1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Current US riot situation

Discussion in 'Serious' started by KayinBlack, 31 May 2020.

  1. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381

    First of all what the hell is an attempt for DUI? Was the suspect driving when he was found to be drunk?
    If you seen the video i think you will notice that the cops went from leisurely trying to get the guy to say something wrong and the guy being all drunk and not wanting to refuse requests from the police and then suddenly the cops going from 0 to 60 in a split second and going in for the arrest without telling the guy he was breaking the law and what he did wrong. What do you expect would happen?
     
    bawjaws likes this.
  2. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    917
    In the good ol' USA, all police are armed, calling the police means armed force turns up.
     
  3. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    410
    Yeah that's what I believed, so the answer I was angling for would be to change that :)
     
  4. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    917
    To be honest, it is not just armed police that show up nowadays, it is an armed paramilitary force that shows up, the escalation has been gradual, like boiling a frog, but constant.

    If you remember the old TV shows and movies, SWAT used to turn up in a black van with M16's. Now they turn up in an APC with .50 machine guns and grenade launchers.
     
    bawjaws likes this.
  5. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    6,667
    Likes Received:
    835
    To be fair for example the Royal African Company or the South Sea Company didn't just trade slaves in a vacuum but rather had a very long list of legislation and politicians back home who enabled and encouraged them.
    Plus the slave trade was deeply integrated into other business activities like gold mining (which btw was also highly unethical due to rampant corruption and legally enforced monopolies among other things).
    And despite nations in Europe being constantly at each others throat the slave trade was to some extent even internationally regulated (Asiento de negroes being used in the Treaty of Utrecht etc)...

    So the slave trade can't actually be separated from the regular business and politics as there is a whole lot of extremely dodgy stuff that took place back then.

    So I can see where the racists get the idea from to ignore or excuse the slavery part of history, because if they would actually think things through they would have to confront huge portions of uncomfortable history.

    Not sure really how to fix it but I'd start by teaching a less sanitised version of history in schools, the rampant abuses of power and corruption of the Whigs, the carving up of foreign lands with sh*t like the Treaty of Tordesillas (yeah, that one was on Spain and Portugal but is a good example anyway), the violence against common folk at home (Peterloo Massacre etc) and of course the slave trade (and it's long iist of enablers).
     
  6. enbydee

    enbydee Minimodder

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2014
    Posts:
    442
    Likes Received:
    165
    To add to that it's not just "police", with DEA, ATF, FBI etc all having their own specialists, even... the Education Department has an armed response unit.
     
  7. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    738
    He was shot in the back. He was running away from them.

    If you're attempting to say that because BLM are drawing people's attention to police unnecessarily killing black men, people will be riled up when it's not justified, then using an example of police killing a black man unnecessarily seems like a weird case study to present in support of that argument.

    Edit: missed out part of a sentence, so added it back in as the underlined text.
     
    Last edited: 18 Jun 2020
    Fingers66 likes this.
  8. Xlog

    Xlog Minimodder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    647
    Likes Received:
    62
    Was going to stay from this thread, but going to respond to just this.
    First of he didn't just aim the tazer, he actually shot it and got shot back seconds after that.
    Tazer is non life treatening if used correctly, if not, it can still cause lasting harm - i.e. taking an eye out.
    Is shooting someone in the back considered "reasonable force"? There are circumstances where it is - perp is active shooter, has a hostage, is an active threat to bystanders and so on.
    Just because someone is "fleeing" doesn't mean they are not a threat, especially after resisting arrest. What if he got to someone else ant taken them as a hostage or got into another car and drove off (remember that tazer can still be used on contacact even after being shot)? (yes its speculation, but it has about as much credability as that he was not a threat to anyone anymore).
    Reading comments fo this case its seems that for some the expectation is:
    * Police should not shoot enyone if they are facing/ running away from them, no matter what.
    * Police should not shoot anyone if they are not shooting an actual firearm at them, and maybe not even then
    * Now arguing that tazer is nonleathal weapon, then previously arguing that tazer is a leathal weapon
    * DUI is a petty crime now, even though it kills 10x more ppl than police
    * Apperently being drunk voids you of any responsability.
    He was in drivethrough, after policeman asked him he unsuscesfully tried to move the car to parking space (and passed out again), then followed 30 min calm talk, where he addmited on driving prior, then he was given a breathalizer test where he tested for .108BAC, 3x the legal limit, then policemen say "i think you had too much to drink to be driving, please put your hands behind your back for me" and then the whole resisting arrest situation happened.
     
    damien c likes this.
  9. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    917
    I think we have different views on what constitutes a "threat", someone running away from a DUI, assaulting a police office and resisting arrest doesn't, in my mind, consitute a lethal threat to anyone, not even the police involved. At no time in that video was there a risk to anyone's life, other than that to Rayshard Brooks.

    DUI, assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, "potentially" taking an eye out with a taser and running away, whilst serious crimes, do not carry a death sentence if convicted. Why was lethal force used, when there is no life in danger and where the crimes committed would at most lead to a few years in prison?

    To counter some of your less thought out points:
    What threat to anyone was Rayshard Brooks presenting in that video that required the police office to draw and use his weapon? We shouldn't use "whataboutism" when talking about a specific event. (Edit - There was actually more reason for them to draw their weapons and shoot him when they were wrestling on the ground, there was potential threat to life at that point. If they had shot him then, there probably would not be such an uproar. Shooting him in the back after that threat had gone is the problem.)
    He didn't have a firearm, a taser is not considered a "firearm", therefore your point is, well, pointless.
    When was anyone here arguing that a taser is a lethal weapon? Did I miss something?
    Absolutely agree, it is just that it doesn't carry the death sentence when convicted. The police were correct to stop and arrest him.
    Not at all, though again being drunk does not carry a death sentence when convicted.
     
    Last edited: 18 Jun 2020
    bawjaws likes this.
  10. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,466
    Likes Received:
    746
    The misunderstanding here, I think, is down to:
    a) a taser is now considered a lethal weapon in US law (which is why imo they should stop bloody using them altogether, because cops are really fuzzy on this and use them too inconsistently and too often)
    b) he fired the taser at the officer and was shot within about one second, i.e. it was an exchange of fire.

    I'm surprised this is so contentious, I thought this one would be fairly cut and dry. It looks for all the world like a justified killing: he was resisting arrest, violently fighting the police (you can see him hitting and kicking them on the CCTV) and took what, by law, they are required to consider a deadly weapon off them and fired it at them. Deadly force to deadly force; it's tragic, but it isn't police brutality. It's just policing.

    At that point, focusing on the direction he's running, or the colour of his skin, is disingenuous and tacky. They were doing their job. You may not like how the US police are required or advised to do their jobs (I certainly don't like it) or the tools they use (I really don't like tasers and guns), but that he was immediately fired and is now charged with murder when, any other month, this would be considered textbook police work, is a sign of how cowed the police departments are by the current climate.
     
  11. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    738
    Exactly. None of the things that Rayshard Brooks did warranted his death. Shooting him in the back is an insane overreaction and pretty much a textbook display of excessive force.

    And @Xlog , you can take this line:
    and shove it. Yes, drink driving is serious: so serious that there's a defined range of sanctions for it. None of those sanctions include the death penalty.

    I am so, so ****ing sick of people trying to justify police violence and trying to victim blame. ****ing sick of it.
     
    d_stilgar likes this.
  12. Fingers66

    Fingers66 Kiwi in London

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    8,683
    Likes Received:
    917
    I wasn't aware that a taser is classified as a lethal weapon in the states, sounds a bit odd to me. Have you got a source on that claim?

    I am aware of studies that, due to the risk of cardiac arrest for example, that tasers are considered to not be as "less lethal" (term used by US Dept. of Justice) as first thought. I just wasn't aware that they were classified as lethal.
     
  13. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,466
    Likes Received:
    746
    In some cases, the victim's actions directly lead to their death through the police using proportionate force and accurately following their training. I know that's uncomfortable and I know it sometimes looks like the odious phenomenon of victim blaming, but sometimes these observations are legitimate.

    I was quickly reprimanded by an American friend for thinking that the police overreacted in this case. As a Brit I underestimated what a big deal it is, what a huge no-no it is, in the US to shoot anything at the police. Especially something you just stole from them in a fight.

    edit
    Yeah, it's weird. They kill a lot of people, but aren't designed to. They're awful.
     
  14. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,738
    Likes Received:
    2,163
    Like 'less than lethal' rounds [rubber bullets et al]... If you don't know what you're doing [or know exactly what you're doing] they can, and do, kill.
     
  15. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    6,667
    Likes Received:
    835
    Yes, attacking a Cop is huge no no but:

    Don't forget that the 2nd Cop still had his taser (ready in his hand and good to go) as Brooks was running.
    So there are indeed legal arguments to be had on how to justify / condemn switching away from the taser to the gun.
     
  16. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,738
    Likes Received:
    2,163


    EDIT:

     
    Last edited: 18 Jun 2020
    bawjaws likes this.
  17. d_stilgar

    d_stilgar Old School Modder

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    1,003
    Likes Received:
    91
    I think we've normalized police killing people. We're used to it. But it's not normal. It's not okay. The only time I think it's justified would be in a "it was my life or theirs" scenario, and even then, the police had better have done everything they could to deescalate the situation before it came to that point.

    What happens if Brooks got away? A man hunt? Some detective work? A warrant and an arrest later?
    Brooks would end up with more charges. He'd get the DUI plus resisting, plus fleeing, plus some others I'm sure. But then he'd be able to have a trial, serve whatever time the judge thinks is appropriate, and get back to life. That's what we've decided is "justice" in the US. It's not perfect, but we accept it because that's the system we've designed. Police killings are outside of that system. They aren't justice.

    Every police-involved death is a tragedy, but because there are more than a thousand of them a year in the US, we've become numb to it. It's just another statistic instead of the miscarriage of justice it really is, instead of the individual tragedy we should feel each time it happens. But how can you take a day to mourn when there are 3+ of these deaths per day? You can't.

    I get the anxiety of wanting things done the right way, or for people to keep an even head about these things. I've been concerned from the beginning that Chauvin and the other officers arrested in George Floyd's death will actually get sentenced. It's not that the don't deserve to rot in prison. I'm livid about their actions. But my guess is that they didn't do anything illegal, and that's the problem. So if they go to prison, it won't be right, at least not by the laws we have in place. It will be wrong. What would be right would be for the laws to change, for these ridiculous protections of police officers to go away, both for their actions individually and for their job protections because of the police unions. That would represent real change toward justice. But simply sending a few guys to jail (who deserve it) isn't going to fix the system that brought them to that point in the first place, and especially not if what they did was technically legal in the first place.

    ^This. Unless you suspect the person is on a killing spree or rampage and poses an immediate threat to the lives of others, you should let them run. You can always get them tomorrow.

    Like, I said, I think we're way too conditioned to just accept police killing people as soon as those people become inconvenient to them. Nobody's life was in danger. Police should know that every now and then they're going to get in a tussle and maybe even get beat up a bit. That's a hazard of the job. The thinking should be, "Well, I got some cuts and bruises, but I didn't kill the guy," not, "I didn't want to get hurt, so I just killed him to save myself the trouble."

    This is the toxicity of US policing. The only actions that should lead to an assailant's own death by the hands of police would be to directly threaten the life of another person. That's the only time. Police training should not include, "If the perp gets the best of you in a tussle, shoot him as he runs away." If you get bested as a cop, you shrug it off and be grateful that you weren't hurt. Be embarrassed. Write it up in the report. Get ribbed by your fellow officers (all of which contribute to the toxicity, btw). But this idea that if you do something to the police that the automatically get the right to use whatever level of force they wish is ********. It's exactly what people want to end.

    If the police want to be respected, then they need to stop acting like fragile assholes. They have the monopoly on the legal use of force. Not us. They have to show that they actually deserve to have it by showing restraint, by never ****ing it up. This is people's lives on the line. It's not some game of pride.

    So I absolutely disagree. Some drunk guy running away should not be the action that directly leads to his death. That can't be justification. This video shows what most people believe about cops and what most people are wrong about in their belief about cops. Most people believe that cops are good and they're just doing their job. The majority of this video shows exactly that. Then the video takes a turn and shows us what all cops are capable of, what all cops will do, what all cops are trained to do, what the law tells them they're justified to do, that they'll kill someone once a very low bar of requirements has been met.

    That's why I don't buy the "few bad apples" garbage. It's the entire system of training. It's in the entire culture. It's the police union. It's the relationship with the local DA. It's the laws that protect the police from civil and criminal lawsuits. It's all got to be stripped away. It all feeds the toxic system.
     
    Last edited: 19 Jun 2020
  18. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,738
    Likes Received:
    2,163
    That's a lot of the problem, the police can do whatever the hell they like under the guise of 'I feared for my life', in part because the public and the rest of the system is conditioned or set up to uncritically and blindly take their word for it. Most officer-involved shootings seem to boil down to this -

    Oversight: Why did you shoot this man?
    Police: I feared for my life
    Oversight: Oh, ok then. NEXT!

    They're only getting caught out now because they're being caught on camera doing this **** in scenarios where 'i feared for my life' is demonstrably bollocks.
     
  19. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    738
    @d_stilgar , that is an excellent post, and thank you for making it. I've tried to type a couple of posts this evening but have ended up deleting them, because to be totally honest with you my patience has completely run out and I'm so fed up of people trying to justify yet another example of police murdering someone unnecessarily.
     
  20. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    58
    I was more looking at his cognitive dissonance and the habit to misconstrue what was said than busy with a discussion. I suppose the reason for seeking out the profession to begin with was a cry for help :D

    It's always fun though dude.
     

Share This Page