Atlanta shooting

[Pixxie7]

I can’t believe another shooting, so soon. Will this exculpate the protest even more?

This one will be swept under the carpet by those in charge. The public will be angry, but you wont get anger from the establishment. The victim was over the limit, fought the police and managed to grab the taser and run away with it. There would have been ways to de-escalate that, but American police kill, they dont de-escalate. They're all going to say he deserved to die.... even though he only had a non lethal weapon.

The chief of police has resigned and the mayor has said it was unnecessary.

Do you have a link?

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/13/atlanta-georgia-police-shooting-black-man

Here we go again

It’s on bbc news.

Thanks. We will end up in a state of anarchy if this shit continues

Maybe watch the video below before making a negative judgement. This man is a former cop and explains it all rather well.

I hear what you’re saying, but there is no justification for killing him. The other cops presumably had tasers so could have used that.,

They.could have stopped Chasing him, they had his car and would know who he was.! He was allegedly drunk, he’d have run out of steam. Pick him up later.

I'm actually shocked that the chief has resigned, without waiting for days of protests. I cant believe it.

Maybe they are starting to listen.

@user1475869475

That video demonstrates the problem.
That American officers are trained to kill as a first resort in tense situations.

The man had a taser. But there was more than one officer. If the man shot the officer with the taser, the other officer would have plenty of time to take him back of subdue him. There was no need for death in that situation.

British police manage it without killing the suspects (almost all of the time). But American police training advocates for deadly force above all else. They dont go for the harder options. Now, when the suspect actually has a lethal weapon clearly visible, it's a game of deadly weapons vs deadly weapon and police must defend themselves.

This was not a deadly weapon. The officer was no alone and at risk of being attacked whilst incapacitated. He deserved a trial; not executed by cop.

*tase him back or subdue him

@BobbieDraper I think you may want to do some reading up about tasers. Try Dalian Atkinson for a start and then assess whether you think they could be a deadly weapon.

@ChibiTotoro

The stance of the police is that tasers are not deadly force for the purposes of making arrests.
They cant claim that using tasers is not using deadly force, and then claim that a suspect using a taser on them could be deadly force.

I don't understand who was filming it

Why do people always ask that?

Random passer by, who was laughing when it was a drunk guy wrestling police and then obviously wasnt laughing when guns were drawn. CCTV seems to have filmed the end if the encounter.

So you're okay with someone driving a vehicle who is so drunk that they pass out at the wheel of their vehicle, who is hyped up enough to fight off and escape from two officers running around with a stun gun? He shouldn't have died, but this is not comparable to the murder of George Floyd.
I believe in the UK that tasers are classified as 'less lethal weapons', so it could be lethal but less likely than a firearm.

@ChibiTotoro

Where on earth did I say that?

American (and britain) te countries which are not ruled by martial law. We dont allow our police to kill people because they decide too. We have courts. People get trials.

You either stick hard to that or you give it up entirely. You dont have "well, we dont kill people... unless they commit a crime and then we kill them without a trial".

Saying that no one should be shot by police unless they present an immediate, deadly threat is not akin to saying that I'm totally ok with them committing crimes. They deserve to be arrested and tried. Not killed unless they present an immediate deadly threat.

I have 0 knowledge of guns and things but wanted to ask if they must shoot why could they not shoot to disarm? Why is it shoot to kill?

The is comparable to the murder of every citizen who has not presented an immediate, deadly threat.

Whenever this happens I always think of the TV show from years ago when Americsn police (I think New York maybe) came over to see how London police handled suspects with knives without using guns.

They watched several officers bring down a man wielding a knife. Because of their training, the officers were able to bring the man down with no one being injured. The whole time through the CCTV viewing, the American cops were going
"no, he'd be dead"
"We'd shoot him for that swipe"
"We arent trained to handle that; we would shoot instead if getting close".

Etc etc.

They kill people. People who should be through the court system. That is the judicial system we all use.

@mogloveseggs, I believe the policy in the UK is to shoot to incapacitate in order to neutralise the risk that they present. However when you pull the trigger there is a very real risk that the person shot will die.

[quote ChibiTotoro]@mogloveseggs, I believe the policy in the UK is to shoot to incapacitate in order to neutralise the risk that they present. However when you pull the trigger there is a very real risk that the person shot will die.[/quote]
Thanks. Yes that is true.

I believe the video is from one officer's body cam. It's a scintilla of progress that it's been released, I suppose. If a British person hah had one too many, fell asleep in the drive through car park and then blew over the limit, I doubt any officer would handcuff them, especially not without reading them their rights first. I can totally understand this man panicking as the cuffs went on; he knew what can happen to black men in custody.

Why didn't they just lock his car, confiscate his keys, call his sister and drop him home?

I never said if I personally believe it to be justified or not, nor that he deserved to die, only that the cop explains it well with potential explanations from the other side due to his first hand experience. What I do believe is that surely it’s understandable as to why what happened is able to happen without it automatically being a case of some form of police brutality.

They put their lives on the line everyday and until you and every other person condemning them are willing to do so too, maybe, just maybe, have a little more understanding for the choices they make in a highly stressful situation and with not much time to think. It’s easy to say what ‘should’ of happened when you are safe at home and with the privilege of hindsight.

I agree that British police have a better track record of handling situations more peacefully but that is not because they are better but because they have no need to be routinely armed due to most of the British population also not being armed. It is not comparable, at all. America is not Britain, their believe in the right to bear firearms is rooted in their 2nd amendment, for many it is a huge part of their identity of being an American and with that comes additional consequences, both positive and negative. This is not the same situation as George Floyd and it should not be made out to be.

I am throughly fed up of everyone always saying that they would do better safe in the knowledge that they will likely never be tested on that.