Jump to content

The George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests and police conduct


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, sounds like a crazy excuse to me.  I would think a gun is way heavier as well but I have never held a taser.

 

I read her gun weighs 30 ounces, the taser weighs five ounces. That, plus the crazy difference in colors, means she just had a blank moment in a high-stress situation. It can  happen to anyone.

 

And now her 26-year career is down the tubes, she's likely going to face criminal prosecution, and a man is dead. All because of a traffic stop that turned hectic. 

 

Several tragedies here. 

 


 

EDIT - I was wrong, the gun weighs more than that.

 

LINK

 

The Glock 22, a .40 caliber sidearm preferred by most police agencies across the country, weighs a little more than two pounds with a standard magazine of 15 bullets.

By contrast, a Taser weighs eight ounces.

In addition to the vastly different weight and placement, police Tasers are often yellow. This appears to be the case with at least one of the officers who can be seen in the video from Potter's bodycam footage, as a yellow taser can clearly be seen on the left side of his belt.

A Glock has a sophisticated safety system that prevents accidental discharge. The safety for a Glock 22 is located on the weapon's trigger.

A Taser also has a safety; it is located on the upper rear left of the weapon's barrel.

Experts say it has happened in the past, though it is a rare occurrence. According to a 2012 Associated Press report, there were "nine cases in which officers shot suspects with handguns when they said they meant to fire stun guns dating back to 2001."

Gannon said he believed that Potter had intended to fire her Taser. In the video, she can be heard shouting, "I'll tase you! I'll tase you! Taser! Taser! Taser!" which is standard police procedure to warn both perpetrators and other officers that a stun gun will be fired.

After firing her sidearm, Potter can be heard saying, "Holy s--t. I just shot him."

Link to post

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Welcome to why nobody knew.             Sorry....couldn't resist.

Protestors in Downtown Des Moines asked officers to take a knee with them for 2 minutes and they'd then leave and abide by the 9pm curfew that was enacted today. Officers agreed and it was 2 minutes o

Saying "I'm your Huckleberry" over and over again to no one in particular.

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, knapplc said:

That a taser, or in some instances a gun, is a primary go-to choice for America's police force is a problem. That training led to this guy's death. 

Yes.  And, that has very little or nothing to do with civilian gun ownership.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You're right.  But it did.  If he doesn't do that, he's still alive.  

 

Fleeing to avoid arrest didn't directly result in his death. Being shot directly resulted in his death. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Fleeing to avoid arrest didn't directly result in his death. Being shot directly resulted in his death. 

 

In fairness, right or wrong, fleeing to avoid arrest greatly enhances an individuals likelihood of being shot. Had he not made the decision to flee, it is highly likely he would not have been shot. So he does bear some responsibility for making that decision. That said, the shooting still should never have happened. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to post

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

In fairness, right or wrong, fleeing to avoid arrest greatly enhances an individuals likelihood of being shot. Had he not made the decision to flee, it is highly likely he would not have been shot. So he does bear some responsibility for making that decision. That said, the shooting still should never have happened. 

 

He doesn't bear zero responsibility, and obviously he should not have attempted to flee. But the primary responsibility here is the shooter, followed by the training that says in that situation, shoot him. 

 

If cops are trained to deescalate that situation, he doesn't get shot. They round him up later and he goes to jail on his warrant. He's alive, the cop still has her job. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

He doesn't bear zero responsibility, and obviously he should not have attempted to flee. But the primary responsibility here is the shooter, followed by the training that says in that situation, shoot him. 

 

If cops are trained to deescalate that situation, he doesn't get shot. They round him up later and he goes to jail on his warrant. He's alive, the cop still has her job. 

 

 

 

I completely agree. Firearms should be used by police officials only as needed to protect themselves or general public, in this case neither the officer, nor the public were in danger if this guy escapes. However, his attempt to escape did cause the officer's reaction- the wrong reaction- but the reaction that led to his death. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

He doesn't bear zero responsibility, and obviously he should not have attempted to flee. But the primary responsibility here is the shooter, followed by the training that says in that situation, shoot him. 

 

If cops are trained to deescalate that situation, he doesn't get shot. They round him up later and he goes to jail on his warrant. He's alive, the cop still has her job. 

 

 

And if, while fleeing from these three cops, he runs over an innocent civilian and kills them, you (among others) would blame the three cops. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

And if, while fleeing from these three cops, he runs over an innocent civilian and kills them, you (among others) would blame the three cops. 

 

If they were in active pursuit of a nonviolent, low risk, individual in a residential or business district the cops should get the blame. Their actions (pursuit) heightened the likelihood of collateral damage, unnecessarily. There are rules of engagement around this, and in your described scenario the right move is to stand down. Its the equivalent of superman taking the fight outside of the city. 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

And if, while fleeing from these three cops, he runs over an innocent civilian and kills them, you (among others) would blame the three cops. 

 

What a gross thing to say.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

2 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

If they were in active pursuit of a nonviolent, low risk, individual in a residential or business district the cops should get the blame. Their actions (pursuit) heightened the likelihood of collateral damage, unnecessarily. There are rules of engagement around this, and in your described scenario the right move is to stand down. Its the equivalent of superman taking the fight outside of the city. 

I think if they are already driving, you sort of back off and follow.  

 

If they are not yet in their car, you do everything you can (hopefully not kill the dude, unless he starts shooting) to make sure they don't get away/in their car. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's not what the training was.

 

Then the training is ineffective, because she intended to shoot him with a taser and mistakenly shot him with a gun. 

Link to post
35 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Then the training is ineffective, because she intended to shoot him with a taser and mistakenly shot him with a gun. 

The training for that particular officer was ineffective.  It doesn’t make the training as a whole ineffective. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...