(June 15, 2020 at 8:47 am)Little lunch Wrote: I admit I hadn't thought of that.
But he had plenty of time to form intent while he was getting punched in the face.

Yet he didn't shoot him till he took his tazer and raised the level of threat.

Nah, you know how strong those people are. Every blow rendered him incapable of thought, even though he could still shoot, strangely..... It's a wonder he made it out alive. A testament to good police training and muscle memory.

---

....Or, this is the same sort of batshit defense as the aborted tazer attempt.

If you can't form intent when you're being beaten, then it must surely also hold when a man is being beaten by cops, grabs their pistol, and shoots them in the chest. No more of that silly shit about murdering cops. It was just an unfortunate accident, and the cop is ultimately responsible for his own death. Maybe he should've made better life decisions than wandering around in the dead of night with a gun beating people. Thug.

It's a good thing that hero citizens like that exist, to make split second decisions. For all he knew that thug was going to take a hostage, he was clearly armed and had tried to take at least one already.

(June 15, 2020 at 8:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Our for profit prison system is wildly profitable Agno.  They field alot of money and lobbyists to make more and more a criminal offense with longer sentences and harsher no-tolerance policies.

Ye the prison industrial complex, right. As a former inmate it makes me sick to my stomach. Australia is copying. Just in the last 7-8 years the prison population boomed and they built more new prisons. Some inmates are in for traffic offences like me, for not being able to pay for fines or legal fees and other tiny matters

Bolga Wrote:Maybe he ran because he was drunk, and drunks don't make great decisions.  Or maybe he ran because it's the flight in fight or flight, not much thinking to it at all, for anyone.

Maybe. 
Being handcuffed is enough to go mental. And that very moment where you are expected to submit to the cuffs is hard to explain. Its like sticking your hand in a fire, your body won't let u do it. Its fight or flight and resisting is instinctive i found once. 2 male and 2 female screws came in my cell to detain me but i resisted. Then they returned with 6 strong men and i submitted Try and drown yourself and eventually u will pull out instinctively

 I sometimes think that our cops are bad and there are some real cunts. But i can't watch your cops shows cos it makes my blood boil the way the cops treat people there.
For one joint of weed they will handcuff you, and treat u like a criminal before charging you.
Over here, one joint, most cops would dispose of it and send you on your way with a lecture.

If you get done for DUI here and u co-operate most cops will process you without the handcuffs. Fuckin tool of oppression. Try sitting on the kerb or in the car with cuffs.
Try sitting on a cold stainless steel dunny, naked for hours on end, u can't wipe the shit that is on your ass hole, your shoulders, your wrists, your mind, your insanity, it all gets tested

(June 15, 2020 at 8:35 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(June 15, 2020 at 8:27 am)Little lunch Wrote: If you shoot someone in the back while they're running away, you're a murderer.
You can't kill someone to protect hostages if those hostages don't exist yet.
If I give you 10 cents change, when I should have given you twenty cents change and you blow my brains out with a gun, then we are both at fault.
Technically true, but still a stupid thing to say.
I also doubt the guy would have got shot if he hadn't gotten violent.
He seemed like a real nice guy.
1.5 seconds to make a decision?
Well, if he decided to murder in that short a time then it was probably racist act also.

A drunk just got your tazer.

How are you going to get it away from him?

What if he turns it on you?

He already overpowered you and another guy.

Is he going to use your tazer on YOU? Then take your gun?

...

Too late. It took you far longer to read this  than the cop was given to make a decision.

Murder requires intent.

Clearly he did not have the time to form that intent.

Not murder.

But in this case the guy got the taser and was running away, if the cop was truly in fear then why chase after the guy? The cop already had his car, his identity and had the ability to call for backup, shooting the guy should not even have been an option. As a cop if you cant deal with someone resisting arrest or trying to get away from you, without shooting them, then maybe you shouldnt be cop.

Just think, our cop shows were an intentional effort to build good pr for the police. It helped that they didn't need any union writers, who were striking, to make it.

(June 15, 2020 at 8:22 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 15, 2020 at 8:20 am)Agnostico Wrote: At the risk of getting smashed i have to say also that maybe its time for gun reforms in the USA.

Maybe start slowly by confiscating all military weapons. Hunting firearms allowed only.
Then introduce another stage, anyone with a criminal record will be banned from owning weapons.
Step by step, slowly slowly...

As far as I'm aware, Mr. Brookes wasn't packing.  Only one of the two had a gun, the one that shot the other.  Had he been armed it might have gone better for him, but that's a longshot.  Or a shorter route to getting shot, depending.

Ye i know but with so many people dying in America from firearms in general maybe its worth a totalitarian POTUS to take all the guns away... LoL

Im not sure its possible with the size of the population, there will always be someone to buy guns off illegally i suspect
And like u say you better off being strapped cos everyone else is. I wouldn't be dropping my guns before they drop theirs either i think

Everyone else isn't packing either. 3% of americans own 50% of the guns..and they're heavily concentrated in rural areas. Predominantly white, predominantly conservative.

That's who the "thugs" in the inner city get their pistols from, when their economic value has decreased to the point of access to a criminal element. Turns out that crooks don't have alot of money, and that shows up as a predictable set in federal trace data. We know the kinds of guns we're likely to find involved in a crime, and we know the major pipelines for their movement.

Unfortunately, the ATF has been intentionally defunded and defanged. Strange how we don't object to that in this particular instance, huh?

(June 15, 2020 at 8:24 am)Editz Wrote:

(June 15, 2020 at 8:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That cop didn't accidentally shoot anyone.  What, he tripped, and the other guy landed on his rounds?  This angle was tried in our most recent public lynching, too.

You think he doesn't look back with regret at firing those shots in the heat of the moment? Profoundly feeling he made a terrible error? Due to training fail and tazr theft factors amongst others? Or are you going to try and argue for some kind of monolithic free will paradigm whereby the shooting officer is 100% to blame?

I could be wrong but i think you might be right. After a life or death struggle that lasted 30 seconds he had 2 seconds to make such an important decision
The adrenaline, the panic, all of it is foreign... His point blank range almost and fires not one, not two but three shots, so its easy to criticize.
No way do i think the officer should bare the whole burden. Training, methods, techniques, etc is striking the heart

Just following orders, in any variant..just following my training, just following the approved methods, just following the techniques... doesn't seem to work well in other contexts or for other defendants.

It's all well and good to suggest that there may be some institutional problem, maybe....but it will remain a fact that an institution did not pull that trigger. The officer involved is responsible for the death of that man, and it was a murder. If the institution wants to show that it can police itself, they can always do so.

(June 15, 2020 at 8:29 am)onlinebiker Wrote: You really like upgrading everything to muder don'tcha?

This clearly is not.

Manslaughter? Yup... I would guess so.

I tend to agree but did he intend to kill??? If so thats murder 2. 
They will argue that by shooting someone 3 times in the back from 3 meters away your only intent is to kill. I think its hard to argue against that I think

So there could be a case for murder 2 i think