06-16-2020, 01:23 PM
(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.
