Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Bad Boys II - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Bad Boys II (/Thread-Bad-Boys-II)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-15-2020

 

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-15-2020

 

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-15-2020

NSFW...obviously.





RE: Bad Boys II - hollodero - 06-16-2020

(06-15-2020, 06:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have zero issue with that and don't know a single LEO that does.  Questioning not being analogous to Monday morning quarterbacking though, which is insanely frustrating and completely discounts the need to make split second decisions.  Not be facetious, but I can't even count how many times I've had to explain the "aim for center mass" policy for discharging your firearm on this board alone.

That is kinda how this works though. It's a similar experience when it comes to climate change. There are points so easily refutable, yet they just do not go away for decades, these things are hydras. Many people just tend to fill gaps of knowledge with stances that are about politics in nature. Independently, many people know little about many topics, sure including me. It's the fate of those who know a little to be faced with that repeatedly and often.
Eg. you're right, I know nothing about guns or how to use guns. I admit it was a bit naive to assume you could just shoot someone in the foot, as if that were red dead redemption (and even when I try stunts like that there, I usually shoot three innocent bystanders first).
But some questions imho are legit still. Or just expression of my lacking knowledge. I see the case at hand as stated with not much wiggle room, but it is a bit frustrating to admit that there's only killing this guy or not intervening at all and no third option. I even can see a point for the latter then. Or why not use a warning shot. Or why use multiple shots, as in to make sure that guy doesn't survive. Also, how big was the actual, credible danger for the policemen. Also, why did they have to interact with him for over 20 minutes first before he was arrested.

Feel free to answer some of those if you please. Chances are I will believe you. Chances are that makes me step on political nails. For the less people know, the more they fill it with politics, as a really wise man once stated earlier in his post. People know little about policework and shootings. And a video often tells people the story they expect to see.

RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-16-2020

(06-15-2020, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Shocked

 

Old news. That's from 2019. Lots of recent killings to focus on now.

Looks like the perp was going to button his pants.    ". . . reaching for a weapon."

RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 02:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: That is kinda how this works though. It's a similar experience when it comes to climate change. There are points so easily refutable, yet they just do not go away for decades, these things are hydras. Many people just tend to fill gaps of knowledge with stances that are about politics in nature. Independently, many people know little about many topics, sure including me. It's the fate of those who know a little to be faced with that repeatedly and often.
Eg. you're right, I know nothing about guns or how to use guns. I admit it was a bit naive to assume you could just shoot someone in the foot, as if that were red dead redemption (and even when I try stunts like that there, I usually shoot three innocent bystanders first).
But some questions imho are legit still. Or just expression of my lacking knowledge. I see the case at hand as stated with not much wiggle room, but it is a bit frustrating to admit that there's only killing this guy or not intervening at all and no third option. I even can see a point for the latter then. Or why not use a warning shot. Or why use multiple shots, as in to make sure that guy doesn't survive. Also, how big was the actual, credible danger for the policemen. Also, why did they have to interact with him for over 20 minutes first before he was arrested.

Yeah, seems there were stages of de-escalation which were passed over, or never recognized.

You ask some good questions above, which may come from not "already" knowing what the right answers are--fresh eyes to the case.

Couple points to add to the conversation, and a question:

1. Had a friend over for dinner this evening who served in the IDF (2013-14), which often deploys against Palestinian civilians.  He says that when forced to defend themselves, under real threat by civilians, they were told to shoot them in the legs. Avoid deaths. This included people throwing rocks and other injurious items at soldiers. Not a stupid idea at all, and from people who "know guns."

But US police are only supposed to be using deadly force when there is an immediate and direct threat to their lives or others. Like a 250 Lb man running straight at you with an ax. We only get into these muddled discussions of whether to go for "body mass" because there are so many times when police kill people who are not such a threat. (Check out the video in Dino's post #960 above--like a firing squad.) People wonder "Couldn't they have used less force, like shoot him in the leg?" But then police are in trouble for using lethal force where "less than" was called for. Cuz a gun is always deadly force.

2. There was, of course, a "3rd option" quite other than "aiming for center mass" on a fleeing suspect. Let the guy run. Follow him, call for more back up. Arrest him with force when he's petered out. Then no one has to tell his wife, mother, daughter and friends that he was killed during an altercation which began when he was sleeping in his car at Wendy's, and after he had offered to leave his car parked and walk home.

So it will be interesting to see how the defense defines "actual, credible danger" this case.  I'm thinking they'll have to go heavy on the officer's subjective state. Did he believe Brooks was in a position to cause him or anyone else "great bodliy harm or death"?  You never know what a jury will do (remember Treyvon Martin, OJ Simpson), but the prosecution will certainly ask "why not let the guy run?"  Why did killing seem the better option than chasing a fleeing drunk with a spent taser? One guy on foot, another in the squad car?

3. You introduce a climate science analogy; what do you suppose are the "easily refutable points" in the Brooks case? Who are the "scientists" refuting those points, and who are the big extraction companies arguing that climate change is a liberal hoax? A proper correlation may not appear until one looks closely at each side's methods (assuming there are only two sides).

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 03:05 AM)Dill Wrote: Old news. That's from 2019. Lots of recent killings to focus on now.

Looks like the perp was going to button his pants.    ". . . reaching for a weapon."

Yeah that is a thread of all the current events but they will show those older ones too.

Obviously you need multiple officers armed and "locked and loaded" ad the POTUS likes to say when on a call about a homeless guy at a bus stop.

I mean how could we move "funds" to another group better designed to handle such a situation and leave other things to the officers?  We can't "defund" the police.   Mellow

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-16-2020

 

RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 08:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah that is a thread of all the current events but they will show those older ones too.

Obviously you need multiple officers armed and "locked and loaded" ad the POTUS likes to say when on a call about a homeless guy at a bus stop.

I mean how could we move "funds" to another group better designed to handle such a situation and leave other things to the officers?  We can't "defund" the police.   Mellow

Just joking about the "currency" of such events. They are all so bad.

And that was especially bad and perhaps revealing. 

By the way, the homeless man killed in that video had already been charged once for shooting his BB pistol at a building, and arrested still another time for waving an ax he claimed to have found.  So there was a history there.  The officers formed a wall between him and the public to protect them. They "responded in accordance with their training."
https://www.abqjournal.com/1378453/police-id-man-shot-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting.html

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Just joking about the "currency" of such events. They are all so bad.

And that was especially bad and perhaps revealing. 

By the way, the homeless man killed in that video had already been charged once for shooting his BB pistol at a building, and arrested still another time for waving an ax he claimed to have found.  So there was a history there.  The officers formed a wall between him and the public to protect them. They "responded in accordance with their training."
https://www.abqjournal.com/1378453/police-id-man-shot-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting.html

No doubt.  That's why NOT having the police respond to situations that might not require their "training" might be a benefit to all in involved.

RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 04:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, seems there were stages of de-escalation which were passed over, or never recognized.

Such as? 


Quote:You ask some good questions above, which may come from not "already" knowing what the right answers are--fresh eyes to the case.

Couple points to add to the conversation, and a question:

1. Had a friend over for dinner this evening who served in the IDF (2013-14), which often deploys against Palestinian civilians.  He says that when forced to defend themselves, under real threat by civilians, they were told to shoot them in the legs. Avoid deaths. This included people throwing rocks and other injurious items at soldiers. Not a stupid idea at all, and from people who "know guns."


Ugh, the ignorance about firearms again raises its head.  The IDF soldiers have rifles equipped with scopes or red dot sights.  It is infinitely easier to aim for a body part other than center mass when using a long gun with an appropriate scope or tactical sight.  Additionally, they have the advantage of occupying a fixed position, meaning they aren't on the move when making such shots.  All of this adds up to a much easier shot then you are intimating. 

I'll further add that hitting someone in the thigh with a high velocity rifle round is very close to as lethal as shooting them in the torso.  If you hit the femoral artery that person will bleed out in short order.  If the bullet does not directly hit the artery then the "stretch cavity" or the stress tearing caused by the bullet dumping kinetic energy into the surrounding tissues will absolutely tear the artery if it hits anywhere near it.  Additionally, if you hit the femur with a high velocity rifle round it will shatter, sending bone splinters into the surrounding tissue, which is likely to hit the femoral artery as it rests almost directly against the femur.  So congrats to your friend for making am ore difficult shot attempt, that is only slightly less lethal, but also raises the possibility of his missing the target and hitting something behind the target, like a person who isn't throwing rocks.  So yes, it is a stupid idea when you take into account all the actual facts of the consequences of such an action.



Quote:But US police are only supposed to be using deadly force when there is an immediate and direct threat to their lives or others. Like a 250 Lb man running straight at you with an ax. We only get into these muddled discussions of whether to go for "body mass" because there are so many times when police kill people who are not such a threat. (Check out the video in Dino's post #960 above--like a firing squad.)  People wonder "Couldn't they have used less force, like shoot him in the leg?" But then police are in trouble for using lethal force where "less than" was called for. Cuz a gun is always deadly force.


Then your argument is the use of deadly force itself, not the aiming for center mass.  You talk about them like they're the same thing, they are not.  If you use deadly force you always aim center mass, no serious firearms instructor would ever tell you otherwise.  Your issue is, or should be, with deadly force being used in the first place.


Quote:2. There was, of course, a "3rd option" quite other than "aiming for center mass" on a fleeing suspect. Let the guy run. Follow him, call for more back up. Arrest him with force when he's petered out. Then no one has to tell his wife, mother, daughter and friends that he was killed during an altercation which began when he was sleeping in his car at Wendy's, and after he had offered to leave his car parked and walk home.

Sure, they could have let him run with the weapon he was actively using against them.  Of course, you have the benefit of watching this scenario from your chair, not having just fought the guy on the ground and had him steal your weapon.  The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately.  I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision.


Quote:So it will be interesting to see how the defense defines "actual, credible danger" this case.  I'm thinking they'll have to go heavy on the officer's subjective state. Did he believe Brooks was in a position to cause him or anyone else "great bodliy harm or death"?  You never know what a jury will do (remember Treyvon Martin, OJ Simpson), but the prosecution will certainly ask "why not let the guy run?"  Why did killing seem the better option than chasing a fleeing drunk with a spent taser? One guy on foot, another in the squad car?

What defense?  Has the former officer been charged with a crime?  Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk.  Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly.  Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed.  Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing.  This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students.  At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.

Quote:3. You introduce a climate science analogy; what do you suppose are the "easily refutable points" in the Brooks case? Who are the "scientists" refuting those points, and who are the big extraction companies arguing that climate change is a liberal hoax?  A proper correlation may not appear until one looks closely at each side's methods (assuming there are only two sides).

It's not really a great analogy, just leave it at that.

RE: Bad Boys II - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 02:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: That is kinda how this works though. It's a similar experience when it comes to climate change. There are points so easily refutable, yet they just do not go away for decades, these things are hydras. Many people just tend to fill gaps of knowledge with stances that are about politics in nature. Independently, many people know little about many topics, sure including me. It's the fate of those who know a little to be faced with that repeatedly and often.
Eg. you're right, I know nothing about guns or how to use guns. I admit it was a bit naive to assume you could just shoot someone in the foot, as if that were red dead redemption (and even when I try stunts like that there, I usually shoot three innocent bystanders first).
But some questions imho are legit still. Or just expression of my lacking knowledge. I see the case at hand as stated with not much wiggle room, but it is a bit frustrating to admit that there's only killing this guy or not intervening at all and no third option. I even can see a point for the latter then. Or why not use a warning shot. Or why use multiple shots, as in to make sure that guy doesn't survive. Also, how big was the actual, credible danger for the policemen. Also, why did they have to interact with him for over 20 minutes first before he was arrested.

Feel free to answer some of those if you please. Chances are I will believe you. Chances are that makes me step on political nails. For the less people know, the more they fill it with politics, as a really wise man once stated earlier in his post. People know little about policework and shootings. And a video often tells people the story they expect to see.

There are almost always other options.  The real question is was the option used by the officer inappropriate?  Reviewing footage from the safety of your office will always give you a bigger picture, and reveal other possibilities, that may not have been readily apparent to the officer on the ground and in the heat of the moment.

To answer some of your statements in particular.  Warning shots?  Never, ever ever.  What are you going to shoot with your warning shot?  The ground so it can ricochet?  The air so the bullet can come down on an unintended target?  Horrible idea that will, justifiably, get you fired.  Multiple shots?  As stated before, hitting a moving target with a handgun while on the move yourself is very difficult.  You may not hit your target with one bullet.  You also may not incapacitate your target with one bullet.  An excellent example of this is this FBI involved shooting, which coincidentally led to the creation of the 10mm round.  One of the suspects was initially hit with a fatal shot, he could not have survived if he had been shot in the operating room.  He still went on to shoot back at the agents for some time.

As to whether he was a credible danger, he had just fought with police and stolen one of their weapons.  Is a man willing to fight the police and steal a weapon from them a dangerous person?  One would think his actions have already answered this question.  Also, although this was not known at the time, this man was on parole from a 7 year prison sentence for physically abusing one of his children.  Lastly, while fleeing he discharged the stolen weapon at the pursuing officer.  There really is no question about this guy being a violent person.

Lastly, why did they interact with him for such a long time?  I find this question odd as it's criticizing the police for actually being thorough, diligent and following procedure. Even if a person reeks of alcohol, slurs their speech and falls asleep behind the wheel of their car in a drive through line you still have to prove they are intoxicated. These are all facts that give you probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test.  I also believe the officer in question showed up later as he was more qualified to conduct such tests.  Also, talking with a person and establishing some rapport makes a potential, resulting, arrest more likely to go smoothly, although that clearly did not happen in this instance.  If you watch the full video, instead of the selectively edited one used by the media (which coincidentally does not show just how much this guy was slurring his speech and speaking incoherently) this officer did a very good job of keeping the interaction as pleasant and non-confrontational as possible until the actual arrest began. 

RE: Bad Boys II - masonbengals fan - 06-16-2020

What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault.

RE: Bad Boys II - samhain - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 02:17 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault.

Yeah I agree, but enough about your boy Trump, who admitted that he's never asked forgiveness for anything in his life, yet gets slobbered over by evangelicals and people like you who continue to pretend to care about people taking "personal responsibility".  Laughable shit, that is.  

Almost everyone loves personal responsibility when discussing it online.  Few care to deal with what it means in real life.

RE: Bad Boys II - hollodero - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To answer some of your statements in particular.

Thank you. I can understand each answer. As expected.

(And I only brought up CC as an example for explaining the same things, or refuting the same things, over and over again and that I know the feeling. Nothing further.)

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 02:17 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault.

And many times there is enough blame to go around to everyone involved.  But people choose sides and dig their heels in. Picking a choosing where they will speak out to defend their positions without acknowledging any other.

RE: Bad Boys II - masonbengals fan - 06-16-2020

(06-16-2020, 02:42 PM)samhain Wrote: Yeah I agree, but enough about your boy Trump, who admitted that he's never asked forgiveness for anything in his life, yet gets slobbered over by evangelicals and people like you who continue to pretend to care about people taking "personal responsibility".  Laughable shit, that is.  

Almost everyone loves personal responsibility when discussing it online.  Few care to deal with what it means in real life.

It's been taught in my family over the years & I didn't need a PC in my home to bring it up either. 

RE: Bad Boys II - Belsnickel - 06-16-2020

So, here is something interesting to think about. Is a taser a deadly weapon? In order for the cops that tased those college students to be charged with aggravated assault, it would have to be under Georgia law. So the same DA, DA Howard of Fulton County, confirms a taser is a deadly weapon with his charges for cops a couple weeks ago, now tries to say it isn't with the cop from the Wendy's situation. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-21

Quote:(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:


(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;

(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or

(3) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

So either the cops in the college student situation are facing trumped up charges, or the officer that shot Brown after having a taser deployed at him (I was incorrect in my understanding of which officer fired earlier in this thread) was completely justified in his use of deadly force.

Take your pick.

Edit to add: By the way, since he placed charges on the officers for using the taser, he has put himself on the record justifying the deadly force in the Brown shooting. Then, being interviewed for the Brown shooting, he said a taser is not a deadly weapon. So putting that on the record means the officers he charged with aggravated assault will walk with any competent attorney representing them.

RE: Bad Boys II - Dill - 06-17-2020

(05-11-2018, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have more training and experience on how to de-escalate a situation then you could possibly imagine.  Have you ever tried to relocate the first Bosniac family back into Zvornik surrounded by a mob of angry Serbs within site of the Drina drop?

Didn't know you served in Bosnia too.  Respect for that training and experience.

Some of that knowledge might make for some effective comparison/contrast when we are discussing ROE for US cops.

RE: Bad Boys II - GMDino - 06-17-2020

(06-16-2020, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is something interesting to think about. Is a taser a deadly weapon? In order for the cops that tased those college students to be charged with aggravated assault, it would have to be under Georgia law. So the same DA, DA Howard of Fulton County, confirms a taser is a deadly weapon with his charges for cops a couple weeks ago, now tries to say it isn't with the cop from the Wendy's situation. 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-21


So either the cops in the college student situation are facing trumped up charges, or the officer that shot Brown after having a taser deployed at him (I was incorrect in my understanding of which officer fired earlier in this thread) was completely justified in his use of deadly force.

Take your pick.

Edit to add: By the way, since he placed charges on the officers for using the taser, he has put himself on the record justifying the deadly force in the Brown shooting. Then, being interviewed for the Brown shooting, he said a taser is not a deadly weapon. So putting that on the record means the officers he charged with aggravated assault will walk with any competent attorney representing them.

Without knowing about the first case, is there more to that charge than just the weapon used?  I'll have to read up on it.

That said I don't believe a taser is lethal when used properly.  I also don't believe someone who just took one from an officer knows how to aim and fire one while running either so I don't find them a lethal threat to anyone.