Fatal shooting of Rayshard Brooks

[The Architect Of Fate]

The gun made me do it theory.....


Fucking ridiculous....

Yeah what do all those psychologists know 

[Ranjr]

Last Feb, a neighbor, 31 y/o guy who lives with his parents, revved the engine of his truck for 2 solid hours, giving us no peace.  The guy next door and I asked him to stop.  He did for 20 minutes, then started up again.  The deputies came and hauled him off for DUI.  The truck was running, and he was in it.  The kid has other issues.  A few years ago, a running back on the local college team passed out in the Wendy's parking lot.  The cops saw him, approached, found the keys in the ignition, and arrested him for DUI. 

Fayetteville cops are notorious dicks who love to bust college kids.  Here's what happened when someone tipped them that the Oklahoma QB was in town being a drunk asshole:  Note the numbers and gang tackling in contrast to the manslaughter in the topic

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Last Feb, a neighbor, 31 y/o guy who lives with his parents, revved the engine of his truck for 2 solid hours, giving us no peace.  The guy next door and I asked him to stop.  He did for 20 minutes, then started up again.  The deputies came and hauled him off for DUI.  The truck was running, and he was in it.  The kid has other issues.  A few years ago, a running back on the local college team passed out in the Wendy's parking lot.  The cops saw him, approached, found the keys in the ignition, and arrested him for DUI. 

Fayetteville cops are notorious dicks who love to bust college kids.  Here's what happened when someone tipped them that the Oklahoma QB was in town being a drunk asshole:  Note the numbers and gang tackling in contrast to the manslaughter in the topic

That’s amazing - no one shot him, no one kneeled on his neck, and as soon as he was cuffed, they got off him.

Whodathunkit?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Tazers are not lethal weapons, so sayeth the police dept who shot the dead man.

The wheels on the bus go round and _____?

Again - you flapping your yap about something you don't know about.


A tazer IS considered a "less than lethal" weapon. 

They are not "not lethal weapons".

Many states require a concealed carry permit to carry a tazer. Here in Michigan extra training is required.


Pepper spray (but not mace) is a non-lethal weapon.

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

What - exactly - is the difference between ‘less than lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’? It seems that if a weapon is less than lethal, then it is a weapon that doesn’t rise to the level of lethality. Doesn’t that mean the same thing as non-lethal?

Boru

[arewethereyet]

From Wikipedia...

Safety concerns
Main article: Taser safety issues
The TASER device is a non-lethal, weapon. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[34]
There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including: [4]
Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
Persons operating machinery or conveyance (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
Places where explosive or flammable substances are present

*****

On the face of it a taser isn't considered to be lethal though there are instances where a taser proves to be lethal. Not unlike the protester who died from being basically overdosed with tear gas recently. Tear gas isn't considered lethal either but too much can result in death and it would certainly be detrimental to people with asthma or other lung issues.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

From Wikipedia...

Safety concerns
Main article: Taser safety issues
The TASER device is a non-lethal, weapon. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[34]
There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including: [4]
Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
Persons operating machinery or conveyance (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
Places where explosive or flammable substances are present

*****

On the face of it a taser isn't considered to be lethal though there are instances where a taser proves to be lethal.  Not unlike the protester who died from being basically overdosed with tear gas recently.  Tear gas isn't considered lethal either but too much can result in death and it would certainly be detrimental to people with asthma or other lung issues.

If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.

None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

From Wikipedia...

Safety concerns
Main article: Taser safety issues
The TASER device is a non-lethal, weapon. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[34]
There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including: [4]
Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
Persons operating machinery or conveyance (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
Places where explosive or flammable substances are present

*****

On the face of it a taser isn't considered to be lethal though there are instances where a taser proves to be lethal.  Not unlike the protester who died from being basically overdosed with tear gas recently.  Tear gas isn't considered lethal either but too much can result in death and it would certainly be detrimental to people with asthma or other lung issues.

If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.

None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.

Boru

Nit picking -

Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....

---

From Wikipedia...

Safety concerns
Main article: Taser safety issues
The TASER device is a non-lethal, weapon. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[34]
There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including: [4]
Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
Persons operating machinery or conveyance (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
Places where explosive or flammable substances are present

*****

On the face of it a taser isn't considered to be lethal though there are instances where a taser proves to be lethal.  Not unlike the protester who died from being basically overdosed with tear gas recently.  Tear gas isn't considered lethal either but too much can result in death and it would certainly be detrimental to people with asthma or other lung issues.

If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.

None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.

Boru

Nit picking -

Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....

[Agnostico]

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

No. It is not.

It is a legal distinction.

You can use deadly force - and not intend to kill.

The deadly force is used to STOP the bad behavior.

This is the basis of self defense.

If we were sheep - like some countries - we would not be allowed to defend ourselves with firearms. But we are allowed such use - because of that distinction - of intent to stop and intent to kill.

Police have a more lenient definition of what is justifiable use of force. For instance - a cop can draw his firearm on someone robbing a bank - where the criminal is not showing a weapon. A civilian would likely go to jail for it.

And the laws vary by state.


It is never as simple as some here would obviously like...

Ye it would be complex with 50 states all having their own nuance laws. 
I wasn't sure about the legislation that the cops had in using their firearms. 
In the state of Georgia can a police officer shoot a man in that situation?

[Pat Mustard]

That escalated quickly.  He went from a drunk sleeping one off in his car to a hostage taker.  What other imaginary future crimes might the police shoot someone for?

He was trying to leverage call and response behavior to get the man to say something which could be construed as an admission of guilt to a crime he wasn't actually caught committing, agno.

He was sleeping off a session in his car? Fuck me, but that's not even a crime over here. To be arrested for Drunk in Charge of an MPV the arresting member has to be able to show a reasonable estimation that the suspected offender intended and was in a position to drive off, keys in the ignition & engine ticking over at the minimum.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.

None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.

Boru

Nit picking -

Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....

---

If that’s the standard (and it’s not a bad one) then everything can be considered lethal. Maybe we should dump the terms ‘non-lethal’ and ‘less than lethal’ (which I’m still convinced mean the same thing) and replace them with some sort of lethality scale. Which may have its own problems.

None of this changes the argument, of course. It just language nit-picking on my part.

Boru

Nit picking -

Welcome to the wonderful world defined by lawyers.....

I notice you haven't explained the difference between 'less than lethal' and 'non-lethal'. Is that because there isn't one?

Boru