I'm switching back to the topic. I'll address everything in your post related to police shootings.
And here's another point: Canadian police carry guns. Australian cops carry guns. Swedish cops carry guns. German cops carry guns. French cops carry guns. But your sole issue seems to be with American cops.
Your reply will likely be that those police agencies don't kill hundreds of people a year like American cops.
But a point to consider is that police departments outside the US are not driven into a high state of paranoia by the possibility of a highly armed civilian with more firepower than a British battalion from the Revolutionary War, so they're less likely to pull the trigger.
But doesn't that speak to the point that a better trained police force is a safer police force?
This point was last raised in February, and the answer hasn't changed. The reason training won't solve the police shooting problem is the same as why training won't solve the motor vehicle accident problem: it's impossible to maintain a high level of training across so many people.
Or at the very least, it just makes common friggin' sense that so long as arms are available to civilian population that police be able to meet those challenges with a fighting chance?
This point has been raised and answered several times before, not just in my last few messages but also in the very message you're replying to. You quote it just a little bit further on.
It would at least make more sense to first disarm the populace to give these cops a fighting chance.
Okay, I give up, you got me. You've raised this point several times in this thread, and I've given the same answer each time, but I admit now that I've been lying. What I really want is to disarm the police but not the civilians. When I said stuff like, "I don't know how we get from where we are to where we need to be," what I really meant was that I want to render the police defenseless in the face of an armed citizenry. Way to go, Sherlock, you figured out my secret plot.
The message of Dayton is that an assault rifle was able to kill 10 and injure 27 in in just 32 seconds. Assault weapons must be banned, and ultimately we should disarm everyone except special units.
Maybe you might find it ironic that the Dayton shooter shared your beliefs on the subject.
There's nothing in your link resembling my beliefs. Accuracy isn't your strong point, is it.
The take away is that he was a sick and deluded kid... one of many. You might recall Austin had a serial bomber about a year ago. He used all kinds of homemade items to create his bombs. The focal point isn't the items or tools its the sick mind and how to reach these sick bastards before they fall off of the cliff of sanity. Sick people will always find ways to kill people... as much as it sucks, serial killers and spree killers exist. They just do. For them, their path is kill or be killed.
The evidence says the fewer the guns the fewer the murders.
That's true, but again, you're being repeatedly misleading. The proposal is not to disarm the police while allowing everyone else to remain armed. The proposal is to disarm everyone except special police units.
Why do you suppose even nations where guns are heavily restricted still carry arms? Spoiler alert: Because people still get a hold of them... and because a gun isn't the only weapon capable of justifying deadly force. If someone has a machete you don't pull out your pepper spray.
Your meaning is unclear. Are you talking about police, civilians or both?
Except it never is. A shield or a vest is a defensive device. A gun only protects by going offensive. A gun's offensive nature is why this thread exists, because so many police "defend" themselves by shooting people. A situation described several times in this thread is of deceased civilians lying on the ground next to their cell phones who are no longer a threat, but then they weren't a threat before, either.
Did you have a specific case in mind?
No. Any of the ones mentioned in this thread will do.
More training is not the answer.
Except in Canada. Or Australia. Or wherever, so long as it isn't the US.
Your meaning is unclear again, I won't try to guess.
I don't understand why you've made this misleading statement multiple times in a single message. Again, the proposal is to disarm everyone, not just the police. I'd like us to eventually join Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.
A Police Shooting with Body Cam Footage: What Do You Think?
On August 3rd of this year in Colorado Springs De'Von Bailey and a friend were stopped by police and questioned about a robbery. During the questioning Bailey turned and ran away. He was shot three times in the back and once in the back of the arm. He later died in the hospital.
Police claimed that Bailey was reaching for a gun, and a gun was found in a pocket of his shorts. Body cam footage is not inconsistent with reaching for a gun. Bailey's right arm is not pumping as he's running, and his right hand is positioned on the right front of his shorts. He could have been reaching for the gun, or he could have been trying to pull at the pocket to move it away from between his legs where it would have hindered his running. The pocket with the gun was between his legs once he was lying facedown on the ground.
The police who fired the shots might be in serious legal jeopardy, but it depends upon how you interpret the body cam footage. Was he really reaching for a gun while on the dead run, or just trying to keep it from hindering his running. Colorado law prohibits shooting a fleeing suspect unless there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer, and could a fleeing suspect fumbling for a heavy object in his pocket really be considered an imminent threat? Here's a lengthy video from the initial 911 call to the aftermath, you might want to fast forward to the body cam footage, two in all, one from each of two officers:
Re: A Police Shooting with Body Cam Footage: What Do You Think?
The police who fired the shots might be in serious legal jeopardy, but it depends upon how you interpret the body cam footage. Was he really reaching for a gun while on the dead run, or just trying to keep it from hindering his running. Colorado law prohibits shooting a fleeing suspect unless there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer, and could a fleeing suspect fumbling for a heavy object in his pocket really be considered an imminent threat?
Based upon the call text, what was alleged was an Aggravated Robbery using a deadly weapon. The two subject's matched the description and the area given by the complainant. So the officers were right to ask them not to reach towards their waistband or pockets, to keep their hands up, and to perform a frisk for weapons. The subject, knowing he's got a firearm on him and is potentially facing 5 to 99 years for a 1st degree felony, flees.
What it looks like to me is that he immediately reaches towards his waistline, most likely to hold the gun in place so that it wouldn't fall while he was running. He was wearing basketball shorts so the chance it would have fallen out at a dead sprint is likely.
The two officers see him reaching for his waistband. At this point they have probable cause to believe he is armed, but cannot definitively state if he was at that point. In order to invoke Tennessee vs Gardner, they must be able to articulate the following:
quote:A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
We can all probably agree that it was a terrible idea to rob someone with the use of a deadly weapon. We can all probably agree that it was a terrible idea to run. We can all probably agree that it was a terrible idea to be reaching for your waistband given what the officers expressly articulated to the subject beforehand.
The looming question then was whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to fire at a fleeing felon in the back without being able to certify whether it was a weapon or not. The other question was whether he was holding the gun in place to prevent it from falling or whether his intentions were to pull it out, turn around, and fire on the officers. That remains to be seen, but we know that can and does happen and that all it takes is a second to turn and fire. And action is always faster than reaction
My guess is that the officers will be no-billed and that the courts will ultimately rule that given the totality of the circumstances involved it was objectively reasonable to use deadly force.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine