(06-15-2020, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, I agree with that, and this person does rather qualify for the Darwin award then for poster boy against police brutality. The only thing I wonder is if it was indeed necessary to outright kill him. Though Biden caught much scrutiny and ridicule with that saying, I guess the "Biden approach" of wounding him would have worked in that instance.

(06-15-2020, 02:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like shoot him in the leg or something? Among other bad reasons for this is: It makes missing more likely and possibly hitting an innocent bystander. If the decision to shoot is made it should be done center mass. 

(06-15-2020, 02:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, and as I said earlier, this depends on the surrounding circumstances and likely intent.

A mass shooter fleeing with a gun could certainly be considered a threat.

But is it logical to suppose THIS guy was fleeing the officers to hurt someone else? That he could hurt them while fleeing?

(06-15-2020, 02:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think this guy "had it coming" --death--because he ran from police with a taser and shot it back at one.

(06-15-2020, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Shot after firing a taser, shot with his back to the police.

I understand your point. It might hold if he were still firing a "less lethal" weapon and charging the police.

But police aren't legally empowered to shoot a fleeing suspect who poses no threat to them at the moment, or others, even if he shot a taser at them earlier.

The legal question will be what threat did the suspect pose to anyone at the time of the shooting, as he ran.

If the shooter says in court "Well he shot at my partner before that, so I shot him. Don't care if he was fleeing," there will be riots if he gets off.

(06-15-2020, 02:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: I disagree on that one. If one walks to a cop and steals a weapon from him, and then aims at them with it, that person acts in a suicidal manner. I suppose if I did that as member of the ethnic majority in my peaceful country, cops would shoot me as well.

What are the cops supposed to do?

(06-15-2020, 03:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You seem to think it was like he was shot a while after firing the taser. It was a split second difference where he deployed the taser at one officer and the other officer immediately pulled his service pistol and fired. The officer chasing him actually ran into a car trying to dodge the probes. I can say with certainty that a reasonable person would have done the same in that situation.

(06-15-2020, 03:25 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd have to look at the video again. I couldn't hear the sound and so could not tell exactly when the shots were fired.

I'll grant a qualified "reasonable" if the shooter aimed at the victim's chest and the victim spun as the cop pulled the trigger.

Otherwise. No. Especially if the other officer did manage to dodge the probes.

A cop should still be thinking whether the kill was warranted for DUI and resisting arrest.  

(06-15-2020, 03:17 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL given its recent record of violence against passive, even immobilized, suspects, you don't want to use Austrian police as a standard. Would police in Denmark or the UK or Ireland or Norway shoot a guy waving a taser wrested from police? I have sincere doubts.

(06-15-2020, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: After watching the footage of the incident, he deployed the taser at the chasing officer, which resulted in the other officer firing the three shots. I honestly have zero problems with that.

(06-15-2020, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He shot the guy because the guy shot at him. He was not shot for "fleeing". The evidence will help sort this out. 

As I've said: Folks trying to associate this with the Floyd killing are most likely hurting the cause they are trying to help. 

(06-15-2020, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mean, I agree with that, and this person does rather qualify for the Darwin award then for poster boy against police brutality. The only thing I wonder is if it was indeed necessary to outright kill him. Though Biden caught much scrutiny and ridicule with that saying, I guess the "Biden approach" of wounding him would have worked in that instance.

(06-15-2020, 02:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, I guess that makes sense.

Just to clarify again, of course imho this guy had it coming 100% and I don't quite get how this is controversial even.

(06-15-2020, 04:25 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: It's unfair over here too.

By the way, Austria looks to be a beautiful place.

(06-15-2020, 03:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't. I can't know for sure, but I suppose this would be a suicidal move pretty much everywhere around the world.

Also, what especially bad history does the Austrian police have that you're referring to? There was an immobilized immigrant killed once, sure an awful deed, but that was over 20 years ago and I am not aware of any more recent severe violations. Sure there were some, that include unnecessary violence I really don't intend to diminish, but to give our police an especially bad reputation, especially in regard with killing people, seems a bit unfair. Unless you're aware of actually deadly incidents I am not aware of.

(06-15-2020, 05:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not referring to shootings, but to brutality. (Falter has videos of various incidents https://www.falter.at/zeitung/20150310/wie-die-polizei-eine-frau-verletzte-und-dann-falsch-beschuldigte.) And even that is much less than ours.

So my intent is not to give you THAT kind of reputation.  

(06-15-2020, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's controversial because some people, and we've got a few who post here on the regular, don't like law enforcement and will use any chance they get to castigate them.  They are part of an alarmingly high number of people, that is growing, that need the suspect to be blazing away with a machine gun before they'll, grudgingly, admit the LEO did the right thing in shooting the suspect.

(06-15-2020, 03:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The officer that fired had no way to know if the other cop had dodged the probes. It happened that fast. The suspect wasn't shot for a DUI or resisting arrest. He was shot for being a threat as he deployed a taser at a cop chasing him.

(06-15-2020, 05:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, sure we have our cases of police misconduct. I don't want to marginalize that. You made it sound though as if it were that out of hand that we can no longer serve as a valid comparison, unlike countries like Denmark or UK or Ireland. That is a bit of an exaggerated view.

(06-15-2020, 06:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't really think it's that. I rather suppose people are unwilling to admit to gray areas and the like because you live in such a dualistic, either-or world. I say that because I think often (sure not always) the explanation of "they don't like law enforcement" might be a bit too simplistic.

Quote:Alo I don't think it's inherently wrong to question police practices from time to time. Sure it would help if people would accept and consider answers then.

Quote:'Lawful but awful': Atlanta police had better options than lethal force in Rayshard Brooks shooting, experts say

As the already fiery debate about law enforcement in the U.S. is further fueled by the killing of a Black man fleeing from two white officers in Atlanta on Friday night, a term commonly known in police circles is likely to enter the mainstream: "lawful but awful."


That’s the phrase police apply to killings that may be technically legal but could have been avoided.
Surveillance video shows 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was running away after resisting arrest in the parking lot of a Wendy’s restaurant when he was shot by officer Garrett Rolfe, who was fired Sunday. The Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office said Sunday that Brooks died of two gunshot wounds to his back and ruled the death a homicide.

Atlanta protests:Rayshard Brooks shouldn't be dead 'because he was drunk at a freaking Wendy's'

After being questioned for falling asleep in his car in the restaurant's drive-thru line, Brooks had wrestled with the police when they tried to handcuff him and took officer Devin Brosnan’s Taser, firing it once at Rolfe as he pursued with his own Taser in hand.

Was shooting Brooks the best practice in that confrontation? Three experts consulted by USA TODAY said there were better options.

Kalfani Ture, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, served as a police officer in the Atlanta metropolitan area for five years. Ture said the Atlanta Police Department is highly regarded for its training, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported Sunday that Rolfe had taken a nine-hour course on deescalation alternatives in late April.

And yet, he decided to shoot.

“Would I have shot Rayshard Brooks? My answer is no,’’ Ture said. “It’s a questionable use of force, but there are many officers who may find this a lawful use of force. So, it’s one of those things we call in law enforcement ‘lawful but awful,’ meaning that the officer could have taken alternative action that did not result in the civilian’s death.’’

One might have been to pursue Brooks from a distance and call for backup.
Steve Ward, a retired California police chief, said he would run after suspects for long stretches knowing help was coming.

"My fellow officers were always there for me, and yet there were a few times that the violator got away," Ward said. "As a chief, I told this story and the new officers were astounded that I didn’t use all my less lethal tools that were provided. I told them I did: It’s called a radio and time."

But, he said, "I was not running after someone that had a police weapon in a parking lot of patrons."

While Ward said he was never in a situation in which "a subject overpowered two officers and took their weapon" during his nearly 30-year career, he still believed Rolfe reacted too quickly with force.
Asked if the Atlanta officer had better options, he said, "For me: Yes."

'Black people don’t want to be taken into custody' because of distrust of police
The shooting of Brooks is not nearly as cut-and-dried an excessive use of force as the case of George Floyd, the Black man who died May 25 when a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, Ture said. Video of that killing precipitated global protests against racial inequality and police brutality.

Rolfe could have mistaken the Taser that Brooks aimed at him as he fled for a handgun, Ture conceded, although he pointed out this one was yellow and probably easy to recognize. Plus, Ture noted the officers had patted down Brooks after he stepped out of the car before taking and failing a sobriety test.

Part of what led to this tragic conclusion is the well-earned distrust African Americans have of police, who tend to treat Blacks and Latinos as especially dangerous, Ture said. The interactions captured on video between Brooks and the officers were cordial until they tried to handcuff him.

“Black people don’t want to be taken into custody,’’ said Ture, who is Black, “because there’s always the fear that they may not come out on the other side.’’

Texas police chief cautions against use of force: 'We’re living in a different world now'
Andy Harvey, a former Dallas police officer and current police chief of Ennis, Texas, said the officers didn’t necessarily have to arrest Brooks despite him registering above the legal blood-alcohol limit for driving. The best approach, Harvey said, is to resolve problems at the lowest possible level of confrontation.

“They could have taken other alternatives before getting to that point where they felt they had to take action,’’ Harvey said. “How do we resolve this? Is there a cab you could call, or a family member who can come pick him up?’’

Harvey has written a book titled "Excellence in Policing," and he hosts a podcast by the same name. He said police officers are taught their life may be in danger when a suspect takes away one of their weapons, and that might have contributed to Rolfe's decision to shoot Brooks.

But Harvey said members of law enforcement need to realize the use of force has to be far down their list of tools, especially at a time when their actions are drawing scrutiny with a number of African Americans – often unarmed – dying at the hands of police.

“We’re living in a different world now. What the community expects from us has changed,’’ Harvey said. “When an officer does something egregious, they’re expected now to file charges against him, and even more so now with the sentiment around the country.’’

What does 'defund the police' mean? And why some say 'reform' is not enough
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms spoke out against the use of force in Brooks' shooting death Saturday night, hours after the resignation of Erika Shields, who resigned as police chief as the killing of Brooks sparked a new wave of protests in Atlanta amid turbulent demonstrations because of Floyd’s death.

"While there may be debate as to whether this was an appropriate use of deadly force, I firmly believe that there is a clear distinction between what you can do and what you should do," Bottoms said. "I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force."

The ACLU of Georgia on Sunday joined politicians, faith organizations and business and community leaders in Atlanta demanding structural changes in policing and a reimagining of public safety in the city.


“Our nation is based on constitutionally mandated due process under the law and provides for elaborate judicial proceedings to determine whether due process requirements have been met before life and liberty can be taken,” the ACLU said in a statement provided to the Savannah Morning News of the USA TODAY Network. “Yet, police officers continue to deny due process by acting with impunity as judge, jury, and executioner of unarmed Black citizens.”


Atlanta officers are permitted to use force if it's 'reasonable and necessary'
Atlanta police officers, according to the department's standard operating procedures, are prohibited from using force unless it is "reasonable and necessary to affect an arrest, prevent an escape, necessarily restrict the movement of a prisoner, defend the officer or another from physical assault, or to accomplish other lawful objectives."

In regards to use of lethal or nonlethal weapons, the Atlanta Police Department's policy references Georgia law, which allows for use of force when a person “reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.”

If a person is suspected of a felony, the department's policy allows for use of deadly force, but only if the officer “reasonably believes” that the suspect is in possession of a deadly weapon or object that is likely to result in serious injury, or if the officer believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the themselves or others.


Additionally, deadly force is allowed if there is probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime that either caused or threatened serious injury or if the officer believes that if the suspect’s escape would threaten serious injury to others.