The George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests and police conduct

[RedDenver]

 

[Ratt Mhule]

42 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

Good god that is a f#&%ing execution by firing squad for being poor. The way this country treats poor people is sickening. 

[Cdog923]

 

[BigRedBuster]

20 hours ago, Waldo said:

I don’t think the cop should have shot A.) with so many other people in close proximity B.) Over someone being drunk. C.) Knowing the taser isn’t a deadly weapon.
With that said, I wish people wouldn’t put themselves in these positions. If you’re going to drive drunk, you better be willing to get arrested and spend the night in jail. Police and people need to use better judgement in situations like this. 

To me, this is very different than the George Floyd situation.  

 

I've heard several law enforcement experts interviewed over the weekend on this situation.  All have seen the videos that we have all seen.  Most stated that the officers acted appropriately right up till the gun was fired that killed him.  They were justified in taking him into custody for being intoxicated.  When he starts fighting back, got possession of the stun gun, and then turned and fired it at officers...is when it gets really murky.  This is when an officer has to think in split seconds.  Is it the stun gun?  Is it a real gun?  Are other people in danger?  I know I would hate to be in that situation and have to make that decision instantaneously.

 

Some suggested that it was wrong to chase and shoot because they had the guy's car and driver's license.  They knew who he was and could have arrested him later.  I can agree with that.

 

What I DON'T agree with is that I've heard some say, well, why didn't they just give him a ride home or call him an Uber instead of trying to arrest him.

 

OK...that's how it used to be around here 30-40 years ago.  But, not anymore.  That's just now how these things work. If you fail the sobriety test....you get arrested and taken into custody.  This situation shouldn't be any different.  

 

The first wrong, was him fighting back.  The second wrong was probably the officer firing his gun.  But....that's a tough situation for the officer.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

To me, this is very different than the George Floyd situation.  

 

I've heard several law enforcement experts interviewed over the weekend on this situation.  All have seen the videos that we have all seen.  Most stated that the officers acted appropriately right up till the gun was fired that killed him.  They were justified in taking him into custody for being intoxicated.  When he starts fighting back, got possession of the stun gun, and then turned and fired it at officers...is when it gets really murky.  This is when an officer has to think in split seconds.  Is it the stun gun?  Is it a real gun?  Are other people in danger?  I know I would hate to be in that situation and have to make that decision instantaneously.

 

Some suggested that it was wrong to chase and shoot because they had the guy's car and driver's license.  They knew who he was and could have arrested him later.  I can agree with that.

 

What I DON'T agree with is that I've heard some say, well, why didn't they just give him a ride home or call him an Uber instead of trying to arrest him.

 

OK...that's how it used to be around here 30-40 years ago.  But, not anymore.  That's just now how these things work. If you fail the sobriety test....you get arrested and taken into custody.  This situation shouldn't be any different.  

 

The first wrong, was him fighting back.  The second wrong was probably the officer firing his gun.  But....that's a tough situation for the officer.

 

 

Trying to arrest him is fine but there have been a lot of videos over the years of people being shot running away and that should never happen. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Trying to arrest him is fine but there have been a lot of videos over the years of people being shot running away and that should never happen. 

The officer didn't pull his gun and shoot till he turned and shot something at him.  It's easy to say, well, it's a stun gun and not lethal.  In a split second, that's a tough call to make.  Not saying the officer was 100% justified.  I'm saying that, in this situation, I can see his side.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The officer didn't pull his gun and shoot till he turned and shot something at him.  It's easy to say, well, it's a stun gun and not lethal.  In a split second, that's a tough call to make.  Not saying the officer was 100% justified.  I'm saying that, in this situation, I can see his side.

The problem is that it's clear he has a stun gun. First, one of the officers yells that he's taken his stun gun. Second, stun guns fire out confetti which makes it very obvious that it's a stun gun. You can see the confetti in the video if you look carefully. Third, the suspect had already fired the stun gun and turned away from the officers before the officer fired his gun.

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The problem is that it's clear he has a stun gun. First, one of the officers yells that he's taken his stun gun. Second, stun guns fire out confetti which makes it very obvious that it's a stun gun. You can see the confetti in the video if you look carefully. Third, the suspect had already fired the stun gun and turned away from the officers before the officer fired his gun.

I'm not saying the officer was 100% justified.  I'm saying it's a very different situation than George Floyd.  Here, the suspect created the situation by resisting arrest, fighting with officers, running away and firing something at them.

 

The officer should lose his job and probably be charged with something.  But, I would have a hard time going with some major murder charge that throws the guy in jail for years.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not saying the officer was 100% justified.  I'm saying it's a very different situation than George Floyd.  Here, the suspect created the situation by resisting arrest, fighting with officers, running away and firing something at them.

 

The officer should lose his job and probably be charged with something.  But, I would have a hard time going with some major murder charge that throws the guy in jail for years.

Yes, it's clearly different than the George Floyd murder. If they find that the victim was shot in the back, then I'd still support a murder charge. I'm not sure the distinction between 3rd vs 2nd degree, but maybe this is one of the lesser murder charges.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, it's clearly different than the George Floyd murder. If they find that the victim was shot in the back, then I'd still support a murder charge. I'm not sure the distinction between 3rd vs 2nd degree, but maybe this is one of the lesser murder charges.

 

OK...taking this specific situation out of the discussion.  Do you think every time someone is shot in the back is unjustified?

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

OK...taking this specific situation out of the discussion.  Do you think every time someone is shot in the back is unjustified?

For the most part I'd say shooting someone in the back in unjustified, but I'm sure there are some situations you could come up with where it's justified or at least in a gray area. Like if the suspect was killing people and the officer was behind the suspect.

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

For the most part I'd say shooting someone in the back in unjustified, but I'm sure there are some situations you could come up with where it's justified or at least in a gray area. Like if the suspect was killing people and the officer was behind the suspect.

How about if the officer is in chase, the person turns fires an actual gun at the officer and then starts running again?

 

In that instance, I think it's justified.

 

 

[teachercd]

Or if someone is on top of another person...hurting or raping them...and you have a shot at their back...I would say that is okay.

[RedDenver]

51 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

How about if the officer is in chase, the person turns fires an actual gun at the officer and then starts running again?

 

In that instance, I think it's justified.

 

 

Sure. I said there would be circumstances where it would be justified.

 

But if instead of an actual gun, the suspect fired something full of confetti, which any officer would know is a stun gun, then it's clearly not justified.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

There have been plenty of instances where an officer is giving chase on a suspect and that suspect gets a shot off on an officer and ends up getting shot in the back. That doesn't justify or not justify the shooting for me in situations. I can see both sides of the situation in Atlanta. Having been shot with the Taser and having used the Taser on suspects it renders you completely helpless if contact is made appropriately with the probes. That becomes a concern for an officer in reference to your gun possibly being taken from you. If you hold the trigger down on the Taser it'll just keep going and going. It's more than "confetti" being shot out of those things. Of course if people would comply in these situations first of all and not play court on the side of the road or wherever ALOT of situations could be avoided.