Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Cow Poke]

It's rare but there are cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebr...#United_States

I think it was in the late 70's that we had a rash of "celebratory gunfire", where idiots would go out on Independence Day Eve and fire guns into the air. It was when a baby was killed by a falling bullet that people decided maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

It is not incredibly rare in the Middle East that "celebratory gunfire" will injure or kill innocent people.

[Sparko]

I agree that his feet are moving forward towards the suspect, yes. However, in the context of a criminal assault, a kick is generally intended to cause harm. Rolfe is leaning forward over the suspect during that motion. It's very difficult to to get any velocity while leaning IN the direction of your kick. In fact, I'd argue that's not really natural instinct and any kicking I've ever seen done involved the kicker leaning back away from the target of their kick to keep their balance. This is why I said I don't see a kick in the video. Perhaps a nudge with his boot, stepping over a leg, or "kicking" a tazer or small object on the ground away (a motion that would not require much force or momentum).

I'm not sure if I'm really explaining this well. Maybe....I dunno, lean over a pillow on the ground and see how hard you can kick it while standing still. I dunno, does that make sense at all?

Yes, and I said later that it could have been him kicking away the taser.

[Sparko]

Well it's a stupid rule if you ask me, and apparently 11 law enforcement agencies agreed with me when recommending that the use of warning shots be brought back.

Please link to a source of that claim, Jim.

[Sparko]

Please link to a source of that claim, Jim.

I will do JimL's homework for him...

https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...-force-issues/

None of that would be applicable in this situation.

[Cow Poke]

Please link to a source of that claim, Jim.

You are such the kidder!

[Cow Poke]

Try not to say STUPID STUFF, CP.

The boy wants to be just like me.

[Leonhard]

Nobody is saying that he "needed" to die. What I'm saying is that his death was a direct result of decisions he made.

Then let me rephrase, I don't believe even given the actions he took that he needed to die.

Again, nobody is saying that he needed to die.

If he needn't have to die, even considering his actions, then that raises a question of what could have been done to prevent that from happening.

[Cow Poke]

If he needn't have to die, even considering his actions, then that raises a question of what could have been done to prevent that from happening.

He could have started by not driving drunk.

(but, yeah, that's "blaming the victim")

[Leonhard]

He could have started by not driving drunk.

(but, yeah, that's "blaming the victim")

It is.

I also don't have an answer to this and I'm willing to listen. I believe if the police had reasonable grounds for fearing for their lives then that might explain why they took that action. If the presence of guns does that to society, causes the police to feel on edge around the citizens, which in turn breeds fear in people about twitch-trigger-fingers in the police, then I don't think I can ever support gun ownership becoming legal.

[Littlejoe]

If he needn't have to die, even considering his actions, then that raises a question of what could have been done to prevent that from happening.

Unfortunately, because of the way things unfolded, he had to be stopped. The dying part was a by product of that stoppage. There's no way the officers didn't know that he was out of prison on parole for an assault charge. The arrest instead of letting him go is because of that fact. He had violated the terms and conditions that allowed him to be free. He knew that the instant they tried to arrest him that he would be sent back to prison for violating his parole agreement. Saying that they could let him go and pick him up later ignores the fact that parolee's skip town all the time and hope they don't get caught. He had a choice to live and fight his revocation in court or to fight the officers and run and foolishly threaten an armed officer. He chose poorly.

[Cow Poke]

It is.

I also don't have an answer to this and I'm willing to listen. I believe if the police had reasonable grounds for fearing for their lives then that might explain why they took that action. If the presence of guns does that to society, causes the police to feel on edge around the citizens, which in turn breeds fear in people about twitch-trigger-fingers in the police, then I don't think I can ever support gun ownership becoming legal.

The police were not "on edge" during the 45 minutes they dealt with this man. It is ONLY when he did something incredibly stupid (besides driving drunk) like grabbing a weapon. THAT would put ME on edge.

I still don't think the average citizen can even imagine going from a calm - almost boring - conversation for 45 minutes, and that turning INSTANTLY into a fight for your life, the adrenaline surging...

So, TWO things that could have prevented this.

A) not driving drunk
2) not going crazy and grabbing a weapon from a calm and respectful police officer.

[Leonhard]

The police were not "on edge" during the 45 minutes they dealt with this man. It is ONLY when he did something incredibly stupid (besides driving drunk) like grabbing a weapon. THAT would put ME on edge.

And yet in my country it is basically unheard of for the police to shoot someone for that. Likely because they don't have to make those is-it-a-gun-or-isnt-it decisions that I hear about so much. It definitely is an argument against citizens having access to guns if it prevents the law enforcement from operating under presumption that they're not under threat of anything like that.

[Cow Poke]

And yet in my country it is basically unheard of for the police to shoot someone for that. Likely because they don't have to make those is-it-a-gun-or-isnt-it decisions that I hear about so much. It definitely is an argument against citizens having access to guns if it prevents the law enforcement from operating under presumption that they're not under threat of anything like that.

I'm betting you don't have this rampant "hate the police" mentality that is becoming so pervasive here. I'm betting your fellow citizens are pretty much "we respect our police".

[Leonhard]

I'm betting you don't have this rampant "hate the police" mentality that is becoming so pervasive here. I'm betting your fellow citizens are pretty much "we respect our police".

Protesters here are as likely to call cops "pigs", though the more common term used is "panzers" (panzer - means armor). In general yes, criminals here are less violent. I often wonder why that is. Most gun shootings that happen in Denmark are mostly between gang members. Those are also the only cases I've heard of where the police have shot a criminal.

If a drunkard was shot to death for running from the cops, for a drunk arrest, there would be an outcry. It could have been the drunkest man in the entire kingdom. It could have been this guy

And people would still have asked "But why did you shoot him?"

[Leonhard]

And yes Cow Poke, the officers exercised fine restraint and seemed to handle it very well until the end, after which I feel unable to decide on what I think about their actions.