Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

What's wrong with this arrest?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Police do get HTH combat training. Members of our military do too.

IMO the main problems there were 1) the one idiot cop who just sat there and threatened with his taser over and over finally got pulled down on top of his partner, and Brooks got away. 2) those cops had an audience and they were too shit-scared to do anything violent-looking during the George Floyd wars. Just a few days ago we had a cop throw one punch at chief drunkass when they were involved in an altercation and it's national news. If one of those officers punched Brooks they'd be no less popular in the media. 

I think the original cop on the scene was just a rookie.

 

The training of police across the United States is inconsistent and not uniform due to the multitude of jurisdictions and budgets that might be available. Not all police officers will have the same training. There are a lot og erroneous assumptions about police training in these discussions. 

Budgets are what gets people trained. Cut the budgets they don't get proper training.

Actually a lot of hand to hand training is NOT the same. There are competing opinions as to what to teach.

Basic training in hand to hand defensive tactics has to be constantly practiced or you lose the lessons learned.

Therein lies one problem. Not all officers get proper upgrading or refresher training. It depends on workloads, budgets, self-initiative to volunteer sometimes.

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The Brooks incident is entirely different though. Officers should be closing ranks to protect the officers involved because the DA in Atlanta was telling lies about the officers at the press conference. That's insane. "Brooks was slightly over the limit, and jovial." It's nice to know that in Atlanta I can punch a cop in the face, shoot a taser at them and still be considered 'jovial'. 

The officers in the Brooks shooting were polite, patient and professional with him the entire time. They were never rude or forceful. They gave Brooks every opportunity to go along with his due process in a safe and unthreatening manner.

Then they attempted to arrest him, Brooks got stupid and struggled, things did get forceful, and when he grabbed the Tazer and ran away, they shot him in the back.  

By all accounts, the entire process was reasonable and by the book...until Brooks got shot in the back with a firearm.  Brooks was a moron and he even fired the tazer at the officer chasing him, but it was a wild miss (as you'd expect when shooting backwards, off-balance, while running with a short-range weapon with questionable ballistics). The pursuing officer wasn't in mortal danger, and he had back-up.  The options were to let the guy run off and catch up to him later, or chase him down and taze/subdue him.  He wasn't looking for trouble or to hurt anyone.  He was just a dumb drunk that wanted to get away. 

The icing on the cake was how Rolfe winds up and kicks him after he's shot him twice in the back.  Tell me there's nothing wrong with that.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Here's the best I could find for "video" of cops kicking and standing on Brooks. In the age of everyone having a video camera on their phone somehow there are stills being used to show a situation that was being recorded from multiple angles.

This DA's analyzation of a crime scene is eerily reminiscent of Rock Bottom's coverage of Homer Simpson going for the Gummy Venus De Milo. 

I cannot see where the cop kicked the guy. I only see a still photo of the cop apparently standing over the guy. I need to see a video of him kicking the guy. Until then, this is just more leftist liberal anti-white bull going on here. Just saying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Boges said:

Even so, it's not really a white thing as other Constitutional Monarchies follow the same "values" even thought there racial makeup is much different. 

The GTA is so multicultural that being around stereotypical Canadians is actually more jarring than being around most ethnic minorities. 

All you're doing is making a sad case that the Canada we knew is disappearing under an avalanche of foreigners who have no connection with our history, tradition or values and are substituting their own instead.

And given most of their own traditions do not include freedom of speech, religion, assembly or the press, or democracy, and that their cultures are, in the main VASTLY more racist and corrupt at every level than ours, that ought to be a concern to any thinking person.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Then they attempted to arrest him, Brooks got stupid and struggled, things did get forceful, and when he grabbed the Tazer and ran away, they shot him in the back.  

By all accounts, the entire process was reasonable and by the book...until Brooks got shot in the back with a firearm.  Brooks was a moron and he even fired the tazer at the officer chasing him, but it was a wild miss (as you'd expect when shooting backwards, off-balance, while running with a short-range weapon with questionable ballistics). The pursuing officer wasn't in mortal danger, and he had back-up.

It's always so nice to be able to sit back in the comfort of our homes, watch videos repeatedly, and then consider what ought to have happened. It gives us the luxury of a calm and considered thought process entirely free of adrenaline, fear and anger. That is not a luxury the police own. Oftentimes something goes from calm to batshit crazy in a second. And once you're rolling around on the ground with a guy instincts take over pretty damned quick, especially if you don't have much in the way of training on fighting. I would wager 99 out of 100 cops jumping up from that and chasing the guy who had just stolen their tazer would have shot him when he turned to fire the tazer at them. That's how we train them, after all. Anyone with a deadly weapon (and the DA himself referred to it as a deadly weapon in a previous case where he charged another cop) should be shot.

It seems pretty unfair to train them to a certain response and then punish them when they respond as trained. Especially in some kind of outraged vengeance for the life of a piece of shit like Brooks.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of your training is how to approach situations with more than just instinct and adrenaline.  That's why they do stuff like mix in fake "civilians" when doing firearm training.  Just because things get heated doesn't mean you get to go shooty. 

For the record, the guy turned, fired the tazer clumsily, missed, and then continued running.  That's when the officer drew his gun and fired...AFTER the tazer was already discharged and no longer a danger.  You'll have a hard time explaining the boot to the midsection after the guy was down too.  

As I've said before, I don't really know everything about the training process.  You could be right and the training could tell officers that they should shoot if someone so much as lobs a marshmallow at them (facetious, I know), but then we have to acknowledge there are systemic problems that need to be addressed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

No you haven't. That's a lie. You've seen footage of him being shot when he fired a taser at police. 

Unless you're willing to let someone shoot you in face with a taser you're in no position to say that the police should let someone do that to them. 

That's twice you've called me a liar now. Is that your idea of civil debate?

He clearly was running away and was shot in the back.

Unless the police now have repeating tazers he was not a threat so there was no need to shoot him.

More time needs to be spent training these officers and there needs to be a better recruitment process.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Then they attempted to arrest him, Brooks got stupid and struggled, things did get forceful, and when he grabbed the Tazer and ran away, they shot him in the back.  

By all accounts, the entire process was reasonable and by the book...until Brooks got shot in the back with a firearm.  Brooks was a moron and he even fired the tazer at the officer chasing him, but it was a wild miss (as you'd expect when shooting backwards, off-balance, while running with a short-range weapon with questionable ballistics). The pursuing officer wasn't in mortal danger, and he had back-up.  The options were to let the guy run off and catch up to him later, or chase him down and taze/subdue him.  He wasn't looking for trouble or to hurt anyone.  He was just a dumb drunk that wanted to get away. 

The icing on the cake was how Rolfe winds up and kicks him after he's shot him twice in the back.  Tell me there's nothing wrong with that.  

 

How the f can you not know you're lying? 

Brooks turned and shot a taser at the officers. 

f someone shot a taser at you from 10 feet away you wouldn't neglect to mention it.

You're basically just a liar moonbox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

That's twice you've called me a liar now. Is that your idea of civil debate?

He clearly was running away and was shot in the back.

Unless the police now have repeating tazers he was not a threat so there was no need to shoot him.

More time needs to be spent training these officers and there needs to be a better recruitment process.

 

 

You are a liar, so yes, it's entirely civil.

Do you want me to just ignore the elephant in the room?

Do you normally try to have 'civil' conversations with people where you tell blatant lies to their face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You are a liar, so yes, it's entirely civil.

Do you want me to just ignore the elephant in the room?

Do you normally try to have 'civil' conversations with people where you tell blatant lies to their face?

OK, I see you are incapable of civil debate. Rather than report you to the mods I think I'll just put you on ignore and it'll be just like you never existed.

Bye y'all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2020 at 3:36 PM, taxme said:

I wonder what would be said or done if those two white cops were black cops instead, and they did the exact same thing? The leftist liberal media would drop the killing of that black man by two black cops like a hot potato.

They are already doing that, as was shown here a little while ago that more unarmed blacks are killed by black cops than white cops, in the USA.

Complete media blackout on this. Oh my!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

How the f can you not know you're lying? 

Brooks turned and shot a taser at the officers. 

f someone shot a taser at you from 10 feet away you wouldn't neglect to mention it.

You're basically just a liar moonbox. 

I didn't.  I specifically said that he was a moron and shot the taser at the officer...and missed...

Take a deep breath and calm down.  Yikes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Brooks turned and shot a taser at the officers.

I watched it a few days ago, but I didn't see him turn. Well, he turned his head, but his feet kept on running. He turned to look behind him as he ran away, if I recall. Then pointed the taser behind him and fired, but he wasn't looking at the target when he fired the taser gun, and the shot went way off.

The whole even is both stupid and unfortunate, but you have to put the onus on the police for what happens. They already presumed control over the civilian when they stopped him, did the test on him. He was in their detention at that point if you will, although not yet arrested.

It's easy to pass judgement from here and hindsight has 2020 vision, yes I know. But I am not a cop. I don't have their training, I don't know what they're supposed to do in cases like this. It just seems to me, as a professional in a different industry, I take authority over situations I am responsible for, as an expert. As a police officer I would think handling a dumb, unpredictable goon in a parking lot with two officers on site would be one of the first items on my training to-do list.

I have no opinion whether they should go to jail or not. Plenty of things can be changed, training, blah blah blah but the essential recipe for social violence is still there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

I watched it a few days ago, but I didn't see him turn. Well, he turned his head, but his feet kept on running. He turned to look behind him as he ran away, if I recall. Then pointed the taser behind him and fired, but he wasn't looking at the target when he fired the taser gun, and the shot went way off.

The whole even is both stupid and unfortunate, but you have to put the onus on the police for what happens. They already presumed control over the civilian when they stopped him, did the test on him. He was in their detention at that point if you will, although not yet arrested.

It's easy to pass judgement from here and hindsight has 2020 vision, yes I know. But I am not a cop. I don't have their training, I don't know what they're supposed to do in cases like this. It just seems to me, as a professional in a different industry, I take authority over situations I am responsible for, as an expert. As a police officer I would think handling a dumb, unpredictable goon in a parking lot with two officers on site would be one of the first items on my training to-do list.

I have no opinion whether they should go to jail or not. Plenty of things can be changed, training, blah blah blah but the essential recipe for social violence is still there.

 

It's always easy to say how YOU could have ended the Battle of Stalingrad six months earlier than the generals did.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you know...from a comfy armchair mit der snifter of brandy.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

...you know...from a comfy armchair mit der snifter of brandy.

Some hot cocoa, perhaps. Milk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

That's twice you've called me a liar now. Is that your idea of civil debate?

He clearly was running away and was shot in the back.

Unless the police now have repeating tazers he was not a threat so there was no need to shoot him.

More time needs to be spent training these officers and there needs to be a better recruitment process.

When he turns to shoot, the officers shoot. That's it. 

The officers guns don't go off in the millisecond that it takes for Brooks to fire. They make the decision to fire when the taser comes around.

If they shot Brooks 3 seconds later there would be no point to it, I agree. 

FYI, some tasers do have two shots in them, for if the first shot misses.

Edited by WestCanMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Unless the police now have repeating tazers he was not a threat so there was no need to shoot him.

Those tazers shoot twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

Those tazers shoot twice.

Okay fair enough, but the guy's still running.  

He's holding a non-lethal weapon and he's running away.  They had his ID.  They had his car.  He was a drunken fool and they shot him in the back while he was running away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 12:45 AM, WestCanMan said:

What are "stereotypical Canadians"?

How are Canadians so different from minorities?

That's racist imo. 

I don't find that races of people are so different in Surrey that it's jarring to be around the different types, but maybe Toronto and Surrey are nothing alike?. 

Ever watch Letterkenny? 

That's what I'd consider stereotypical Canadian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 4:35 PM, Boges said:

Ever watch Letterkenny? 

That's what I'd consider stereotypical Canadian. 

No, I've seen commercials and it looked silly. Is it on Netflix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

No, I've seen commercials and it looked silly. Is it on Netflix?

No, Crave. And Youtube, if you'r really curious. 

You could also watch old Mackenize brother skits. 

 

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2020 at 3:12 PM, Argus said:

All you're doing is making a sad case that the Canada we knew is disappearing under an avalanche of foreigners who have no connection with our history, tradition or values and are substituting their own instead.

And given most of their own traditions do not include freedom of speech, religion, assembly or the press, or democracy, and that their cultures are, in the main VASTLY more racist and corrupt at every level than ours, that ought to be a concern to any thinking person.

Culture is different than all that. 

People come to Canada because it's a great country to live if. But it's also a country that doesn't cling to some homogenous culture. Lots of countries that doesn't have a majority white population also uses British political structure and hold Christianity as their primary religion. 

I think the Left misses out on this too when they rage about cultural appropriation. People who live in a country like Canada don't and shouldn't be expected to live in a cultural silo. 

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boges said:

No, Crave. And Youtube, if you'r really curious. 

You could also watch old Mackenize brother skits. 

Those aren't 'stereotypical Canadians', they're like caricatures. Not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WestCanMan said:

Those aren't 'stereotypical Canadians', they're like caricatures. Not the same thing.

You've never met people that talk like that? 

Perhaps come to Northern Ontario sometime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...