Correct me if I'm wrong once a taser is fired that's it. No second round?
Correct me if I'm wrong once a taser is fired that's it. No second round?
Correct me if I'm wrong once a taser is fired that's it. No second round?
It depends on the model.
But really, this is just arguing over details. The man's actions didn't warrant being killed.
I keep seeing people refer to the cops having his car. Minor detail: It's supposedly a rental.
I keep seeing people refer to the cops having his car. Minor detail: It's supposedly a rental.
That's why I said it was a minor detail. It may lead to his sister. It may have had GPS tracking. Lots of other minor details, but it wasnt as simple as he's going to have to come back for his car or anything.Because it would be impossible to go to the rental agency and get the info from them....
I don't think this is particularly relevant to the discussion as to whether it was necessary to shoot him.
I think there just needs to be a higher standard for judging police use of force beyond the split second I was scared defense these trained professionals often deploy. The standard really should be not I was scared but I was right.The more I see, the more I am convinced the decision to shoot this man occurred directly in response to him discharging the taser at them.
It takes a second to actually commit this act, roughly the time observed. It seems like the panicked reaction of someone roughed up and not thinking clearly. Were they unfit to carry guns if they couldn't handle this pressure? Maybe. Were they wrong in choosing to shoot? Yes. But we have the advantage of not being in that physical altercation, not being "in the moment" with adrenaline giving you an itchy trigger finger. With time to sit back and study the situation. Time no one was given when that man decided to fight the officers rather than go into handcuffs.
He did grab a weapon, he did fire a weapon. It just wasn't a gun. And he was running. In totality he should have survived that situation. But split second decisions are made with life and death consequences. We are only human - and humans DO make mistakes, especially in high pressure situations. Deadly mistakes are the consequence of being an armed society. The second amendment carries with it a body count. This man is a victim of that circumstance.
I really do not know what the proper consequence for these officers should be. I do know the one who shot shouldn't have a gun, should have been trained better or differently. Part of #BLM should be the assessment of the use of force and violent escalation. A careful study of when / when not to shoot a person. To improve as many outcomes as we can in spite of the 2A ensuring that there are some bad situations. In spite of us all being afraid of one another.
Autopsy report says Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back, lists manner of death as homicide | CNN
Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back, according to a release by the Fulton County Medical Examiner's Office.www.cnn.com
utter horseshit. wake the guy up, ask him to move, and be done with it.
why is he being breathalyzed? was there any suspicion that he might be drunk? if not, let him go.
and he has your taser? let him run. it's not like the dude is going to become an international fugitive trying to slip in and out of countries.
christ almighty. pretty sure every police department needs to be dissolved, not just the "bad" ones.
have like 10 officers who respond to serious crime in progress. all other resources should be social workers of some kind whose goal is to help people. not kill them.
protect and serve my ass.
also:
not gonna happen in a million fucking years.
The more I see, the more I am convinced the decision to shoot this man occurred directly in response to him discharging the taser at them.
It takes a second to actually commit this act, roughly the time observed. It seems like the panicked reaction of someone roughed up and not thinking clearly. Were they unfit to carry guns if they couldn't handle this pressure? Maybe. Were they wrong in choosing to shoot? Yes. But we have the advantage of not being in that physical altercation, not being "in the moment" with adrenaline giving you an itchy trigger finger. With time to sit back and study the situation. Time no one was given when that man decided to fight the officers rather than go into handcuffs.
He did grab a weapon, he did fire a weapon. It just wasn't a gun. And he was running. In totality he should have survived that situation. But split second decisions are made with life and death consequences. We are only human - and humans DO make mistakes, especially in high pressure situations. Deadly mistakes are the consequence of being an armed society. The second amendment carries with it a body count. This man is a victim of that circumstance.
I really do not know what the proper consequence for these officers should be. I do know the one who shot shouldn't have a gun, should have been trained better or differently. Part of #BLM should be the assessment of the use of force and violent escalation. A careful study of when / when not to shoot a person. To improve as many outcomes as we can in spite of the 2A ensuring that there are some bad situations. In spite of us all being afraid of one another.
The cop knew the suspect took the other officer's taser and had no other weapons. At that point don't put yourself in a position where you have to make a split second depression. Tasers have about a 10' range. Put a little distance between you and the man. Call in backup.Guns and firing tasers etc... are a 1-second game. It's definitely one that you don't want to get wrong even once.
Not justifying the cops (in this case - or in others), just naturally saying - if you're talking about 1-second judgments you're going to be wrong at some point. Period. No question.
So tasers do not have a "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." according to you?
The death rate of people by tasers would HIGHLY disagree with that statement good sir.
I mean you guys DO understand that the whole game of "running from the cops" and trying to assault them is not something that happens in other countries right? Especially if you just got pulled over and had a sobriety test, breathalyzer, etc...
I'm sorry, but until we teach people that running from the cops (and fighting back after being tackled to the ground) WILL NEVER SERVE YOU WELL then we will continue to have these problems.
This was already borough up.On Inside Edition today, there were two former cops. One was former Police Commissioner (white male) and the other one was Police Sargent (black female).
The question was raised to both of them whether it was justified and the Commissioner said yes (very much the same line as one of the poster above said..he could use the taser and get the gun and so on) and the Sgt said no.
Once again in the wrong side of a topic. Doesn’t it get old always being wrong?
It seems like nearly all academies tase all recruits as part of their training. I'd says that is a good indication that they are not deadly weapons.
I see words but i can not figure our why you typed them in response to what I said.You're absolutely right, I guess the tasers are just racist.
Black Americans disproportionately die in police Taser confrontations
As police confront protesters across the United States, they're turning to rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas and other weapons meant to minimize fatalities.www.reuters.com
I watched the part with the breathalyzer and them talking to him and I don't think he had a reason to fear he was going to be the next Floyd, the cops were being pretty chill in their handling. The final reaction was the wrong one and proper justice should now take place but damm, he punched a cop in the face after refusing handcuffs then stole a taser and tried to use it, hr has to assume some culpability here.We shouldn't need to use 20/20 hindsight as a rationale. That assumes it is OK for the police to act on pure instinct under a situation like that, and excuses the choice they made because chasing him seemed the instinctive thing to do. That logic might work for someone untrained. But the police should be trained to de-escalate, and specifically trained on how to handle escape situations. If someone is clearly just trying to escape and doesn't seem to pose a threat to the general public, which is what the law says, armed pursuit is not the proper procedure.
These things are all criminal acts but none are punishable by death.I watched the part with the breathalyzer and them talking to him and I don't think he had a reason to fear he was going to be the next Floyd, the cops were being pretty chill in their handling. The final reaction was the wrong one and proper justice should now take place but damm, he punched a cop in the face after refusing handcuffs then stole a taser and tried to use it, hr has to assume some culpability here.