Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(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).