Police guns down man after he tried to flee.

[Darth Ovious]

Apparently CNN was attacked outside the Wendy's when it was being burned down.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...oters-burn-it/

Oh well CNN perhaps you shouldn't stoke divisions and perhaps people won't attack you.

[Mountain Man]

Seems like a perfect place to introduce regulations about the appearance of firearms. Carrying a lethal weapon of a wrong color would be a federal offense. But rational gun control like this will never happen in the US.

The problem is that "rational gun control" only deters law abiding citizens. If police are trained that "yellow = non-lethal" then every criminal in the city will start packing yellow guns. So instead of ridiculous measures like outlawing certain gun colors, how about instead we educate the public to cooperate with the police and to never point anything at them because it could be mistaken for a gun.

[Leonhard]

The problem is that "rational gun control" only deters law abiding citizens. If police are trained that "yellow = non-lethal" then every criminal in the city will start packing yellow guns. So instead of ridiculous measures like outlawing certain gun colors, how about instead we educate the public to cooperate with the police and to never point anything at them because it could be mistaken for a gun.

Carrying yellow lethals would be a very high crime.

We don't need that kind of education in Denmark. But yes, I propose a yearly school class, all focused on what to do during arrests to avoid getting shot. I think from what you're saying that is the only thing that might work in the US.

[Cow Poke]

Carrying yellow lethals would be a very high crime.

More serious than carrying an already illegal weapon? When criminals break laws, why does "making more laws" make sense?

We don't need that kind of education in Denmark.

Because you have an endless supply of those wonderful cookies in the round tins.

But yes, I propose a yearly school class, all focused on what to do during arrests to avoid getting shot.

When I advocated this on Tweb, the usual suspects went apoplectic because it was "blaming the victim".

I think from what you're saying that is the only thing that might work in the US.

We're weird.

[KingsGambit]

More serious than carrying an already illegal weapon? When criminals break laws, why does "making more laws" make sense?

Maybe it's so there's more stuff you can pin them on once you finally catch them (which I will call the Al Capone Principle)?

[Mountain Man]

It seems the district attorney is considering indicting the officer for murder, saying that he should have realized that the suspect who had violently fought with the officers and then pointed a weapon at them didn't pose a threat, and therefore use of deadly force to subdue him was not justified.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...rooks-n2570623

I think any reasonable person can see that the officer's actions were justified, and the prosecutor is only considering a murder charge to appease the public, which is stupid The way things are going, it's almost like the police will have to become passive, allowing criminals to escape and letting themselves be assaulted and killed in order to escape suspicion, and even then, there are certain elements of society who would insist they deserved it simply for being cops.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe it's so there's more stuff you can pin them on once you finally catch them (which I will call the Al Capone Principle)?

Yeah, that's TV stuff... in real life, these things have to pass the District Attorney's scrutiny, and the "throw the book at them" mentality is a huge red flag.

[Cow Poke]

It seems the district attorney is considering indicting the officer for murder, saying that he should have realized that the suspect who had violently fought with the officers and then pointed a weapon at them didn't pose a threat, and therefore use of deadly force to subdue him was not justified.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...rooks-n2570623

I think any reasonable person can see that the officer's actions were justified, and the prosecutor is only considering a murder charge to appease the public, which is stupid The way things are going, it's almost like the police will have to become passive, allowing criminals to escape and letting themselves be assaulted and killed in order to escape suspicion, and even then, there are certain elements of society who would insist they deserved it simply for being cops.

I haven't really studied this much yet, but I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic if the officer had been alone. He had a partner who could have intervened, so..... I'm still looking at this.

[Darth Ovious]

It seems the district attorney is considering indicting the officer for murder, saying that he should have realized that the suspect who had violently fought with the officers and then pointed a weapon at them didn't pose a threat, and therefore use of deadly force to subdue him was not justified.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...rooks-n2570623

I think any reasonable person can see that the officer's actions were justified, and the prosecutor is only considering a murder charge to appease the public, which is stupid The way things are going, it's almost like the police will have to become passive, allowing criminals to escape and letting themselves be assaulted and killed in order to escape suspicion, and even then, there are certain elements of society who would insist they deserved it simply for being cops.

Currently having a conversation elsewhere on this topic. They don't seem to understand the officers position. I said to the person what would stop this guy from taking the officers gun after using the taser on him and then shooting him with the gun. His reply was that it was an assumption that the guy would grab the gun to shot the officer and why would he do that? Oh I don't know, how about the fact he is trying to shoot the cop with a taser to begin with

[Cow Poke]

Currently having a conversation elsewhere on this topic. They don't seem to understand the officers position. I said to the person what would stop this guy from taking the officers gun after using the taser on him and then shooting him with the gun.

His partner.

His reply was that it was an assumption that the guy would grab the gun to shot the officer and why would he do that? Oh I don't know, how about the fact he is trying to shoot the cop with a taser to begin with

Yes, that part is downright reasonable -- first, the subject lured the officers into a false sense of calm, being very compliant, then "the race was on" --- he obviously initiated the violence himself.

[Darth Ovious]

His partner.

Maybe I am mistaken but I thought he was struggling after having his taser taken off him. I might need to watch the video again for this which means finding it again.

Yes, that part is downright reasonable -- first, the subject lured the officers into a false sense of calm, being very compliant, then "the race was on" --- he obviously initiated the violence himself.

He should have just gone with the cops, then again the whole situation would have been avoided if he didn't drink and drive in the first place.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe I am mistaken but I thought he was struggling after having his taser taken off him.

That's my understanding as well.
The argument goes that, having taken the taser, the subject could then incapacitate the officer and take his gun and kill him.
The problem with that is that there was a second officer who could have prevented that with lethal force.

I might need to watch the video again for this which means finding it again.

I'm still looking at the whole thing, too.

He should have just gone with the cops,

Absolutely, - then the extremeleftistnutters start screaming "you're BLAMING THE VICTIM".
In this case, it was most certainly his aggression that started this thing spinning out of control.

then again the whole situation would have been avoided if he didn't drink and drive in the first place.

Actions have consequences, but that factoid doesn't seem to exist in the liberal playbook, except when they want to claim something like "elections have consequences, so Obama can...."

[Darth Ovious]

I'm still looking at the whole thing, too.

After looking at the vid again he was quite a bit in front of his partner to begin with after chasing the guy but his partner did catch up but he probably wasn't aware of that. So in essence his partner would have been able to stop the guy from taking his gun but he fired before knowing that his partner would be able to have his back. It is a difficult one granted.

[Mountain Man]

That's my understanding as well. The argument goes that, having taken the taser, the subject could then incapacitate the officer and take his gun and kill him. The problem with that is that there was a second officer who could have prevented that with lethal force.

This is assuming that the officer even realized it was a taser and not a deadly weapon. He only had a split second to make his decision, and no second chance if he was wrong.

[Darth Ovious]

I need to make a correction. Apparently the gun shots did actually come from his partner behind him after the guy shot the taser into the cop at the front. Its just difficult to ascertain from the video footage because its coming from a distance.