Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
We stand corrected.....was not "Danger Danger Danger" that was said but "Tazer Tazer tazer"

Ehh I figured it could be tazer or danger. Is this a warning like - I'm going to tazer you? Is this protocol?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Rage kill. IMO it was a straight out Rage Kill

Could be a rage kill - wonder what he said to him to make him so mad? maybe he made a racial remark.

Training makes them announce Tazer Tazer Tazer

 Jihadin wrote:
Training makes them announce Tazer Tazer Tazer

Then he proceeded shoot and miss him with the tazer? Jezz. Like I said if only this guy knew how to shoot - this man would still be alive.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is true, if they had the taser they have the possibility of tasering the cop and then taking the gun and/or doing other terrible things.

What if the taser was a MP5? Think of it, then the officer would be a hero for protecting the public from the fleeing suspect firing wildly as he fled!

Playing the "what if" game is pointless in this instance. Stop bringing it up.
The officer wasn't being advanced upon, the suspect didn't even have the taser when he was fleeing.

He was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back, repeatedly.

It's murder. Defending it is pointless and devalues any time where there ARE justifiable shootings.

I'm definitely not saying that this was justified in any way, shape, or form. But there is validity to the fear of a subject getting a hold of your Taser. Its not in this case, but in others it would definitely be a concern.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Training makes them announce Tazer Tazer Tazer

Then he proceeded shoot and miss him with the tazer? Jezz. Like I said if only this guy knew how to shoot - this man would still be alive.

Not as easy to hit with an ECD (Electronic Control Device) as you would assume. You need to make two contact points that stay connected. Wind/clothing/movement/etc can make a huge difference, as can how close/far apart the contact points are and if you hit muscle or fatty tissue.

The TASER TASER TASER call is training. We do the same thing with OC (pepper spray). You drill it into the head of the guys you are training so you don't get cross contamination/friendly fire.

Of course you could always mistake your tazer for your gun:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-released-showing-killing-black-oklahoma-suspect-202659435.html

While the deputy is subduing Harris on the ground, a gunshot rings out and a man says, "Oh, I shot him. I'm sorry."

Authorities have identified the shooter as 73-year-old reserve deputy Robert Bates, and that he meant to use his stun gun.

Harris screams, "He shot me. Oh my God," and a deputy replies: "You f---ing ran. Shut the f--- up."

Harris then says he's losing his breath. A deputy replies, "F--- your breath

It's almost like fighting with people with guns is dangerous...

It's almost like people who can't tell the two appart shouldn't be issued either.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
conversely,

if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,

will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?

Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.

You'd need to prove that there are more than just a few isolated cases of police getting only token punishments.

Do you have reliable proof that there is an overwhelming trend of police brutality coupled with the court system giving them light sentences? Because most things I see regarding this are really just conspiracy theory level horse gak.

I wanted to reply earlier because discrediting someone's point of view as conspiracy theory because you did not agree is pretty low.

Then I thought: You know, I actually have no clue if it is true or not. Occam's razor is valid, and we have been reading about such cases for quite some time now. But while this guy might appear like a (EDIT: ) reproachable guy, his argument might be valid, and its all just a problem of media reception and how our brain construes certainties and rules from singular cases that fit a pattern.

Then I stumbled across this article.

And while this is no proof in itself, I do trust the WP enough to assume that the author did his homework better than you.

 d-usa wrote:
It's almost like people who can't tell the two appart shouldn't be issued either.

At 73.....I hope I can still tell what the Hell is in my hand at 73..

I saw this video compilation...

This is a synched up video with the 2 dash cams, dispatches and that civvie recording:



At that 5 min mark, you can see the tasor wires on the officer. (I guess only one hit him? You need two of them to hit?).

 treslibras wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
conversely,

if he is convicted of murder and sentenced to a harsh prison sentence or death,

will we have an admission/acceptance that the system does in fact work and in most cases can tell the difference between justified and non justified shootings?

Not really, because it's just one case where the system worked in contrast to the many cases where the police got token punishments at most for doing things that would have sent ordinary civilians to prison for a long time. Proving that the system works would require a consistent pattern of appropriate punishments, not just one isolated incident.

You'd need to prove that there are more than just a few isolated cases of police getting only token punishments.

Do you have reliable proof that there is an overwhelming trend of police brutality coupled with the court system giving them light sentences? Because most things I see regarding this are really just conspiracy theory level horse gak.

I wanted to reply earlier because discrediting someone's point of view as conspiracy theory because you did not agree is pretty low.

Then I thought: You know, I actually have no clue if it is true or not. Occam's razor is valid, and we have been reading about such cases for quite some time now. But while this guy might appear like a (EDIT: ) reproachable guy, his argument might be valid, and its all just a problem of media reception and how our brain construes certainties and rules from singular cases that fit a pattern.

Then I stumbled across this article.

And while this is no proof in itself, I do trust the WP enough to assume that the author did his homework better than you.

Its definitely thought provoking, but its simply far too little evidence to say there is a trend of officers wrongfully shooting people and getting away scott free.

The article itself admits that in the cases where officers were not charged there was simply too little evidence of wrongdoing.

https://youtu.be/glsGDw8f6ns

You can see that taser gun or cartridge on the ground... and one of the line caught on Scott's leg. That supports the premise that he had the tazer? o.O

 whembly wrote:
I saw this video compilation...

This is a synched up video with the 2 dash cams, dispatches and that civvie recording:



At that 5 min mark, you can see the tasor wires on the officer. (I guess only one hit him? You need two of them to hit?).

I believe you do need two connections to complete a circuit.

Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).

That doesn't sound all that...effective.

:shrug:

I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.

Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...

*stupid media

Yeah, Tasers require two points of contact. Thats why they have pretty bad accuracy.

Its also the reason for the development of those Taser shells for shotguns.

 whembly wrote:
Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).

That doesn't sound all that...effective.

:shrug:

I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.

Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...

*stupid media

which is the entire point, to snooker people in .


Hate sells papers, its an easy emotion to manipulate en masse unfortunately.

Unfortunately, even after all the facts come to light as we saw with fergison, this incident will still be called out as more proof that cops are systemically racist, and shoot black people because of this inherant, systemic, racism.

 whembly wrote:
Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).

That doesn't sound all that...effective.

:shrug:

I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.

Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...

*stupid media

No if the suspect is running away and is not armed then the PoPo can't legally shoot at him.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... duh... I knew two wires are fired, and I thought it was a failsafe (fire 2 and hope one to connect).

That doesn't sound all that...effective.

:shrug:

I thought that this was an open/shut case... but, with the new details coming out... I don't think the officers will be indicted now. If he does go to court... there's enough to cast doubt.

Ugh... it's Ferguson all over again*. And I got snookered too...

*stupid media

No if the suspect is running away and is not armed then the PoPo can't legally shoot at him.

Right now, I'm sure what the law says in SC.

My gut feeling is you're absolutely right.

Keep in mind though that the evidence is coming out that there was a struggle AND a tazor was fired on the officer. How does this play in a legal sense? If it's true that Scott attacked the officer, stole his tazor and actually used it on the officer... then what?

Here's the real legal question: If someone assaults an officer, and used a weapon on them (a tazor), then attempts to flee... is the officer ever justified in shooting back to prevent the individual from fleeing? Even if it means shooting them in the back?

in other words,


after being assaulted, with or without a weapon,


how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"

to

"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."


can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect

then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?

 easysauce wrote:
in other words,


after being assaulted, with or without a weapon,


how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"

to

"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."


can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect

then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?

Interesting question.

Is the answer

1

3

or 5
Mississippi?

Here's the real legal question: If someone assaults an officer, and used a weapon on them (a tazor), then attempts to flee... is the officer ever justified in shooting back to prevent the individual from fleeing? Even if it means shooting them in the back?

Again, if he is fleeing and is unarmed, absent the potential for him imminently to harm another, YOU CAN"T SHOOT HIM. [u]

Ferguson was different as the BG turned and charged the police after the police officer pursued him.

The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."

Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.

 d-usa wrote:
The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."

Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.

Who is on the committee and do we get coffee breaks?

You'll have to check with the Bobs. Meanwhile just keep on passing down the cake Milton!

 d-usa wrote:
You'll have to check with the Bobs. Meanwhile just keep on passing down the cake Milton!

Man, I found most of the ways that he got gaked on throughout the movie funny, but that one scene actually made me genuinely feel bad for him.

Hey, at least he got to live it up come the end!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey, at least he got to live it up come the end!

Was it justified?

 d-usa wrote:
The answer is "a rage killing is a rage killing, and a shooting is never justified when a cop calmly shoots a fleeing suspect in the back, plants evidence on the person he shot, and fails to render first aid to and then lies about what happened on his official report."

Of course this thread is developing as expected and I'm glad to see that the committee now has a quorum.

What are you trying to say? Really?

 easysauce wrote:
in other words,


after being assaulted, with or without a weapon,


how many mississippi's does an officer have before the suspect changes from "guy who is resisting arrest and/or assaulting him (possibly with a weapon)"

to

"innocent person who poses no threat to the officer or anyone else."


can you walk up to an officer, punch them, or attempt to shoot them with a tazer/ect ect

then immediately turn around and run, and expect no response?

There is a middle ground between "no response" and five bullets in the back.

This is cop is a bad cop.

Do you think you would face no charges if you shot someone dead as they ran away, even if they had just punched you?