Poll of the Day > Police Officers shoot at a running black man that has a Taser.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

There was no reason for people to burn down the Wendys where this happened either. They didnt do anything wrong so why punish Wendys?

you never ate at that Wendy's

---

Oh no. That giant food chain store got burnt down. They'll never recover.

Yeah, its dumb but it's not the end of the world.

---

Runner_style posted...

Thinking about it, what would you guys think to police trial running rubber bullets on the beat instead of just for the likes of protests and riots?

rubber bullets are really only effective for crowd control and theyre pretty damn dangerous

for liability reasons departments would never want to use them for stuff like this because the chances are way too high of them bouncing and destroying property or hitting someone else

thats why all police use hollow point rounds now. Theyre far more fatal but the bullet stays in the target, so theres less chance of the bullet passing through and hitting an unintended target

---

I think people are also overlooking the fact that they did not get a chance to search this dude so he could have very well had a gun

OhhhJa posted...

I think people are also overlooking the fact that they did not get a chance to search this dude so he could have very well had a gun

You want police to act like people are armed and dangerous at all times? No probable cause, no benefit of the doubt, just, "we did not see a gun, so they might have one, just shoot already"?

---

OhhhJa posted...

I think people are also overlooking the fact that they did not get a chance to search this dude so he could have very well had a gun

If he had a gun, he would have used it instead of stealing a taser.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

You want police to act like people are armed and dangerous at all times? No probable cause, no benefit of the doubt, just, "we did not see a gun, so they might have one, just shoot already"?

No but if you turn around and fire something you're showing intent to harm

EvilMegas posted...

If he had a gun, he would have used it instead of stealing a taser.

I guess that's why cops used their taser instead of their gun all the time?

I like how some people are conceding that it might have been excessive, like that's beside the point. Like.. that is the point. That's what's being protested.

streamofthesky posted...

And yet the cops use them freely, even on people who aren't really a threat at all.
So if they try and claim it's a deadly weapon, their hypocritical asses can fuck right off, even if it is.

Exactly. If they're not deadly, they shouldn't have shot the guy. If they are deadly, they shouldn't be using them in any situation that's not life or death.

---

Blaqthourne posted...

"Tasers, also known as stun guns, can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death, researchers from Indiana University School of Medicine reported in the journal Circulation."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/244968

So why do police use them freely? You're not making your argument stronger.

---

Jen0125 posted...

So why do police use them freely? You're not making your argument stronger.

Lol they don't know. There's typically multiple warnings before they fire it. And the alternative is a gun. Not sure what you're suggesting. You got any bright ideas?

Sacking the police officer (which they did after the mayor called for it) seems wrong here. For better or for worse, I don't think the officer actually broke protocol here. The police chief resigning makes sense - it's the policies and procedures they enact and enforce that have the police acting in this way. Those need to change. But it doesn't feel right telling cops they need to handle things in this way, and then firing them when you need a scapegoat to try and quell civil unrest.

The biggest change needs to be a change of mentality where police no longer assume everyone is an immediate threat. And that's going to be a hard change in a country with more guns than people. And that's a change that needs to come from the top down. You can't be telling your new officers that everyone is a threat and you need to act this way to ensure you protect yourself, and then fire them for doing what you told them to do. Unlike many other killings we've seen that were blatant abuse of power, this one feels a lot more like the result of a horribly set up system, which is why it's a lot more controversial than others.

---

Dynalo posted...

But it doesn't feel right telling cops they need to handle things in this way, and then firing them when you need a scapegoat to try and quell civil unrest.

is it the department policy to use lethal force against someone running off with a taser?

---

Dynalo posted...

The biggest change needs to be a change of mentality where police no longer assume everyone is an immediate threat.

They didn't though. Did you watch the video? They were super civil with this guy and he escalated everything to that point

keyblader1985 posted...

I like how some people are conceding that it might have been excessive, like that's beside the point. Like.. that is the point. That's what's being protested.

Is it? Them conceding to, say, 10% beyond what was called for doesn't mean they should support riots in response. Just as you expect proportionate reaction from the police, we expect the same from every person in the country.
---

Mead posted...

is it the department policy to use lethal force against someone running off with a taser?

Admittedly I haven't seen the video, but the article I read did say the video showed him pointing the taser at them.

And yeah, honestly, I suspect their policy is to shoot in that case. If the police officer is incapacitated by it, that leads to opportunities for the person to get their gun and do harm with that, or to even physically assault the officer while he's down.

And that's the issue with said policy. Notice what I said there? That's a lot of assumptions made. Maybe they'll happen, maybe they won't. But their policies and guidelines are generally built around the worst case scenario, and it's applied everywhere.

---

Dynalo posted...

I suspect their policy is to shoot in that case.

I dunno. Im curious what their guidelines are in a situation like this.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Lol they don't know. There's typically multiple warnings before they fire it. And the alternative is a gun. Not sure what you're suggesting. You got any bright ideas?

Yeah, maybe learning some non-violent conflict resolution.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah, maybe learning some non-violent conflict resolution.

Kind of hard to do that when the dude is taking swings at you and attempting to steal your weapons. Do you realize how many crazies we have in this country or do you assume all cops are cartoon super villains and all criminals are super nice people who have been victimized?

OhhhJa posted...

Kind of hard to do that when the dude is taking swings at you and attempting to steal your weapons. Do you realize how many crazies we have in this country or do you assume all cops are cartoon super villains and all criminals are super nice people who have been victimized?

I believe all cops are trained to feel instantly threatened and victimized in any situation they may find themselves in.

---

I can't believe I'm doing this; @OhhhJa has a point.

This could have easily been a fatal encounter if he manages to fire and incapacitate an officer, which he was seemingly trying to do.

The police do suck alot, but this really wasnt one of those cases.


---

I also don't blame protesters for having knee jerk reaction to this. It fucking sucks, everyone is on edge and it wouldn't be this way if police just did their job without power tripping.

---

Biden would have shot the guy in the leg instead.

EvilMegas posted...

I can't believe I'm doing this; OhhhJa has a point.

This could have easily been a fatal encounter if he manages to fire and incapacitate an officer, which he was seemingly trying to do.

The police do suck alot, but this really wasnt one of those cases.

If he did fire and incapacitate an officer, (if I'm following this right, that would bring the officers down to 1), then I could see use of firearms warranted, and with the distinction of shooting to injure rather than to kill, but not before.

---

TonyCIifton posted...

Biden would have shot the guy in the leg instead.

I know you are joking around but I can't believe how many people I've seen suggest this become a thing because there are multiple reasons they don't aim for the legs. One of those reasons being you can easily kill someone from a leg shot anyway

Shadowbird_RH posted...

If he did fire and incapacitate an officer, (if I'm following this right, that would bring the officers down to 1), then I could see use of firearms warranted, and with the distinction of shooting to injure rather than to kill, but not before.

Shooting to injure isn't a thing, this isn't a video game.

Why would you wait and let your guy get shot when you could prevent it? What if that officer dies from cardiac arrest or some random reaction?
"Sorry, I had to let him shoot Steve in order to shoot him".

If he has a weapon capable of doing harm and is in range of doing so, that's fair game.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Why would you wait and let your guy get shot when you could prevent it?

Because you're sworn to serve and protect the person who's shooting at you, and because what he's shooting at you with does significantly less harm than what you're shooting with. It's your job to help people, to protect people. NOT to KILL people.

EvilMegas posted...

What if that officer dies from cardiac arrest or some random reaction?

Aren't officers trained in CPR? In the unlikely event that the electrical discharge of the taser stopped an officer's heart, the other could most likely revive him after incapacitating (by any means necessary at this point) the offender.

You're not taking into account the differences in weapons, nor the capacity to do harm, nor the likelihood to which such harm is reversible.

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

Because you're sworn to serve and protect the person who's shooting at you, and because what he's shooting at you with does significantly less harm than what you're shooting with. It's your job to help people, to protect people. NOT to KILL people.

Aren't officers trained in CPR? In the unlikely event that the electrical discharge of the taser stopped an officer's heart, the other could most likely revive him after incapacitating (by any means necessary at this point) the offender.

You're not taking into account the differences in weapons, nor the capacity to do harm, nor the likelihood to which such harm is reversible.

You're being ridiculous. Like, no joke or anything. That's just absurd.


---

Not trying to justify the death of the assailant, but play dumb games, win dumb prizes

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

Because you're sworn to serve and protect the person who's shooting at you, and because what he's shooting at you with does significantly less harm than what you're shooting with. It's your job to help people, to protect people. NOT to KILL people.

Aren't officers trained in CPR? In the unlikely event that the electrical discharge of the taser stopped an officer's heart, the other could most likely revive him after incapacitating (by any means necessary at this point) the offender.

You're not taking into account the differences in weapons, nor the capacity to do harm, nor the likelihood to which such harm is reversible.

Real life isn't lethal weapon 4. In these kind of situations, emotions run high and adrenaline is going. The moment he went for the cop's belt he was forcing them into a situation where they're fighting for their lives. They have to make a split second decisions in these kind of scenarios. I think you just aren't considering a lot of factors here like the fact that they didn't search him for one so there was no telling if he had another weapon or not. And it was dark

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Is it? Them conceding to, say, 10% beyond what was called for doesn't mean they should support riots in response. Just as you expect proportionate reaction from the police, we expect the same from every person in the country.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that two different things can be bad, or that one bad thing does not invalidate the other. Riots, while clearly bad, have nothing to do with the issue of general use of excessive force.

And if you're trying to suggest that all protesters support or participate in riots, that kind of generalization can very easily be turned against cops by using the bad ones as an example.

---

tasers can only fire once before requiring an external reload, right

and he already fired off the taser before they shot him

so he had no means to threaten them anymore

---

agesboy posted...

tasers can only fire once before requiring an external reload, right

and he already fired off the taser before they shot him

so he had no means to threaten them anymore

Was the officer who shot him the one who lost the taser?

joemodda posted...

Not trying to justify the death of the assailant, but play dumb games, win dumb prizes

not trying to say a thing, but now Ill immediately say that very thing

---

keyblader1985 posted...

Riots, while clearly bad, have nothing to do with the issue of general use of excessive force.

It's why they're happening. Unless you think people started rioting for fun coincidentally at the same time the protests started.
---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It's your job to help people, to protect people. NOT to KILL people.

Actually it's to enforce the law, and a legal killing to ensure laws aren't broken is doing their job. The law is there to protect you, the law enforcement is there to protect the law.
---

It is illogical to protect something at the expense of that which it was created to protect.

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It is illogical to protect something at the expense of that which it was created to protect.

If you have 10 things and 1 thing wants to kill 2 of the others, what's the best course of action to protect the most things; kill the 1 thing, or let it kill 2 things? Ideally the 1 thing would just comply but it's forcing the situation so you have no choice.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's why they're happening. Unless you think people started rioting for fun coincidentally at the same time the protests started.

And what does THAT have to do with anything? All you're doing is deflecting from the main issue with Whataboutism.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Actually it's to enforce the law, and a legal killing to ensure laws aren't broken is doing their job. The law is there to protect you, the law enforcement is there to protect the law.

Most of the cops in your country don't even have guns.
---

keyblader1985 posted...

And what does THAT have to do with anything? All you're doing is deflecting from the main issue with Whataboutism.

There's no whataboutism, I'm saying they're conceding that there's some excess, but it's not as excessive as the rioting. They're not saying it's justified, they're just saying the riots are a bullshit excessive response.
---

murder is on a whole different level from not murder, it's not just 10%

---

agesboy posted...

murder is on a whole different level from not murder, it's not just 10%

Technically murder isn't that far from barely legal shooting.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's no whataboutism

*goes on to describe a whataboutism perfectly*

---

That cop is gonna make a shitload of money for being fired for nothing other than politics.

Justified use of force. Sucks it happened. Sucks someone died. But using a weapon designed to incapacitate someone, a police officer nonetheless.. after resisting arrest and fighting them... the guy would have spent 5 hours in a drunk tank and would have been ordering a baconater right now if it werent for his dumb decisions

not__shawn__z posted...

Justified use of force.

according to what

---

keyblader1985 posted...

*goes on to describe a whataboutism perfectly*

No, whataboutism is deflecting to another topic and trying to justify the original topic with the deflection. I specifically said they conceeded your topic as their issue is elswhere.
---

Mead posted...

according to what

Tennessee vs Garner and Graham vs Connor. This cop is going to sue the balls off the city.

Break in the story:

After shooting Brooks, Rolfe said "I got him" and kicked him, and Brosnan then stood on Brooks' shoulder, Howard said. The officers did not provide medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes after shooting him, Howard said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-wednesday/index.html

---

On that note: fuck them.

---