Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.
I don't think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.
I agree. Although it is pretty interesting how quickly they were able to release the bodycam footage.
Funny how it's out the next day when it exonerates the cop of any wrongdoing. That's why I assume the worst when they don't release immediately. Oversight is good for everyone, including police.
Well yeah, they didn't have to go to the writers room to come up with a narrative, or dig through his rap sheet to see if he ever looked at a marijuana.
I forget what video it was where the cop pulls the old "oh you're recording? So am I." routine and the guy instantly responds "yeah, but my recordings don't magically disappear" 😂
It's just digital files, any police department can release body cam footage quickly. They just don't want to.
I think that was the point he was trying to make
When cops shot a hostage in California it took them 2 years to release it. I think that was their point, footage is released quickly when the cops are in the right, it suddenly becomes a problem if it makes them look bad.
I just assume malicious intent in those cases. Not sure I've ever been wrong.
I mean, I'm not gonna get too worked up either, but just to be clear, California's bar for use of deadly force is that it has to be to protect against expected severe bodily injury or death.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.
(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.
So that's the bar that a court is gonna expect the male officer to need to meet. I imagine that it's not impossible that a court could find that that didn't meet the bar. The article doesn't say that the guy who got shot actually attempted to pull the weapon.
That being said, the guy was hiding a weapon and was attempting to overpower an officer, and I imagine that a court is gonna be (not-unreasonably) inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that.
This won't go to court.
Cant they use their tazer?
Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?
The real problem here is that Americans just keep arming everyone, so then you have crazies with the guns.
Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?
Speaking independently of the story- Not very by comparison to firearms. Something like 50% less accurate. There's also the issue that tasers will not always incapacitate someone. That's a gamble if someone has a weapon and the range to use it.
Part of the rationale in using a firearm is the need to body someone before they can use a weapon where non lethal methods are just not as effective.
Of course, when you investigate yourself you will always find that you used your firearm in the appropriate situational context.
As an outsider, the whole thing seems insane.
A gun isn't that precise either I guess. So when you are under stress of getting shot you'd pick the gun option instead of a less lethal one because you feel threatened. Who wouldn't. Guessing wildly here, and as usual everyone having guns isn't like makeing the place more safe.
as usual everyone having guns isn't like makeing the place more safe.
If anything it's more like injecting an unknown number of dangerous wildcards into an already dangerous situation.
you have crazies with the guns.
Thafuq do you think the cops are‽
You make it sound like I don't put American cops in the same group as Americans.
The cops are armed because everyone else is armed. Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in when you can have a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.
It's not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.
I prefer to assume any argument is made in good faith until proven otherwise, so please understand that the following criticisms are contextual and not, of course, personal.
The cops are armed because everyone else is armed
Bullshit. That implies that vast majority of interactions cops have with "everyone" else (ignoring the obvious hyperbole) while on the clock are with other armed people, which is not only patently false but dangerously presumptive in a grossly negligent way. In fact, the statement is so irrational that any statistic even comparing fatality rates between armed & unarmed individuals by cops would entirely debunk it; cops are not armed "because" others are, they're armed first and foremost — and have been, since the very concept of a "police force" was first invented, FFS.
Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in...
Considering your failure to grasp the predicating concept, I'm hesitant to trust that you got the key in hand here.
...a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.
Again, this doesn't seem to be in your wheelhouse at the moment.
It's not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.
Logical fallacy and bait, not to mention an oversimplification of the actual issues at play.
So, do you want to have an adult conversation or just bark across the pond (where we'll be touching on various police issues y'all have on your island yonder, to be sure), hmm?
Who gives a fuck
Some people don't like to kill other people. Weird, huh?!?!
Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.
I don't think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.
I agree. Although it is pretty interesting how quickly they were able to release the bodycam footage.
Funny how it's out the next day when it exonerates the cop of any wrongdoing. That's why I assume the worst when they don't release immediately. Oversight is good for everyone, including police.
Yup. Someone should tell DeSantis.
https://www.aclufl.org/en/press-releases/statement-gov-desantis-signing-house-bill-601-restricting-civilian-law-enforcement
Well yeah, they didn't have to go to the writers room to come up with a narrative, or dig through his rap sheet to see if he ever looked at a marijuana.
I forget what video it was where the cop pulls the old "oh you're recording? So am I." routine and the guy instantly responds "yeah, but my recordings don't magically disappear" 😂
It's just digital files, any police department can release body cam footage quickly. They just don't want to.
I think that was the point he was trying to make
When cops shot a hostage in California it took them 2 years to release it. I think that was their point, footage is released quickly when the cops are in the right, it suddenly becomes a problem if it makes them look bad.
I just assume malicious intent in those cases. Not sure I've ever been wrong.
Yep that's what they were saying
googles
I mean, I'm not gonna get too worked up either, but just to be clear, California's bar for use of deadly force is that it has to be to protect against expected severe bodily injury or death.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-835a/
So that's the bar that a court is gonna expect the male officer to need to meet. I imagine that it's not impossible that a court could find that that didn't meet the bar. The article doesn't say that the guy who got shot actually attempted to pull the weapon.
That being said, the guy was hiding a weapon and was attempting to overpower an officer, and I imagine that a court is gonna be (not-unreasonably) inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that.
This won't go to court.
Cant they use their tazer?
Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?
The real problem here is that Americans just keep arming everyone, so then you have crazies with the guns.
Speaking independently of the story- Not very by comparison to firearms. Something like 50% less accurate. There's also the issue that tasers will not always incapacitate someone. That's a gamble if someone has a weapon and the range to use it.
Part of the rationale in using a firearm is the need to body someone before they can use a weapon where non lethal methods are just not as effective.
Of course, when you investigate yourself you will always find that you used your firearm in the appropriate situational context.
As an outsider, the whole thing seems insane.
A gun isn't that precise either I guess. So when you are under stress of getting shot you'd pick the gun option instead of a less lethal one because you feel threatened. Who wouldn't. Guessing wildly here, and as usual everyone having guns isn't like makeing the place more safe.
If anything it's more like injecting an unknown number of dangerous wildcards into an already dangerous situation.
Thafuq do you think the cops are‽
You make it sound like I don't put American cops in the same group as Americans.
The cops are armed because everyone else is armed. Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in when you can have a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.
It's not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.
I prefer to assume any argument is made in good faith until proven otherwise, so please understand that the following criticisms are contextual and not, of course, personal.
Bullshit. That implies that vast majority of interactions cops have with "everyone" else (ignoring the obvious hyperbole) while on the clock are with other armed people, which is not only patently false but dangerously presumptive in a grossly negligent way. In fact, the statement is so irrational that any statistic even comparing fatality rates between armed & unarmed individuals by cops would entirely debunk it; cops are not armed "because" others are, they're armed first and foremost — and have been, since the very concept of a "police force" was first invented, FFS.
Considering your failure to grasp the predicating concept, I'm hesitant to trust that you got the key in hand here.
Again, this doesn't seem to be in your wheelhouse at the moment.
Logical fallacy and bait, not to mention an oversimplification of the actual issues at play.
So, do you want to have an adult conversation or just bark across the pond (where we'll be touching on various police issues y'all have on your island yonder, to be sure), hmm?
Who gives a fuck
Some people don't like to kill other people. Weird, huh?!?!
Yep