And the downside?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
It seems to me you have to stack the pain. OC first, that persists. Then the taser. I’m guessing dealing with burning plus electrocution is pretty miserable.
Printable View
And the downside?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
It seems to me you have to stack the pain. OC first, that persists. Then the taser. I’m guessing dealing with burning plus electrocution is pretty miserable.
The flaw in your argument is that he had done something. First he operated a vehicle on the public roads with expired tags. Next, when given a lawful command/order, he failed to comply multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbieler
Reading is fundamental. No one's advocating lethal force for any non-compliance issue. They're saying that more force was necessary in this case and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbieler
The bad guy in this case was not, in fact, doing "nuttin."
You don't seem to understand policies regarding use of force and/or affecting an arrest.
Did we watch the same video? The guy in the car elevated the situation to lethal means as part of his non-compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbieler
I have kind of wondered about this through the years and more so a few years back when the NYPD OIS report (think it was via Rand) where NYPD accuracy in shootings against unarmed people was around 30%, but 8% or 9% when the person was armed along with video of officers coming unglued from the start with a compliant suspect sometimes where no violation had even occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
Exactly. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not trying to sound callous, and I do not condone in any way what this POS did and I support law enforcement, BUT: These two officers stacked the deck against themselves. They gave the POS an "Option B" and like a wounded animal, he took it. There's very little abstract or rational thought going on in the brain at that point. Knowing the outcome, it's painful to watch the cascading series of poor judgments that culminates in one of the officers losing his life. The most painful part is the lack of really going "hands on" with the perp when they do get physical. They've tazed and peppered the guy. At that point, there's no difference on the use of force spectrum for wailing on the guy to gain compliance. Trying to pull an unwilling person out of car is not easy - you're at a physical disadvantage whether it's a full grown man or a petite woman and I've done both. This is the exact reason you do it at all costs after you've committed.
That said, policing in this day and age is surreal. I think there was room for the pendulum to swing back a bit from "militarization", but it's swung way too far in the other direction. That worries me greatly - breakdown in law & order is the first sign of serious future problems. Anecdotally, in my area, agencies are seeing a decline in applications of 50-75%. These use to be coveted jobs for the stability. Fewer qualified individuals is going to lead to a vicious circle.
No, I'm fairly certain that's exactly what this previous quote implies, "You shove a gun in his face and loudly say “THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER WARNINGS” and mean it."Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnerblue
Looking at this as a non LEO - would this be a good use case for a K9?
Not specifically, but it wouldn’t have hurt. A third officer would have definitely turned the tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by marco.g