have helped but they had all this guy's info. They would have caught up with him in a day or so. They had his physical drivers license and his car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,329 #5 June 16, 2020 I guess I see it as a 'self fulfilling prophecy' sort of thing. A 'positive feedback loop'. Black men are seriously scared that they will be killed in any random encounter with the cops. Even if they comply with all commands. For good reason. There's a 'Now This' video of a cop pulling his gun on a black man who had a 'grabber' in his hand and was picking up trash on a college campus. The cop called it a 'dangerous weapon' and demanded the man drop it. So these men are so afraid of being killed, that they run away in these situations. Or fight back. Maybe if the cops learn that unjustified killings will result in the city being burned, they might stop killing people for no good reason. Yes, there was no good reason to shoot him. He had a Taser (non-lethal). It had been fired (they are a one shot weapon). So he was essentially holding a stun gun in his hand, going up against a bunch of cops. Maybe if the cops stop killing black men for no good reason, those people will stop fighting back and running away. Yes, it's a 'Chicken or Egg' issue. But to pretend the cops have no responsibility for the problem is ignoring reality (something a LOT of people are very good at). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,029 #6 June 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, Phil1111 said: The law is that you cannot shoot unless your life is in danger. There have been several Blacks shot while running away. Not true. One can shoot a fleeing felon if they believe that someone else's life is in danger. Even a civilian can do it. The real issue is "qualifying immunity." IMO: That alone has allowed the police to take a "shoot first" mentality. Hopefully, the recent firings, arrests and varying charges of murder will cause the police to "think first." However, until the removal of "qualifying immunity" is legislated - which may be an issue. The US Supreme Court has upheld qualifying immunity on several occasions. For me; any form of immunity removes the factor of responsibility for one's actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #7 June 16, 2020 33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said: The law is that you cannot shoot unless your life is in danger. There have been several People shot while running away. They had his physical drivers license and his car. Fixed that for you. The way you wrote that, it sounds like the only people ever shot are black. That is just not true. The scales are not balanced, by any means, but it's just not true. I agree - They also have him on video. They should have stood down and regrouped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #8 June 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, BIGUN said: Not true. One can shoot a fleeing felon if they believe that someone else's life is in danger. Even a civilian can do it. The real issue is "qualifying immunity." IMO: That alone has allowed the police to take a "shoot first" mentality. Hopefully, the recent firings, arrests and varying charges of murder will cause the police to "think first." However, until the removal of "qualifying immunity" is legislated - which may be an issue. The US Supreme Court has upheld qualifying immunity on several occasions. For me; any form of immunity removes the factor of responsibility for one's actions. I think one of the issues here is that some sort of qualifying immunity is warranted in some cases. A heavily modified version of "qualifying immunity" needs to be legislated. Question, though, how do we go about retraining the "Shoot First" out of the existing forces? This needs immediate attention, not only because of the weight of the consequences in Human lives, but the world is laser focused on it, and any event will be another reason for mobs to destroy innocent, non involved population's living and well being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #10 June 16, 2020 (edited) I saw a report that the officer had recently undergone 9 hours of ‘deescalation training’. Money well spent! Now maybe the training simply isn’t long or thorough enough, or maybe it’s considered to be a joke by those who attend, but it seems clear that this willingness to shoot is a cultural issue and unfortunately that’s only something those within the LE community can answer. As skydivers we know that one off training is pretty much useless in high stress situations unless it occurs directly before the incident. It takes practice to develop that training to override other instincts. It would be interesting to know if this type of deescalation training has a currency period or if it’s a one-and-done checkbox thing. Edited June 16, 2020 by yoink Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 896 #11 June 16, 2020 16 minutes ago, BIGUN said: Not true. One can shoot a fleeing felon if they believe that someone else's life is in danger. Even a civilian can do it. The real issue is "qualifying immunity." IMO: That alone has allowed the police to take a "shoot first" mentality. Hopefully, the recent firings, arrests and varying charges of murder will cause the police to "think first." However, until the removal of "qualifying immunity" is legislated - which may be an issue. The US Supreme Court has upheld qualifying immunity on several occasions. For me; any form of immunity removes the factor of responsibility for one's actions. Agree although a fleeing suspect acting as a direct threat to someone else may he a hard sell. I also like you MOH idea. IMO LE training 3-6 months vrs two years in Europe is the core of the issue. In the latest Atlanta case. LE had his physical license, had his car and had many minutes of face to face video. Even though the victim had a felony DUI, two cases of felony assault on LE officers for fighting and felony(?) theft of the stun gun. The shooting was unnecessary. I can see the LE side on how a lessor disciplined officer could shoot. The officer had just fought with a larger man on the ground. He had his taser stolen and the intoxicated man was making good his escape. It seems as if adrenaline got the better of any sense of situational awareness. He should have just chased after him. Surely he could chase down a bigger drunk and there were two cops. Either way it turned out very bad for both of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #12 June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, yoink said: I saw a report that the officer had recently undergone 9 hours of ‘deescalation training’. Money well spent! As a faculty member prior to retiring I had to participate, with my colleagues, in "professional development" activities in order for our programs to be accredited. My wife (MD) has to take so many CE credits in order to keep her professional license to practice up to date. Even as a private pilot I need to fly with an instructor every 2 years to be allowed to act as PIC. Those instructors, in turn, have to maintain currency too. I don't know the rules for police, but I would hope that something similar applies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,029 #13 June 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Phil1111 said: I also like you MOH idea. Thank you. Quote IMO LE training 3-6 months vrs two years in Europe is the core of the issue. I had to look this up - cause it didn't seem right that dedicated training could consist that long. In part - they are counting degrees and continuing education. It would appear the main difference is - it "sounds like" they get a degree in police. In the US; you just need a degree in anything. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-training-killings-usa-nordic/ 1 hour ago, Phil1111 said: The shooting was unnecessary. I think we've probably all seen the video. IMO; it also was unnecessary. The officer had barely started running when he whipped out his gun and started shooting. On a separate, but similar note. I see where Trump is going to sign a police reform bill. IMO we (the US) engage in reactive legislation which may be effective in the short-term, but as history tells us - The SCOTUS spends a lot of time having to "interpret." IMO: We need complete and comprehensive judicial reform. Not just knee-jerk feel-good legislation for the moment. Edited June 16, 2020 by BIGUN spelelingly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,362 #14 June 16, 2020 2 hours ago, BIGUN said: However, until the removal of "qualifying immunity" is legislated - which may be an issue. The US Supreme Court has upheld qualifying immunity on several occasions. For me; any form of immunity removes the factor of responsibility for one's actions. Colorado among first in U.S. to pass historic police reforms following protests: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/13/colorado-police-reform-bill-passes-legislature/ One of the biggest wins for supporters of Colorado’s bill — and most contentious for opponents — was the removal of the qualified immunity doctrine. That means victims or their families can sue police officers in their individual capacities for constitutional violations and those officers can be held personally liable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #15 June 16, 2020 36 minutes ago, ryoder said: Colorado among first in U.S. to pass historic police reforms following protests: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/13/colorado-police-reform-bill-passes-legislature/ One of the biggest wins for supporters of Colorado’s bill — and most contentious for opponents — was the removal of the qualified immunity doctrine. That means victims or their families can sue police officers in their individual capacities for constitutional violations and those officers can be held personally liable. I am willing to bet that you just lost a LOT of recruits. I was thinking about this before the POTUS speech. All the really exceptional candidates for POTUS are too smart to put themselves out there for scrutiny. I feel like the same will happen for the cops, now that a lot of their protections are gone. I like the idea of drastically reducing the footprint of the unions, and drastically reducing the qualifying immunity, but keeping SOME of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #16 June 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: I am willing to bet that you just lost a LOT of recruits. Certainly. But maybe it would be good to focus on recruiting the type of person who never wants to use their firearm through the course of their career. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,029 #17 June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, ryoder said: One of the biggest wins for supporters of Colorado’s bill — and most contentious for opponents — was the removal of the qualified immunity doctrine. Well, there you have it. I'm a fookin genius.Just four days late for the meeting :) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #18 June 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, DJL said: Certainly. But maybe it would be good to focus on recruiting the type of person who never wants to use their firearm through the course of their career. Or - you will end up with cops like we ended up with Trump and Biden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #19 June 16, 2020 Just now, turtlespeed said: Or - you will end up with cops like we ended up with Trump and Biden. What?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #20 June 16, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, yoink said: What?? I should have said, "might" - my bad. Edited June 16, 2020 by turtlespeed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #21 June 16, 2020 5 hours ago, airdvr said: https://youtu.be/29kj9uQtCUM We have to find a different way to deal with these situations. How many suspects succeed in violently fleeing police? Do they succeed one day? Do they succeed one week? Do they succeed one year? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #22 June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, turtlespeed said: I am willing to bet that you just lost a LOT of recruits. Agreed. And that's probably a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #23 June 17, 2020 Not that he deserved death . . . but this guy Rayshard was no angel. The cruelty for children thing gets me pretty steamed though. https://www.rapsheetz.com/georgia/doc-prisoner/BROOKS_RAYSHARD/1001370147?fbclid=IwAR2JV6zK5cNhwYYfDfyX06UKJA75B9MwWwZVc55JTjhcsxRq6bhRmbVoL6w Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,098 #24 June 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Not that he deserved death . . . but this guy Rayshard was no angel. The cruelty for children thing gets me pretty steamed though. https://www.rapsheetz.com/georgia/doc-prisoner/BROOKS_RAYSHARD/1001370147?fbclid=IwAR2JV6zK5cNhwYYfDfyX06UKJA75B9MwWwZVc55JTjhcsxRq6bhRmbVoL6w Why does that mean anything? Flynn twice plead guilty and we are supposed to believe he is fully innocent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #25 June 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: Why does that mean anything? Flynn twice plead guilty and we are supposed to believe he is fully innocent. <facepalm> That's the best defense you can come up with? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites