Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Because it plays at a major vulnerability, our freedom to move. 

I still don't think our drinking water supply is very protected.  That's the one that scares me - because by the time it would be discovered..........

 

CNN story says "the attack is not being investigated as an act of terrorism", so the perp must not be Muslim.

Unless he is identified upon capture as Black Muslim, at which point it will be very much investigated as terrorism.

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

CNN story says "the attack is not being investigated as an act of terrorism", so the perp must not be Muslim.

Unless he is identified upon capture as Black Muslim, at which point it will be very much investigated as terrorism.

the guy isnt white so it wont be investigated as "domestic terrorism."

[Motor City Sonics]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

CNN story says "the attack is not being investigated as an act of terrorism", so the perp must not be Muslim.

Unless he is identified upon capture as Black Muslim, at which point it will be very much investigated as terrorism.

So this asshole sets of a smoke bomb or tear gas and then in the confusion starts firing (and the rumor of unexploded deivces).   That's pretty textbook terrorism.   Even if it's just one person, its terrorism.  I agree, it depends on what they look like.   I think anytime someone tries to kill a bunch of people they don't know it's terrorism. 

 

I think everyone that was shot is still alive, right?     That's some great news.    Find this bastard and fry him. 

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[Deleterious]

The Georgia governor just signed constitutional carry into law. I believe that makes 25 states now. 

[chasfh]

Next step: Required Carry. You watch. 😏

[oblong]

more guns in the hands of the general public... what can go wrong?

 

[Motown Bombers]

If everyone in Brooklyn was armed, they could have started firing indiscriminately in the smoke filled subway station. I'm sure they would have hit their target eventually.  

[Jim Cowan]

I am thinking of Leslie Nielsen, firing his gun at his own car as it rolls down the hill.

[Motown Bombers]

What is crucial in these moments after the suspect has been apprehended is that we identify the gun used with 100% accuracy. That is of the utmost importance right now. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Unarmed black man Patrick Loyoya killed by Grand Rapids Police Officer. In the video below and the bodycam footage it looks like there was an ensuing struggle, a struggle for the Officers taser, and then a shot fired into the back of Patrick's head.

Questions I have after watching the footage.

1. Why was Patrick stopped just for the plate not matching the car and was it a necessary stop?

2. Does running from a Police Officer automatically mean you get to pull out your taser and use it on someone/an alleged suspect?

3. When the Officer was on top of Patrick, why did he feel the need to shoot this man and why in the back of the head, execution style?

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[oblong]

I’m kind of thinking that the struggle there was a bit much so I’m not yet going to judge the officer.  Convince me.  

[gehringer_2]

It can get very hard to blame the officer given their tasking. There is a problem with the structural concept here part of which goes back to having any police officer work alone. It's baked into the equation that the only thing that allows a single officer to effectively apprehend a single perp is the implicit threat of the officer elevating the encounter to the use of lethal force. You can't reasonably send officers out to do solo apprehensions and take the threat of lethal force off the table - it becomes a non-sensical formulation. If you what to remove the use of the lethal force threat from routine encounters, you have to change the interaction equation - the cops have to have more non-lethal support for an apprehension - i.e. at minimum more than one officer.

But that costs money. In the end taxpayers would rather see people get killed, esp ones they don't care about, than pay more in taxes for social order in places *they* don't go.

Edited April 14, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

What I wonder though is short of the Officer discovering that Mr. Loyoya committed or is wanted as a suspect for a violent crime of some nature, why pursue him at all? Should simply running from an Officer be grounds for pursuit? Should Officers in this type of a situation be required to wait for backup before pursuing and/or should the individual be allowed to escape and then be apprehended later? Also, suppose Mr. Lyoya did get a hold of the Officers taser. If a taser is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon, is the Officer justified in using a lethal weapon against an individual holding what is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon?

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What I wonder though is short of the Officer discovering that Mr. Loyoya committed or is wanted as a suspect for a violent crime of some nature, why pursue him at all? Should simply running from an Officer be grounds for pursuit? Should Officers in this type of a situation be required to wait for backup before pursuing and/or should the individual be allowed to escape and then be apprehended later? Also, suppose Mr. Lyoya did get a hold of the Officers taser. If a taser is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon, is the Officer justified in using a lethal weapon against an individual holding what is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon?

an officer can be completely disabled by a taser.  if you get tased you can easily fall and strike your head.  the standard is the reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm, not just death.

you can suffer serious bodily harm from a taser.

[Motown Bombers]

If the plate doesn't match the car, it could be an indication that the car or plate is stolen. 

[buddha]

hey ben crump is involved in that claim?  lol.  a total snake.  like feiger.

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, buddha said:

an officer can be completely disabled by a taser.  if you get tased you can easily fall and strike your head.  the standard is the reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm, not just death.

you can suffer serious bodily harm from a taser.

True, but I think even more to the point, an officer in danger of losing any one-on-one with a perp is also in danger of having his lethal weapon taken and used by the perp to endanger him or a bystander.

But it gets to where all these arguments are like bad kabuki theater. There is only one overriding reality here - which is that you can't fill a society with guns and not create the conditions were they kill a lot of people. 

[buddha]

well, if that guy had any family they are about to be very very rich.

after ben crump takes his 50% cut, of course.

[oblong]

3 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What I wonder though is short of the Officer discovering that Mr. Loyoya committed or is wanted as a suspect for a violent crime of some nature, why pursue him at all? Should simply running from an Officer be grounds for pursuit? Should Officers in this type of a situation be required to wait for backup before pursuing and/or should the individual be allowed to escape and then be apprehended later? Also, suppose Mr. Lyoya did get a hold of the Officers taser. If a taser is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon, is the Officer justified in using a lethal weapon against an individual holding what is supposed to be a non-lethal weapon?

I think once a suspect is free and running unless they are a threat, by holding a weapon, then you let them go.  You don’t shoot them in the back. But in the course of apprehension and they start to fight back then at that point I give the officers the benefit of the doubt.  If a person is totally prone and helpless is when I have the problem.  I judge each incident on its own merits.  This isn’t them shooting the old man in the electric scooter from 10 feet away.  When in hand to hand combat… sorry.  I need more evidence.  

[ewsieg]

6 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Questions I have after watching the footage.

1. Why was Patrick stopped just for the plate not matching the car and was it a necessary stop?

Seriously?  This is part of the reason why your party is so likely to lose in grand fashion this November.

6 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

2. Does running from a Police Officer automatically mean you get to pull out your taser and use it on someone/an alleged suspect?

No, but you also said an 'unarmed'.  Initially yes, but by the time he was shot he was no longer unarmed as he had at least some and possibly complete control of the officers taser.  He didn't immediately pull out the taser either.

6 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

3. When the Officer was on top of Patrick, why did he feel the need to shoot this man and why in the back of the head, execution style?

 

This I can't answer.  One bad move and within 5 seconds he could have been tased, had his gun taken, and shot.   At the same time, it seemed like he still had enough of an upper hand to take his hand off of the subject to reach for his gun.  Add in the fact that it seemed like almost immediately after the shot you finally heard backup coming.  

I've laughed at people that say 'shoot them in the leg', but in this scenario, who puts a gun to the back of someone's head and pulls the trigger? 

[Motown Bombers]

If it was just a license plate issue and not necessary to stop, why the hell did I just lay out over $200 to renew my tags? What's the point if the police shouldn't pull me over for license plate issues? 

[Archie]

When someone goes for an officer's weapon they are putting themselves in a very bad position.  They are basically giving themselves a death sentence.  If they were to get the weapon its only to use it on the officer.  

One of the biggest problems I see is that today are officers are alone.  I remember when there were usually two officers to a car. If there were two officers involved they most likely would be able to get the bad guy under control without hurting anyone.  The agencies are saving money on manpower and this is what's happened.    

[pfife]

So it would be better if republicans stopped voting against police funding is what I'm picking up

[Archie]

25 minutes ago, pfife said:

So it would be better if republicans stopped voting against police funding is what I'm picking up

I'll agree with you to a point, its the democrats that are running the push to defund the police.  You must of missed that in Floyd protests.  Police departments should be properly funded.  I don't think they need tanks or armored cars just more people.  Republicans and Democrats should work together to get them the funds they need but we both know that will never happen in politics these days.