police-involved shooting in Kenosha, WI...unrest ensues

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Tackle a man, pin him and he dies. You get a George Floyd situation.

So you stand back and order him to surrender. It was his choice to ignore them. His choice to threaten them with both reaching and the vehicle itself. Both reasons officers have ALWAYS, throughout our entire history, used as a reason to open fire. That has always been the case. People are shot in these exact situations and officers are trained to do so.

Hmmm maybe there's a way to tackle and pin a man without killing him?
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,452
12,988
146
Tackle a man, pin him and he dies. You get a George Floyd situation.

So you stand back and order him to surrender. It was his choice to ignore them. His choice to threaten them with both reaching and the vehicle itself. Both reasons officers have ALWAYS, throughout our entire history, used as a reason to open fire. That has always been the case. People are shot in these exact situations and officers are trained to do so.
Excuses. "Well if I physically restrain this MIGHT happen so I'll just shoot him seven times instead. In the back."
Do you even realize how stupid you sound? If this is what officers are trained to do, why do you think people are protesting for change?
This is not justified, I don't care what you believe or claim. I do not think the investigation will agree with you either, but we'll see I guess.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You do realize that firearms are often stored in vehicles, right?

You also realize, a vehicle itself is a giant moving death machine, right?
Is the idea that we should generally arm a group of irresponsible and unaccountable people in response to an imagined plague of vehicular homicides?

This is why I keep telling you to lay off on calling others stupid.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
You do realize that firearms are often stored in vehicles, right?

You also realize, a vehicle itself is a giant moving death machine, right?

Let's just say there was a gun in the car that the guy was reaching for and that police cam footage shows him reaching for a gun on his front seat. Ok, then I guess in that instant, shooting him was the right and only recourse. The problem is that it was brought to that instant. What in the world could the guy have done to have 3 cops pull weapons on him at point blank range and then follow him around the length and front of the car at point blank range with guns drawn? They had ZERO alternative leading up to that point? GTFO. These cops fucked up royally and it appears they fucked up the whole situation.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,117
10,939
136
I think this right here is an excellent case for disarming the police generally. Keep a SWAT team and a weapons store for extraordinary situations but other than that? No guns. They have proven themselves unable to handle them responsibly.

Had the cops not had guns they would have been forced to do their jobs correctly.

At this point, I'm board with this as well.

Also I wonder about whether we should consider a "civil response unit" that has 0 direction, authority, or incentive to arrest, and is solely focused on civil penalties/enforcement.

That way if you're interacting with a civil response officer, you know you're going to be able to go home.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,024
5,905
126
Let's just say there was a gun in the car that the guy was reaching for and that police cam footage shows him reaching for a gun on his front seat. Ok, then I guess in that instant, shooting him was the right and only recourse. The problem is that it was brought to that instant. What in the world could the guy have done to have 3 cops pull weapons on him at point blank range and then follow him around the length and front of the car at point blank range with guns drawn? They had ZERO alternative leading up to that point? GTFO. These cops fucked up royally and it appears they fucked up the whole situation.
In the video 2 officers follow him around the car and the other officer goes the other way. The one who went the other way could have EASILY moved to block him from opening the door but instead he kept a distance with gun drawn (I think, was kind of hard to tell).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Let's just say there was a gun in the car that the guy was reaching for and that police cam footage shows him reaching for a gun on his front seat. Ok, then I guess in that instant, shooting him was the right and only recourse. The problem is that it was brought to that instant. What in the world could the guy have done to have 3 cops pull weapons on him at point blank range and then follow him around the length and front of the car at point blank range with guns drawn? They had ZERO alternative leading up to that point? GTFO. These cops fucked up royally and it appears they fucked up the whole situation.
I agree, if there is video or something else that indicates he was going to get a gun then I think these guys should not be prosecuted but should still be fired for gross negligence.

That being said, I would not count simple testimony from other officers or an eventually produced gun as sufficient evidence. We know police frequently lie about these things.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
In the video 2 officers follow him around the car and the other officer goes the other way. The one who went the other way could have EASILY moved to block him from opening the door but instead he kept a distance with gun drawn (I think, was kind of hard to tell).

Right. I'm saying that if he opened the door and they saw gun(s) then I guess shooting was the only recourse at that point. The real failure of this starts WAY before the trigger is pulled. They had many opportunities to do MANY different things to defuse the situation. If guns are so commonly kept in the driver side of the car, then you'd think their actions should do everything to prevent him from getting there instead of waiting for him to get there then pulling the trigger SEVEN FUCKING TIMES at pointblank range (while pulling his t-shirt)
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
I agree, if there is video or something else that indicates he was going to get a gun then I think these guys should not be prosecuted but should still be fired for gross negligence.

That being said, I would not count simple testimony from other officers or an eventually produced gun as sufficient evidence. We know police frequently lie about these things.

This is precisely why I said "police cam footage"... though I be those were off/malfunctioning again.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
  • Wow
Reactions: cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
I mean, there could be a gun, we cant tell... But damn... Three first shots in his lower back was warning shots I guess.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Tackle a man, pin him and he dies. You get a George Floyd situation.

So you stand back and order him to surrender. It was his choice to ignore them. His choice to threaten them with both reaching and the vehicle itself. Both reasons officers have ALWAYS, throughout our entire history, used as a reason to open fire. That has always been the case. People are shot in these exact situations and officers are trained to do so.

Wow! Those are the only options you could come up with? You basically just admitted that cops only know how to kill people when things escalate.

A taser isn’t an option? A tackle and not kneeling on his throat isn’t an option?

How fucked up in the head do you have to be to not be able to come up with a way not to kill someone in a situation with three cops controlling the scene?

Let’s just say there were no other options, explain again why seven shots to the back was needed.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Tackle a man, pin him and he dies. You get a George Floyd situation.

So you stand back and order him to surrender. It was his choice to ignore them. His choice to threaten them with both reaching and the vehicle itself. Both reasons officers have ALWAYS, throughout our entire history, used as a reason to open fire. That has always been the case. People are shot in these exact situations and officers are trained to do so.

Thats the two options you can come up with?
Anyone got Elons number? I wanna be on the first rocket to Mars. Fuck this shit.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,859
4,976
126
Wow! Those are the only options you could come up with? You basically just admitted that cops only know how to kill people when things escalate.

A taser isn’t an option? A tackle and not kneeling on his throat isn’t an option?

How fucked up in the head do you have to be to not be able to come up with a way not to kill someone in a situation with three cops controlling the scene?

Interestingly enough, that's the problem. They WEREN'T controlling the scene in any shape way or form. They only started to "control" it when they opened fire - it was apparently the only form of "control" they actually knew how to disseminate
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
You keep bringing up that this is what they are trained to do.

Link to back that up?

Yeah, cause their training manuals / courses are online and a simple google click away.

Have you never read the news before? Do you not see it day in and day out, stories of people being shot for moving the wrong way during a police encounter? P&N alone has detailed countless examples throughout the years. 12 year old in a park reaching for his toy gun. Dead. Man in Walmart is holding an air rifle and simply flinches a muscle. Dead. Man is stopped and makes a sudden movement for his wallet. Shot. Reach for your ID, killed. Dive down the wrong street in DC, crash into a WH gate. Chased down and killed.

The actions you see on that video is the EXACT situation in which officers open fire. Because they are trained with the expectation that Americans are armed.

There is nothing new, novel, or unexpected in that video. Have you never heard the phrase "show me your hands"? Do you know what that means? Do you know WHY they shout that at people? Americans are not armed with lollipops. Grow up and learn something about how the world is. Why it is. This man was not shot out of the blue, or for no reason. He threatened the officers by the actions on that video. ANY soldier or officer would shoot in that situation.

I am here telling you how it has always been. That is my reaction to something I find utterly astonishing, and that is seeing the reactions from people here who think the officers had no reason. On that video I see plenty of reason. More than other situations, because the suspect had time to respond properly. Lot of folks are not given that opportunity.

Next I expect outrage over the sun setting in the west, and I'll tell you it always has. Then you'll be horrified that I dared tell you the truth. Meanwhile I am still sitting here wondering where the hell have you been all your life? Because if this shocks you, if you think they had no reason, you have not been paying attention.

Having said that. THIS IS ASIDE from whether it is a good thing. Or whether police policy can be changed to prevent avoidable situations that cost us lives. I am sadden when people die needlessly. I advocate for policy changes to address these issues and avoid these deaths. But I will not sit quietly and pretend that this was not the expected and legally practiced outcome of the video I just watched. Officers respond to threats. Reaching and operating a vehicle are threats. It is a very bad idea to ignore officers and threaten them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
*WARNING SHOT* ... IS IT NOT A THING IN THE STATES???????

A "warning shot" is not a thing ANYWHERE.

Shooting off into the distance (or in the air) is incredibly deadly and stupid if thats what you're inferring.

A gun is an equalizer that is shoot to stop the threat. Not shoot to injure. Not shoot to scare. If a gun is out, there is an intention to use it - and your best bet is to comply with whatever is being requested.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I guess we were taught by morons somewhere else than "anywhere" *shrugs*.

Maybe in your PEW PEW PEW Hollywood movies that have zero relation to how real-life works.

You have to be a complete idiot to think warning shots are something that should be employed by officers (or anyone really).
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Maybe in your PEW PEW PEW Hollywood movies that have zero relation to how real-life works.

You have to be a complete idiot to think warning shots are something that should be employed by officers (or anyone really).

Thats actually why I eventually left the "national guard". Waaaay to many super geniuses like yourself. Waaaaay to many. Just couldnt deal with being the idiot in the room anymore so I had to go.