Bad Boys II

[BmorePat87]

1000th post!

[Dill]

(06-17-2020, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon.  He was no threat as he ran away.  Deadly force was not authorized in that situation. 

The officers shot Brooks in the back and also shot into the car where passengers were still seated.  

Then after they shot Brooks in the back they kicked him while he was on the ground.  Stood on him while he was dying, and then refused to render and medical assistance.

First two points will likely stand. The second, especially, highlights how an officer, who won't let someone who is not a direct threat just run, can increase risk to others.

Brosnan's lawyer was on Cuomo tonight and disputes that Rolfe kicked Brooks. He also claims his client merely stood on Brooks' arm for a moment while ascertaining whether he had a weapon.

We'll have to listen to the defense lawyers as well as the prosecutors, and see what is eventually admitted as evidence and set down as the agreed upon factual record.

[Belsnickel]

So, the DA lied about the second officer turning state's evidence in the Brooks case, plus did not wait for the GBI to conduct their investigation before pressing charges. And now there are rumors about a walkout in response to the DA's actions, though there is a lot of contradictory statements on this.

[GMDino]

(06-18-2020, 12:38 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 1000th post!

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 09:44 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Whoops!

1000th reply **

[Dill]

Still some loose ends to tie up here:

(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

LOL you mean congrats to my friend's "stupid" command for telling soldiers to "make a more difficult shot attempt." IDF soliders know very well they can "miss the target and hit something behind." They make a good reference point for understanding the difference between using police to police civilians of one's own community and using military to police civilians who are not of one's own community, resulting in different calculations of applicable force.

Except for the bolded, which is just bad guesswork, "ignorant" IDF commanders (not to mention 80% of the people on this message board) are already familiar with the above information.  I'll wager most still don't see legs shots as only "slightly" less lethal.

Then you post this:

(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

In response to this:

"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."

. . . which exhibits no confusion either about what constitutes "deadly force" or whether the issue is "deadly force being used in the first place."

The point of the last two statements is that police officers aren't supposed to use a weapon of "deadly force" for anything but saving their own lives or bystanders'. If an unarmed person is resisting arrest, police can use their baton, pepper spray and tasers to manage that. But they can't just shoot a guy in the leg to settle him down. Even police reformers don't encourage limb shots on those who attack police, for fear it will loosen restrictions on when and where lethal weapons may be used.

The paragraph as a whole addresses the question many have when comparing police-caused deaths between countries.  E.g., British police are also frequently attacked by people wielding knives and pipes and other potentially deadly weapons, but somehow neutralize them without killing them. In the US, many see "no-choice" but to simply shoot the knife and pipe-wielders. Those who raise questions about this normality are typically scolded for "monday-morning quarterbacking" from their armchairs about an officer who had to make a "split second decision."  It is this bland acceptance of no other alternative that puzzles our friends from countries with high levels of police accountability.

Hoping you won't continue claiming you HAVE to post rationales for aiming "center-mass" because "ignorance" is the only reason people don't accept your take on appropriate force.

Time to consider more closely why we have so many "regrettable accidents" and shootings of unarmed people, including those fleeing the scene.

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 08:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, the DA lied about the second officer turning state's evidence in the Brooks case, plus did not wait for the GBI to conduct their investigation before pressing charges. And now there are rumors about a walkout in response to the DA's actions, though there is a lot of contradictory statements on this.

While I think the officer was wrong in using lethal force on Brooks, the decision to rush into a murder charge is a clear overreaction out of fear of wanting to get ahead of the unrest. 

A friend who is a police officer had been posting supportive of reforms and not having the police respond to half the stuff they're tasked with. After this, he's posting about wanting to get out of it all.

[Millhouse]

(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: While I think the officer was wrong in using lethal force on Brooks, the decision to rush into a murder charge is a clear overreaction out of fear of wanting to get ahead of the unrest. 

A friend who is a police officer had been posting supportive of reforms and not having the police respond to half the stuff they're tasked with. After this, he's posting about wanting to get out of it all.

I can't imagine too many are wanting to be a cop at the moment, especially in New York City with their clown of a mayor. What a far cry for the NYPD after 911 to now being demonized with 1 hand tied behind their backs as looters were looting free will, all to appease BLM. 

Ultimately I will always be pro police verses anti police, because there are plenty of shit people out there. And it sucks to see the amount of hate towards them when they are out there risking their lives in any given situation because of a few bad cops around the country. Which is ironic, because we are told we should never stereotype anyone because of where they live, race etc.

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 02:16 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I can't imagine too many are wanting to be a cop at the moment, especially in New York City with their clown of a mayor. What a far cry for the NYPD after 911 to now being demonized with 1 hand tied behind their backs as looters were looting free will, all to appease BLM. 

Ultimately I will always be pro police verses anti police, because there are plenty of shit people out there. And it sucks to see the amount of hate towards them when they are out there risking their lives in any given situation because of a few bad cops around the country. Which is ironic, because we are told we should never stereotype anyone because of where they live, race etc.

I agree with this sentiment about stereotyping. I am friends with a few officers. One major city. One highways. One with children and the schools. My next door neighbors were MPs and one is now a Baltimore cop. Every single one of them is a good person. Two are generally liberal. One conservative. Two apolitical. 

When the starting position is "all cops are bad cops" rather than "the system and anyone who works to keep it are bad", you're fighting a losing battle and one that is hypocritical. 

I think the anger needs to be focused on the system, the leadership that allows it, the unions that protect it, and the bad ones who perpetuate it. You need the goods ones. 

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: While I think the officer was wrong in using lethal force on Brooks, the decision to rush into a murder charge is a clear overreaction out of fear of wanting to get ahead of the unrest. 

A friend who is a police officer had been posting supportive of reforms and not having the police respond to half the stuff they're tasked with. After this, he's posting about wanting to get out of it all.

Many police departments will need heroically steady leadership going forward. People who can sort issues out for the community as well as their own troops.

Wouldn't hurt to start giving those kinds of leaders more public attention to inspire community confidence in the police and police confidence in their leadership. 

Same for police unions.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 02:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Many police departments will need heroically steady leadership going forward. People who can sort issues out for the community as well as their own troops.

Wouldn't hurt to start giving those kinds of leaders more public attention to inspire community confidence in the police and police confidence in their leadership. 

Same for police unions.  

This is why a lot of reforms are doomed to fail in this country. 90% of this comes down to localities doing something. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2020, 01:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: While I think the officer was wrong in using lethal force on Brooks, the decision to rush into a murder charge is a clear overreaction out of fear of wanting to get ahead of the unrest. 

A friend who is a police officer had been posting supportive of reforms and not having the police respond to half the stuff they're tasked with. After this, he's posting about wanting to get out of it all.

I know a lot of officers who talk about one of the biggest issues they face is that they are tasked with far more than they are trained for or should be tasked with. This is actually why I have a big issue with the whole "defund the police" movement. Had they labelled it differently or approached it a little differently, there are a ton of officers that would have been on board. But, because they chose that headline to go with, that is what people see and react to, instead of the real message.

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2020, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  Had they labelled it differently or approached it a little differently, there are a ton of officers that would have been on board. But, because they chose that headline to go with, that is what people see and react to, instead of the real message.

This.

Calling an increase in social services "defunding the police" was almost a kiss of death.

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know a lot of officers who talk about one of the biggest issues they face is that they are tasked with far more than they are trained for or should be tasked with. This is actually why I have a big issue with the whole "defund the police" movement. Had they labelled it differently or approached it a little differently, there are a ton of officers that would have been on board. But, because they chose that headline to go with, that is what people see and react to, instead of the real message.

(06-18-2020, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

Calling an increase in social services "defunding the police" was almost a kiss of death.

All of this, and as I said, while "defund" is being used colloquially to just mean reduce funding, we typically reserve the term to mean remove all funding, so it sends a terrible and confusing message.

The fact that people have to defend it by starting with "it doesn't remove all funding" shows the issue. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 03:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know a lot of officers who talk about one of the biggest issues they face is that they are tasked with far more than they are trained for or should be tasked with. This is actually why I have a big issue with the whole "defund the police" movement. Had they labelled it differently or approached it a little differently, there are a ton of officers that would have been on board. But, because they chose that headline to go with, that is what people see and react to, instead of the real message.

Yeah, I had a back and forth earlier in this thread over the term "defund" when protester cursed and made the Mayor of Minneapolis do the walk of shame for not agreeing with the term; but stated he wanted reform. 

Who is the "they" you refer to that went to the headline, instead of the real message?

[GMDino]

Weird how when people discuss the issue of defunding we understand it and it makes sense but that the those who disagree just scream the word defund and claim the "left" wants to get rid of all police.

Almost like they don't want to have a discussion but would rather mislead by using the short form chant that gets used in public.

Very weird.

See if the rest of the world was willing to have a discussion we wouldn't need protests and catch phrases on signs.  We would take the time to learn about subjects and stances and plans.  But instead "Black lives matter" gets grabbed and twisted into "all lives matter" and used to say blacks don't care about anyone else.  And "defund the police" gets grabbed and twisted rather than discussed.

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2020, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird how when people discuss the issue of defunding we understand it and it makes sense but that the those who disagree just scream the word defund and claim the "left" wants to get rid of all police.

Almost like they don't want to have a discussion but would rather mislead by using the short form chant that gets used in public.

Very weird.

See if the rest of the world was willing to have a discussion we wouldn't need protests and catch phrases on signs.  We would take the time to learn about subjects and stances and plans.  But instead "Black lives matter" gets grabbed and twisted into "all lives matter" and used to say blacks don't care about anyone else.  And "defund the police" gets grabbed and twisted rather than discussed.

Neo Cons campaigning on the promise that the left will disarm honest citizens and empower and enable criminals is different from every other election, how?

[fredtoast]

(06-19-2020, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird how when people discuss the issue of defunding we understand it and it makes sense but that the those who disagree just scream the word defund and claim the "left" wants to get rid of all police.

Almost like they don't want to have a discussion but would rather mislead by using the short form chant that gets used in public.

"We can't survive with no police"

"That is not what 'de-fund the police' actually means."

"I don't care what it actually means.  I am going to squeal about what I think it means."

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2020, 12:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "We can't survive with no police"

"That is not what 'de-fund the police' actually means."

"I don't care what it actually means.  I am going to squeal about what I think it means."

Opinions...the participation trophies of debate.  

[GMDino]

It's been 98 days since #BreonnaTaylor was killed in her own bed. The officers who killed her have NOT been arrested or charged.

For #Juneteenth, I am honoring her family & her community, by demanding that the State Attorney General hold the officers accountable --> 502-696-5300 pic.twitter.com/pLloNzM5aP

— Kristen Clarke (@KristenClarkeJD) June 19, 2020