Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The time for social workers is after everybody calms down, not while the couple are still pounding on each other while the cops are trying to pull them off each other. What is a social worker going to do? Ask them pretty please to quit pounding on each other?
You have a violent, naked man on PCP swinging a sword around while threatening people. OK, what is the doctor or drug addiction specialist going to do to disarm the naked man and keep him from harming people with the sword?
Eagerly awaiting your answers.
I sound facetious but I am trying to underscore that force or the potential of force and violence from the people being sent to is in play in all these cases. The police have the training and the weapons (including non-lethal), and the restraints to control these parties that social workers and doctors and drug addiction specialists to not.
Everyone you are advocating for to replace police are only useful after everyone is calm and the situation is controlled. The police are how you get to that point.
How has this worked so far?! Have things gotten any better now, compared to the recent past?
Look at how much WORSE the drug abuse problem is today, (compared to years past), there is SO MUCH MORE dope coming in now than any other time in history! The violence associated with the drug trade, as well as violence associated with their use, (certain drugs that is).
Look at how many decades the drug war has been fought...are we any closer to defeating drugs today, or are we totally bombed out? Law enforcement keeps asking for more money, more resources to wage the drug war year after year...but have they even put a dent in it, (or just made it that much worse)?
How many decades do we continue to do this same thing over and over again, knowing its a miserable failure and will never accomplish its goals?! How about we try something else now?
A taser is not a firearm. And the officer's defense wasn't that he was trying to prevent a civilian from using the officer's weapon. It was that he feared for his life. That's a lie. He probably said it, because everyone knows, that's what protects you from a murder rap, IF you're faced with a lethal weapon. But he wasn't faced with such a weapon. But it was the first thing that popped into his head, because that's how cops think; it was an automatic response. It just didn't fit the situation.
Again, you are making excuses for the criminal. Do you realize he's under arrest? I think liberals like you forget that he is under arrest. He already broke multiple laws such as DUI. Resisting arrest. You cannot take a police weapon and point it back regardless it's a police baton or taser. If you ever seen other cop videos, if a criminal takes a baseball bat and charges at a cop. That's a reason for firing back.
If he had successfully took the taser and shot at the police, we would have a different story that he would go for the gun in order to keep the 2nd cop at bay. That will be the story the defense attorney will use.
Because you completely ignore the fact that he was under arrest and resisted, fought the police and tried to escape. Then he pulled taser from the cop and aimed it back. Those are all within guidelines for the police to fire back.
I think you need to forget about this case and go look up other court cases that involves police shootings and justification for firing when a suspect resists arrests, fights back, and takes a police weapon from the police. These are all justification for use of deadly force.
Trust me, the cop will be free because it's all on body cam video and if this was any other time the news wouldn't have sensationalized the story and the cop would still be out on the street. Now he's serving extra time without a grand jury indictment. When he wins the trial the state will have pay him millions for restitution he will be able to quit with honorable discharge and still collect an early pension.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,347 posts, read 8,564,711 times
Reputation: 16689
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
I asked this before and ask again.
Why they do not shoot legs? Buttocks?
Guess you didn’t like my logical answer I gave you when you asked why on another thread and are looking instead for someone to agree with you that they should shoot legs or other parts not center mass.
Why don’t you just say that you think that is where they should aim.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
Slight "glitch" with that argument...............if cop is shot with the taser, incapacitated then Mr Brooks steals his firearm then what?
Keep using tasers, they are a better option than guns.
In the Brooks case, Mr. Brooks chose his own fate:
1. DUI/sleeping in the drive thru
2. Resisting arrest
3. Stealing a taser
4. Pointing it at the cop
I would have rather seen the officer catch him another way but it was a split second decision and after considering the first 3 offenses, Mr Brooks was not going peacefully. If Mr Brooks did not do just ONE of the above things, he would have not been shot. DUI but don't resist, Don't steal the taser/don't point it at the cop. Just remove ONE offense, any ONE of the four and the case would have had a totally different outcome.
Watching the police videos are similar to watching flight simulators. You can watch and react as an after thought but that is no way the same as doing for real in person.
Sully sees the flight simulators land the flight.............then asks "how many times did they practice it".......the woman says 17 times. They had to practice the landing 17 times before making it to the runway. So when looking at police videos consider they are doing it for the first time, in real time and playing with their own life in the game. Cops don't have 17 times to practice it until they get it right.
The whole "feel good" premise that ALL Police should be disarmed, de-funded, kept out of situations involving black people, etc., is a knee-jerk, 'snowflake' escape from reality!
Sadly, our media and society seem to be headed down a road where everything is expected to be perfectly politically correct ... and subject to after-the-fact, hindsight judgment by mobs and protesters. The entire measure of truth or right/wrong in this environment seems to be 'appearances or perceptions' supported by brief, 'window-in-time,' I-phone pictures taken by "totally unbiased spectators."
The notion that tasers (and of course, more lethal, guns) should be "taken away" from police, is idiotic. Does one expect the criminal element to abide by the same rules? What's next, 'disarm our soldiers, because they might use lethal force on "innocent enemies?"
Of course, there are clearly instances where police over-react in the performance of their duty, just as there are some people who have a 'cowboy' mindset and probably shouldn't be on the police force. But, the streets and criminal element are uglier than many people care to acknowledge. Who do we want to replace the police?? (How about the 'snowflake militia' currently taking over the streets in Seattle??)
Just because a person gets shot or tased by the police, does not automatically make them an innocent 'choir boy'!... and the police the bad guy. Likewise, looting, vandalizing and burning the property of innocent civilians, doesn't make one a "free-speech, protester" either.
Maybe we should also get rid of judges and courts who don't seem 'politically correct' (aka: left-leaning), then we can return to 'Wild West America,' - where 'might makes right!' -- Many liberals already seem to think it's time for the police to find other employment and let the mobs and thugs rule the streets! America is heading down a dangerous road to anarchy! --
It's difficult to imagine why honest, decent people would still want to be policemen ...on this new, anti-police path
This is the best post I have read on the subject! The last line says it best............
Also note Atlanta PD has officers not showing up for their shifts in protest......
Last edited by City Guy997S; 06-20-2020 at 10:16 AM..
Taser will generally only incapacitate when hitting someone in the trunk.
It'll hurt like hell getting hit anywhere else, but most likely not to the level of incapacitation.
And that cop is sitting there with a bulletproof vest on that taser probes aren't going to make it through to hit him in the trunk.
I dunno.. I just find the whole "he could have tased me and taken my gun" thing to be along the lines of "He could have jumped in a car, started it and run me over, so I had to shoot him while he was sitting at his dinner table eating"
How about a lucky shot in the neck with the taser? Right bicep, inches from the heart? Even if it just stuns him, is that enough time for the Mr Brooks to get his gun?
In your steal my car/run me over analogy...........if he already took the keys, he is cranking the ignition then driving towards you is that enough intent? Seems like resisting, taking the taser and then pointing it shows enough intent.
Mr Brooks was not sitting at a dinner table, not heading to church or some other "choir boy" excuse. Guy made 4 bad decisions that night (DUI, resisting, stealing taser and finally pointing it at the cop). IF he only did 3 of 4 of those offenses he wouldn't have been shot at. Pick any 3 of the 4 and there would have been a totally different outcome. Mr Brooks was wrong and escalated the whole arrest process resulting in his death.
The PC environment called for the cop to be fired/arrested. The judge/jury will set him free in the end. If the officer walked up and shot Mr Brooks while sleeping in the car then obviously he would be guilty.
His lawyer is already working on the case through the media:
Defense attorney Noah H. Pines, who represents Rolfe, said Friday the law justified his client's actions.
"When Mr. Brooks chose to attack two officers, to disarm one of them, and to point and fire a deadly weapon at Officer Rolfe, he took their lives, and his own, into his hands. He took the risk that their justified response might be a deadly one," Pines said Friday referring to the scuffle prior to Rolfe shooting Brooks.
"Although we can all understand the grief of Mr. Brooks' family, Officer Rolfe's actions were justified by the law."
Again, you are making excuses for the criminal. Do you realize he's under arrest? I think liberals like you forget that he is under arrest. He already broke multiple laws such as DUI. Resisting arrest. You cannot take a police weapon and point it back regardless it's a police baton or taser. If you ever seen other cop videos, if a criminal takes a baseball bat and charges at a cop. That's a reason for firing back.
If he had successfully took the taser and shot at the police, we would have a different story that he would go for the gun in order to keep the 2nd cop at bay. That will be the story the defense attorney will use.
Because you completely ignore the fact that he was under arrest and resisted, fought the police and tried to escape. Then he pulled taser from the cop and aimed it back. Those are all within guidelines for the police to fire back.
I think you need to forget about this case and go look up other court cases that involves police shootings and justification for firing when a suspect resists arrests, fights back, and takes a police weapon from the police. These are all justification for use of deadly force.
Trust me, the cop will be free because it's all on body cam video and if this was any other time the news wouldn't have sensationalized the story and the cop would still be out on the street. Now he's serving extra time without a grand jury indictment. When he wins the trial the state will have pay him millions for restitution he will be able to quit with honorable discharge and still collect an early pension.
I'm not denying the bad guy did a bad thing. I'm saying the cop screwed up when he said he was afraid for his life because a taser was pointed at him. That's all. If use of deadly force is ok, or at least--has been supported by the courts, because someone has resisted arrest and grabbed a non-lethal weapon from the cop, then the cop didn't need to say anything, did he? He didn't need to justify his use of deadly force by claiming his life was in danger, because the cop handbook, or court/legal precedent, or whatever, already had him covered.
It's interesting, how cops' first instinct is to lie.
I'm not denying the bad guy did a bad thing. I'm saying the cop screwed up when he said he was afraid for his life because a taser was pointed at him. That's all. If use of deadly force is ok, or at least--has been supported by the courts, because someone has resisted arrest and grabbed a non-lethal weapon from the cop, then the cop didn't need to say anything, did he? He didn't need to justify his use of deadly force by claiming his life was in danger, because the cop handbook, or court/legal precedent, or whatever, already had him covered.
It's interesting, how cops' first instinct is to lie.
There was a recent incident that happened in front of one of our stores a couple months ago...
Police pulled over this car and the guy in the passenger seat happened to be wanted, the guy bolted out of the door and ran up a short drive to a car repair shop, that sits beside our gas station, police claim he pointed his gun at them and fired...but on our video surv cameras, it showed that the guy pointed the gun straight up in the air and fired, (he never once pointed it in the direction of police).
Of course, since he was wanted, majority of people just believed the cops story! We talked to a few local news media about the footage we had, but NONE of them was interested. I cannot believe that!
The officer feared for his life because if he was stunned his gun could be taken off him and used against him.
Banning taser would just mean that shooting would be even more likely as there would be few non lethal alternatives.
As for non-lethal technology it is improving all the time and new devices are coming on to the market.
In Georgia, tasers are legally considered lethal weapons. There's an interesting clip of the prosecutor (who's in deep legal doo-doo BTW) who rushed to judgement here, filmed a couple of weeks before the event, stating tasers are deadly weapons. Legally they are in Georgia.
Similarly, the calls for no more tear gas no more pepper spray leave cops fewer options. As these newer items were to replace the night stick with less-damaging tools, so if you remove the non-lethal tools you will get increased shootings of either the alleged perp or the cop, or both.
I believe that every legislator and governor who is going to consider legislation or rules in this area, should be required to do at least a dozen ride-alongs with random officers. Thirty ride-alongs would be better.
That time spent should include the time it takes to fill out the tons of paperwork that cops are saddled with by bureaucrats who've never set foot on the mean streets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should Tasers Be Banned From Use by Cops
