ForumGarden

Sorry, you'll need to explain that one to me. I know what the Isle of Wright is, but the context escapes me.

Ah, now I see it. IOW = In Other Words. Acronyms, lads, acronyms..

Ahso!;1472788 wrote: Law enforcement representatives have gone to great lengths recently to read the riot act to the nation via national television (i.e."STFU and obey or commands or else"). Conservatives, never ones to pass a good violent act by condoning it (as long as it's done by whites or police/military action) have been echoing the marching orders to the cops' cadence.

IOW, people are becoming scared to speak out. Hell, in writing this post I might be taking a chance. I'll let you know if I start getting pulled over regularly.


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you.

LarsMac;1472822 wrote: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you.


:yh_worshp

LarsMac;1472822 wrote: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're out to get you.


That's a contradiction in terms, I do believe.

Another Cop shooting a blackman, this time he was armed it seems, however the Policeman should have handled the situation a lot better than he did in my opinion.

A Link to the Body Cam footage HERE with the warning it is graphic.

Bruv;1473007 wrote: Another Cop shooting a blackman, this time he was armed it seems, however the Policeman should have handled the situation a lot better than he did in my opinion.

A Link to the Body Cam footage HERE with the warning it is graphic.
Disagree completely on this one, sorry.

Oklahoma police officer's body-cam captures fatal shooting - CNN.com

flopstock;1473011 wrote: Disagree completely on this one, sorry.

Oklahoma police officer's body-cam captures fatal shooting - CNN.com


Yup. If he had not stopped to try and retrieve the gun, he could have gotten away with his life.

The cop had no other choice.

Of course, had he handled the initial stop and arrest attempt, the guy would not have been able to run.

Probably should have had two officers attempting the arrest in the first place.

That's probably a procedural issue within the department.

If the Officer had made the guy lay prone and spread at the outset with his gun at the ready, the handcuffs would have been easier to apply.

Bruv;1473035 wrote: If the Officer had made the guy lay prone and spread at the outset with his gun at the ready, the handcuffs would have been easier to apply.


Agreed. That would have been a bit awkward in the crowd around them. Bottom line, though, if I am sending police out to a call where someone threatened to shoot another person, I think I would send two officers to start with. They could have much easier contained the guy, and relieved him of his weapon fairly quickly.

But then hindsight is always better.

So it's perfectly acceptable for police to gun individuals down who are attempting to run and where the officer is not in danger? Guilty until proven innocent?

I haven't clicked on the video and I won't be. I've already make my decision anyway. I like Oklahomans …. I'm taking sides with the cop on this one!

In this video the victim clearly had a gun. After being apprehended he made a clear attempt to escape, with the gun still in his hand. The cop challenged him to stop, several times. The victim kept running. I believe that in such instances cops are trained that if they have to shoot then they should shoot to kill because just as with a wounded animal, a wounded criminal - especially one with a gun, is far more dangerous.

The first & foremost mistake he really made was not to have disarmed him in the first place.

FourPart;1473078 wrote: In this video the victim clearly had a gun. After being apprehended he made a clear attempt to escape, with the gun still in his hand. The cop challenged him to stop, several times. The victim kept running. I believe that in such instances cops are trained that if they have to shoot then they should shoot to kill because just as with a wounded animal, a wounded criminal - especially one with a gun, is far more dangerous.

The first & foremost mistake he really made was not to have disarmed him in the first place.As I understand it, police are only to shoot if either they or another person are in immediate life-threatening danger. That did not appear to be the case in the video in question. The officer may have been there because of a tip that the person was there to shoot someone, however, that didn't occur and to assume the tip was accurate to the point of killing the individual as they were in the act of fleeing, having committed no crime that threatened the life of anyone else makes the officer judge, jury and executioner. And that is a scary proposition and precedence.

Shooting to wound - Police Firearms Officers Association

And regarding a Fleeing Felon...



A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is that, as with anything in real life, nothing is binary, where something is or it isn't, and things have to rely on a single cop's split second judgement in a highly charged situation. The suspect had a gun in his hand. Of that there is no doubt. He is, therefore, in that officer's opinion, a potential danger to other officers who may try to apprehend him, or even other members of the public. The question is that, rightly or wrongly, how can anyone prove or disprove that this was the cop's opinion?

FourPart;1473085 wrote: Shooting to wound - Police Firearms Officers Association

And regarding a Fleeing Felon...

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem is that, as with anything in real life, nothing is binary, where something is or it isn't, and things have to rely on a single cop's split second judgement in a highly charged situation. The suspect had a gun in his hand. Of that there is no doubt. He is, therefore, in that officer's opinion, a potential danger to other officers who may try to apprehend him, or even other members of the public. The question is that, rightly or wrongly, how can anyone prove or disprove that this was the cop's opinion?Lots of people in the US carry guns and if it's a police officer's judgment that if it falls due to any activity at all gives reason to shoot then we're best off removing all guns from the society thus removing most poor judgment calls. But then we only see this sort of engagement with blacks. The fact is that there might be lots of reasons for a young black male to flee from law enforcement including just plain tired of being harassed by them. That police officer appeared as if he was going to shoot this individual no matter what.

Also, the citation above is, in my mind, relevant to a given situation. After all, anyone might be considered a danger at some point. And if that be the case then we should just start shooting anyone carrying potential weapons.

I agree that two officers should have been sent by the nature of the call, but with one or two police, the procedure would or should have been a command to "get down" with the cops having weapons leveled at the guy, only when he complied laying face down legs and arms spread, would one officer cuff him.

I am not convinced the guy stopped to pick up a gun, he did not appear to act to use it, but picked up (whatever it was) and continued his escape........I would have guessed it was a mobile phone......but that is bye the bye.......he should never have got the option to run.

Bruv;1473089 wrote: I am not convinced the guy stopped to pick up a gun, he did not appear to act to use it, but picked up (whatever it was) and continued his escape........I would have guessed it was a mobile phone......but that is bye the bye.......he should never have got the option to run.


If you are referring to the Body Cam clip, there was no doubt about it. He had a gun in his hand from the start.

FourPart;1473091 wrote: If you are referring to the Body Cam clip, there was no doubt about it. He had a gun in his hand from the start.


You can see a gun ?

FourPart;1473078 wrote: In this video the victim clearly had a gun. After being apprehended he made a clear attempt to escape, with the gun still in his hand. The cop challenged him to stop, several times. The victim kept running. I believe that in such instances cops are trained that if they have to shoot then they should shoot to kill because just as with a wounded animal, a wounded criminal - especially one with a gun, is far more dangerous.

The first & foremost mistake he really made was not to have disarmed him in the first place.


IMO, what he couldn't do was walk up and arrest someone just because someone else(possibly with a grudge) said threats were made. He walked up and appeared to try and calm the situation. I can just imagine my reaction if a cop simply walked up to me and cuffed me while I'm standing in a church parking lot in front of god and the neighbors..

But once the guy feels the cop touch the weapon and he takes off..There are cars passing by. There are people standing outside. When the guy drops the gun, he never should have picked it back up. At that point the cop could only protect himself and the folks in the area.

This is just a sad situation.

Bruv;1473095 wrote: You can see a gun ?
My mistake - when I returned & freeze-framed the clip, I saw it looked like something akin to a passport. However, when they approached the body, they did remove the gun from his hand & toss it out of harm's way, so there was a gun, and it was drawn.