so why would a person of colour be there during a lockdown?

Indeed!! The nerve of the little tinkers. Hanging around in white areas. Jaysus.

Lamp, please watch the video I’ve not long posted, we’ve been over that discussion recently with Ninfan.
Re Cumbria, the black population makes up just 0.01% yet it has one of the worst crime rates in England. The police are aware of around 54 gangs operating in the area and the most recent county lines arrests were of a gang of 15 white people.

Another shooting by poorly trained gun toting officers, apparently he was attempting to break up a fight between two women and was shot 7 times in the back as he tried to get in his car

Wisconsin shooting

Its disgusting – this video nearly brought me to tears:

https://news.sky.com/story/black-man-shot-in-the-back-seven-times-by-wisconsin-police-12055472

They’ve basically followed him and shot him – not once – seven times SEVEN TIMES at point blank range in front of his 3 children.  That’s not immobilisation, thats downright murder, because he’s black and his life nor those of his kids did not matter a jot.

FFS.

Can’t be any justification for that at all. I know we can’t see what’s in the car but if there was anything that would cause the officer to shoot we’d have heard by now.

Well, it’s not murder, on account of he’s not dead. But yeah.

Having said that, we don’t know if it’s a racism thing or a Blue Lives Matter, militarised policing, treat everyone like an enemy combatant and potential copkiller thing. Reaching for your driver’s licence after being told to reach for your driver’s licence can get you shot if the officer in question is terrified enough of shadows.

More of the story has unfolded, with more video and background. There’s no Kenosha police bodycam footage as they don’t wear them, despite having been awarded funding for them they’re not going to implement the usage until 2022. Other bystanders filmed what happened before he’s seen going to his car, where he’s restrained by officers before breaking free. He supposedly had a warrant for sexual crimes, although it’s not clear whether the officers were aware of it.
None of that justifies an attempted street execution, he’s entitled to a fair trial like we would expect. As for his young kids having to witness such state sanctioned brutality, I can’t imagine the trauma of what they’re going through. We condemn authoritarian states in Africa and the Middle East for the same actions and treatment towards their citizens, yet we justify ours with pale excuses.

Other bystanders filmed what happened before he’s seen going to his car, where he’s restrained by officers before breaking free. He supposedly had a warrant for sexual crimes, although it’s not clear whether the officers were aware of it.

Either way, if that’s true then they may well have good reason to suspect he could be attempting to retrieve a weapon. It’s a horrible situation especially for the kids but if it unfolded as you describe then he has little sympathy from me.

The real question is one of conflict training, restraint and how you go about de-escalating a situation without resorting to shooting. If he’d been tazered rather than shot he would just be another idiot.

squirrelking
Member

Either way, if that’s true then they may well have good reason to suspect he could be attempting to retrieve a weapon.

Maybe. But good reason to suspect they could be attempting to retrieve a weapon, doesn’t justify shooting someone. But this is a recurring thing with the US police in particular (and it can happen anywhere to be fair)- like I said up the page treating everyone as a hostile combatant, and shooting because a risk might occur not because of an actual risk, is baked into a lot of forces now.

And the response is to say “blue lives matter”, and act as if they’re being told they can’t defend themselves or use lethal force ever, as if that’s the two options- shoot an unarmed person in the back, or get shot yourself.

So much of US gun logic still seems to revolve around quick-drawing cowboy duels- your concealed carry will protect you from a man already with a gun in his hand. And that seems to extend to “this bad man might reach, draw, ready and shoot faster than I can shoot him with this gun that’s already pointing at him, I seen it in a movie”. Course, real life gun duels never really happened either.

Would you tolerate the same treatment of one of your own family or friends?
We’re heading down a dangerous road to fascism if we justify police executing or attempting to execute people on the street, surely we all have a right to a fair trial.
So, if the police force involved were justified in shooting Jacob Blake, then why didn’t they shoot this guy?

Same police dept but this suspect:

✅Refused to get on ground
✅Walked away
✅Reached in his car
✅Shouted at + chased officer
✅Assault
✅Got IN the POLICE car
✅Got in his car
✅Crashed his car into the police car

Yet, the cops gun didn't even leave the holster.#JacobBlake pic.twitter.com/xJBZvCyRf3

— Janet's Void (@FaztasticMrFox) August 24, 2020

Either way, if that’s true then they may well have good reason to suspect he could be attempting to retrieve a weapon. It’s a horrible situation especially for the kids but if it unfolded as you describe then he has little sympathy from me.

Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?

Your humanity is touching.

Why shoot him in the back

…7 times.   7.   Think about that.

Listen to the last 10 seconds of that video Faerie posted:

“he’s runnin”

“lucky he ain’t black”

“Aw he would ha’ been killed, him”

Tells you all you need to know.

While not as serous as a shooting, has everyone seen the video of the Raptors basketball team owner getting pushed by the police officer. The police officer then lied with the standard justification, claiming the owner was threatening and assaulted him first, even tried to sue for damages. Only for his own bodycam footage to (much later) later reveal the truth (the police department tried to not disclose the footage).

Again its not just that the incident happened, it is how empowered the police officer involved felt to lie against and frame his victim, and the force went along with it. Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner. How many times do they get away with it when the victim doesn’t have the financial means and clout to fight back.

Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?

Shoot him in the Leg or the Arm – You’ve been watching too many Hollywood films

The real question is one of conflict training, restraint and how you go about de-escalating a situation without resorting to shooting. If he’d been tazered rather than shot he would just be another idiot.

This is what I don’t understand. Is it because they just rely on pulling a gun resolving the situation one way or another?

Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?

I must admit I tend to the no smoke without fire camp but 7 times, in the back, point blank, whilst doing what he was being told, no excuse, no mitigating circumstances, cold blooded murder.

Here goes.

Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.

The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.

A police officer saying they thought their safety ‘might’ be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.

If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.

Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner.

A small point – he’s not the owner, he’s a former player and President of operations. Still pretty rich and powerful. The video also shows he wasn’t wearing his credentials, which he should have been in order to access areas of the arena that the general public aren’t allowed in.

This is what I don’t understand. Is it because they just rely on pulling a gun resolving the situation one way or another?

This is where ”civilians’ and police don’t understand each other. The US use a completely different use of force model, partly because they are armed and partly because of the risks they face. You can Google the use of force wheel that they use, although it’s modified to some degree by different departments. Active resistance, which is defined differently by different departments, which again is a problem, can be anything from running away, to ‘assaultive behaviour ( which can be as simple as squaring up) and means the officer can use non lethal responses, including tazer, baton strikes, take downs, carotid holds etc.
If the officers perception is one of danger of injury to themselves or a member of the public, the model allows for lethal force. Officers in the US will draw their weapons as a ‘precaution’ which is okay from a use of force perspective but is problematic because while some people will either freeze or immediately become compliant, others don’t for various reasons. The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go, and makes it difficult to access other tools. You have to take your eyes off the person in front of you to put your weapon away and it leaves you vulnerable while you do that and get out your baton. If you want to see excellent policing based in use of force wheel, Google the video of the arrest of the van driver in Canada who hit several pedestrians.
These officers seemed a bit premature in drawiing their weapons, based on the video but we don’t know what they were perceiving based on what they saw. When the guy went to his car and reached in, in the US, where guns are rampant, the officers used lethal force. They would say because of the possibility of him reaching for a weapon.

The people calling, quite rightly, for de-escalation, they are really takin tissue with the use of force model and training, not the officers. And the model isn’t racist. The people using it might be, even unconsciously, and incorrectly perceive different levels of risk and response based in the race of the person they are dealing with.

Also, studies show police are really bad at hitting the target in their best approximation of real world situations. So they are taught to double tap ( fire twice) at centre mass. If they perceive any movement, they do it again.

So while some situations, like George Floyd, are really cut and dried, others can be a bit murkier.

Even against someone as rich and powerful as a basketball team owner.

A small point – he’s not the owner, he’s a former player and President of operations. Still pretty rich and powerful. The video also shows he wasn’t wearing his credentials, which he should have been in order to access areas of the arena that the general public aren’t allowed in

This is the problem with this kind of debate. Every incident is treated in isolation, with reasons/excuses given – and then dismissed.

he wasn’t wearing his credentials

in this incident goes no way to justify the behavior of the sheriff – so we need to stop presenting snippets of information like that as if they do. See also the people presenting George Floyd’s previous convictions as justification for how the police “managed” that situation, or how “he had a warrant for sexual crimes” justifies shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back.

Sorry, I’m absolutely not saying that you were trying to justify anything, just that these kinds of arguments are often used to do exactly that.

Also – a small point: the video of the raptor’s incident clearly shows the guy taking his credentials out of his pocket in order to show them to the sheriff to enter the arena – that’s the point at which he was aggressively shoved. A routine interaction needlessly escalated to a physical confrontation….. which is indicative of the whole wider problem.

The point about the raptors president’s treatment is one of police accountability. He is only able to hold the police to account for his treatment because of who he is….. so what chance does your average Joe Public have? And more importantly, in this environment of no-accountability (unless you happen to pick the wrong black guy to assault without reason), how will police behaviors ever change?

excellent post Cromolyolly

I don’t think this is anything to do with a lack of shared understanding, however. This is obviously the problematic bit:

If the officers perception is one of danger of injury to themselves or a member of the public, the model allows for lethal force. Officers in the US will draw their weapons as a ‘precaution’ which is okay from a use of force perspective but is problematic because while some people will either freeze or immediately become compliant, others don’t for various reasons. The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go, and makes it difficult to access other tools. You have to take your eyes off the person in front of you to put your weapon away and it leaves you vulnerable while you do that and get out your baton.

Unfortunately, what I think has happened (and this speaks slightly to Inksters point) – is that the police have been allowed to skew the way incidents like this are managed, such that it decreases their risk of being hurt/killed, with the trade-off being more false-positives. Ie: There was a chance that I might be at risk, so I shot and killed the guy – but it turned out that I was in no danger at all.

If officers are empowered to use instant, lethal force (ie: by shooting somebody) based upon their perception of risk – they better be damned well trained and psychologically evaluated to ensure that their ability to perceive risk is extremely well developed.

The problem is that it leaves the officer nowhere to go

. Agreed. Drawing a weapon not only escalates the situation for the civilian, but also for the officer themselves. It would be interesting to look at the stats of why guns were initially drawn for “bad” shootings. I wonder if looking at which individuals are drawing their guns more often than others (and in what circumstances) might be a pre-indication of officers who are at risk of a “bad” shooting?

The problem with chromaloys post is that it comments on the reasoning behind the US police use of force and not much else.

No matter how you are trained in the use of lethal force – which can of course be questionable – the application of that force should not be racially biased.  Unfortunately, it is.   No matter what comes out of this investigation it’s highly likely that guy emptied a clip on the unconscious judgemental  bias of lower value of life, colour, and no consideration to the prior events and anxiety of a black family man with three children in a car.

Armed Militia* just killed someone and hit two others at the protests

*White Supremacists

Armed Militia* just killed someone and hit two others at the protests

*White Supremacists

Just exercising their God-given right under the second amendment…

However, I suspect that had the racial profile of the shooters been different then so would the response.

White American does it = constitutional right to bear arms.

Black American does it = state troopers arrive in amtracs and state of emergency is declared.

Shooter identified and manages to tick all the boxes

https://twitter.com/abolishICE___/status/1298544814472888320?s=20

Maybe. But good reason to suspect they could be attempting to retrieve a weapon, doesn’t justify shooting someone…

I did say that or at leats try to. Totally agree with the rest of your post.

Why shoot him in the back, why not the leg, or the arm?

Your humanity is touching.

As teef says, this isn’t Hollywood. Have you ever handled a gun? It’s not easy and the only pistols I’ve ever shot are air pistols. They’re heavy, they recoil and to get a good shot you need to be standing in a good position.

Here goes.

Blue lives do not matter as much as black lives, or any other lives.

The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public. The public are not expected to put their life on the line to protect and serve the police.

A police officer saying they thought their safety ‘might’ be in jeapordy is never a valid excuse to shoot someone.

If you disagree with this then you are a fascist.

Here goes – you’re talking utter mince and to be honest thats just offensive. I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that disagreeing with your assertion that the police can be considered fair game makes me a fascist either. Oh and alienating people who otherwise agree with you isn’t a particularly clever thing to do. Anyway, FTFY:

The police chose to put their life on the line in order to protect and serve the public.

The police are the people. They are not paramilitary organisations (in this context, at least not by design). There is a massive issue in the US with their management and tactics as well as , dare I say it, an unfounded sense of entitlement. Thus we get back to the Peel principles.

As teef says, this isn’t Hollywood. Have you ever handled a gun? It’s not easy and the only pistols I’ve ever shot are air pistols. They’re heavy, they recoil and to get a good shot you need to be standing in a good position.

I have, actually, and I can pretty much guarantee that at point blank, a trained policeman can hit you in the leg from behind.

Shooter identified and manages to tick all the boxes

Yup. Footage on social shows the militia folks discussing ‘tactics’ with the police, getting drinks etc. One said they’d agreed to push the demonstrators towards them. After the guy shot three people, 2 dead, he walked up to police with hands up, and wasn’t challenged. They let him go. So how will the US govt spin this one as Antifa etc?

a trained policeman

If the subject was properly trained policemen I doubt we’d even be having this conversation.

FWIW I think you’re wrong on this, there is far too much to go wrong and if you missed where will the bullet end up? Across the road? In a bystander? In you? Even if you hit him, at that range do you know for sure it will stop or pass straight through? Always consider your backstop. You haven’t at all so it’s obvious you are just making stuff up to support a position that, in all honesty, is still beyond reasonable force in this scenario.

You don’t think you can get shoot-through of the torso? 🙂

Always consider your backstop.

Ive not watched a single police shooting over the previous few months where that was concern in the slightest, they are poorly trained ill educated chimps with guns.

Former soldier here. Just to add, you never for arms or legs. Always go for the bigger target, so torso shots only. Far too easy to miss arms or legs as they are small and often moving… If you were ever shooting someone, it was always with deadly intent. Guns are not to be used for wounding purposes. You had to know your rules of engagement and be clear that you were following them to the letter.
Just to reiterate, if we ever fired a round at someone, there was only ever one intention. I don’t believe there could ever be a rule of engagement saying “shoot to give someone a bad cut”.

 and partly because of the risks they face.

Being a cop in the US isn’t actually that dangerous. It doesn’t even make the top ten most dangerous jobs. In fact being a truck driver is more dangerous. So really they (the cops) are being fed incorrect information about the dangers they face, I wonder who that could be…

You don’t think you can get shoot-through of the torso?

Far less likely, ever seen ballistic jelly at work? As W00dster says, limb shots aren’t a sensible option anyway. If they were I’m sure Jean Charles de Menzies would be sitting on a sizeable compo payment rather than in a grave.

Ive not watched a single police shooting over the previous few months where that was concern in the slightest, they are poorly trained ill educated chimps with guns.

Indeed, but again I refer you to my previous comment:

If the subject was properly trained policemen I doubt we’d even be having this conversation.

They’ve been half trained to do a job with no real measure of aptitude or competence applied. What’s that saying about a little knowledge?

This is the problem with this kind of debate. Every incident is treated in isolation, with reasons/excuses given – and then dismissed.

I think you have to evaluate every incident on its own merit. Or are you suggesting we treat the shoving of a guy with a knife running at a copper the same as a child running towards a copper to give him a sweet?

If your issue is that the Deputy shoved the Raptors guy, I’d say yes, it’s a bit OTT but fairly typical of the way US police take control of a situation. If your issue is that he stopped him going on the court them I’d say that is why he is there.

If the raptors guy had been wearing his credentials, as he is supposed to (they come on a lanyard, that’s the first clue they should be worn not in your pocket). Or if he had put them on before he got to the deputy (and he’s been around the nba a long time he should know this stuff) then the deputy would not have engaged with him at all.

SoI don’t think it’s fair to say that is dismissive to look at the facts of each case in isolation before attempting to draw broader conclusions.

Former soldier here. Just to add, you never for arms or legs. Always go for the bigger target, so torso shots only. Far too easy to miss arms or legs as they are small and often moving… If you were ever shooting someone, it was always with deadly intent. Guns are not to be used for wounding purposes. You had to know your rules of engagement and be clear that you were following them to the letter.
Just to reiterate, if we ever fired a round at someone, there was only ever one intention. I don’t believe there could ever be a rule of engagement saying “shoot to give someone a bad cut”.

He is standing behind him, close enough for the gun to make contact with the body part he is aiming at, not 2km away looking through the sights of a sniper rifle.

He is a police officer, the rules of engagement are protect and serve.

I think you have to evaluate every incident on its own merit. Or are you suggesting we treat the shoving of a guy with a knife running at a copper the same as a child running towards a copper to give him a sweet?

If your issue is that the Deputy shoved the Raptors guy, I’d say yes, it’s a bit OTT but fairly typical of the way US police take control of a situation. If your issue is that he stopped him going on the court them I’d say that is why he is there.

If the raptors guy had been wearing his credentials, as he is supposed to (they come on a lanyard, that’s the first clue they should be worn not in your pocket). Or if he had put them on before he got to the deputy (and he’s been around the nba a long time he should know this stuff) then the deputy would not have engaged with him at all or more likely just a racist.

SoI don’t think it’s fair to say that is dismissive to look at the facts of each case in isolation before attempting to draw broader conclusions.

How about the bit where the police officer claimed the Raptors guy assaulted him first “with evil intent” and tried to sue for damages, and the bit where the police force tried to suppress the video evidence that proved the victims innocence.

You are trying to find tiny holes to excuse an event of clear racial prejudice and abuse of authority by an empowered hothead with official support from the police department. If you are not aware of the case, don’t pretend to have the answers, it makes you look like an apologist for racism.

The problem with chromaloys post is that it comments on the reasoning behind the US police use of force and not much else.

It wasn’t meant to, it addressed a specific comment. I am not as comfortable as others ascribing characteristics to other people in the absence of any knowledge. There is no question that there is bias in policing, on race, socio-economic circumstances, mental illness substance dependency etc, as there is in a lot of areas of life. In fact, some studies show the best single predictor of being involved in a shooting by the police is struggling with mental health or substance abuse issues.
That doesn’t mean any individual police officer is acting based on racisms at any given time.