D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Both should be illegal.high speed pursuit and a pit maneuver.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Both should be illegal.high speed pursuit and a pit maneuver.
So if you cannot pursue and use force to make a car stop how do you affect an arrest for someone committing a crime then?Both should be illegal.
Both of them were typical white trash drug addicts. Contaminated thinking is very common and the more dashcams or camera footage involving use of force the more you will see this where it is nonsensical the action people commit to.Third video. God dammit of course the dog was killed.
This video is shit. I have no idea how this shit even escalated to this point. I think I heard something later on about heroin?
The guy clearly refused to comply with the police. Again, I'd prefer shots fired over a high speed pursuit. I actually don't know what they could've done differently in that scenario.
The cops made an effort to deescalate once the shooting stopped, which I thought was nice. He was a bit snippy with the dude at one point, but shit, I guess I would be too if I was coming down off some epinephrine.
Violence is commonplace when dealing with drug users of this type. The likelihood of them having a weapon of any kind is high. Domestic and drug related arrests account for the majority of injuries and homicides sustained by police.I just don't know what lead them to this point. The cops seemed on edge even before the truck engine started. I would need to know why. As is, that seems like the biggest fuck up: if cops have drawn guns and seem pissed off at you, who wouldn't wanna make a run for it?
I also wonder about the driver's state of mind. The truck clearly wasn't going anywhere, and it didn't seem like he was taking much if any corrective action. Was he just scared shitless?
Seriously, what the fuck happened?
Well people could post things they disagree with or find suspect. The same problem between this thread and the others. People are like: Yea oi ok mate. Participating kind of but not really.I see nothing contentious here about the officers' behaviour, other than they gave the individual every opportunity to comply before shooting. If there was any fault in their actions it is that they allowed themselves to be shot before shooting.
If you wanted to discuss the US police's use-of-force, you could have posted this study. [1]
As for your "spicy" comment, as with your "Come at me bros" one, you've clearly misjudged your audience.
Police work.So if you cannot pursue and use force to make a car stop how do you affect an arrest for someone committing a crime then?
Nightstick was used to point out something of interest to the police. Probably the weed they found in the car.Second video. Okay. Cops seem fairly nonconfrontational. I don't know what the first guy did with his nightstick, but he certainly wasn't hitting the dude, and he put it away almost immediately. I'm uncertain as to their purpose? I mean from what I can tell there were four cops present - the same number in the previous video who were dealing with an armed and unresponsive subject.
He refused to be identified and took off. There is question as to if the vehicle was actually his or not. Preventing positive identification would prevent a positive identification of the vehicle being tied to X identity so they couldn't simply not pursue and still make an arrest. It could be a simply story of the guy getting high NOT at a place related to him in order to get away with smoking weed for whatever reason.I would prefer their opening fire to trying to engage in high speed pursuit, but to be honest I'm unsure as to why they would have had to really do anything to begin with. I assume they had the license plate, and if I recall the man in the car did gesture to a house saying that his mom lives right there. Did they not ask for a license?
I think that would depending on the SOP of the department those cops work for. Parking sideways leave the officers open to being shot through the vehicle instead of being protected by the A pillar or engine compartment while parking in front of a subject that is likely to be violent. In this case he wasn't violent but was being incredibly dangerous with a vehicle and him being not identified.To be honest, I see no reason why they couldn't follow that up later, rather than forcing the confrontation then. I suppose they might have worried that the guy would try to hit them with his car, which might be why they opened fire. It did seem like they had him at a dead end there, and probably could've just used cars to block his escape if they wanted to, but hey, hindsight is 20/20.
Well again if it was just weed the dude made an absolutely retarded and fatal mistake. If it was over a stolen vehicle and perhaps other things in the car that would add more sentence it makes more sense why he but still stupid. It gives more incentive to run the longer list of charges but he should still be prosecuted or pursued because we value the rule of the law.So, I dunno if I'd call it malicious? I'd certainly call it bad. I really think the cops could've done better, even if they had wanted to catch this guy right then and there. Greater context might help me understand why they were so concerned about nabbing him right there, but as is, it just seems like some dude got high and fell asleep in his car.
That doesn't actually explain anything. Suspect wasn't identified and the video doesn't show the plates even being ran. What if he flees and ditches the car that he presumably stole? That is a suspect lost and a crime just let go because you can't pursue them and even find out even according to you.Police work.
Where did I say you said creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects?Uh, yeah. I didn't say all that creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects, for the record. And if the cops approached them with your attitude, then I highly doubt their initial attempts at arrest were all that peaceful to begin with.
The implication was that you were saying creepy, dehumanizing shit about them.Where did I say you said creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects?
You expect an arrest to be peaceful when suspect resists?
Yes I was saying they are garbage not you. Where is the inference that you said it? I don't consider the people presented in these videos to be smart or good people.The implication was that you were saying creepy, dehumanizing shit about them.
I expect police officers to try. Maybe they did in this situation, I dunno. And sure, things can go very wrong, as they did in the first video you posted.
Just, don't ever consider becoming a cop yourself, okay? Your apparent inability to think of suspects as people is liable to get innocent people killed.
False premise who forced the guy to go smoke weed and fall asleep in his car?So what if I told you that there's no such thing as a good or bad person? That a person simply is, and the things they do are defined largely by the environment they're forced to engage with?
Not quite what was meant by the sentiment, bud.False premise who forced the guy to go smoke weed and fall asleep in his car?
Let's assume I just grant this. What does this do with enforcement on an individual? Because the "environment" grants incentive to commit X crime what changes? Nothing you still prosecute you still enforce the law correct? They still fucked up right? That black dude that fell asleep and ran would still be shot and killed. Nothing changes.We'll try and take this environment bit real slow and simple, but it's important you know: the implication that one is forced to engage in their environment is not the same as the implication that a person is incapable of making their own decisions. In fact, it presumes the opposite: that they are making decisions of their own. It just assumes that those decisions are largely informed by, and in response to, their environment.
No they don't depending on the age children don't have the motor skills and advantages such as height or strength. How is this relevant to people being prosecuted? What does it change?First, why don't we talk about limitations on how one can engage with their environment? Would you say, for example, that a child has the same control over their environment that an adult might?
Yes and no, Bogan, yes and no. There's nothing to be done in that moment: the die's been cast, as it were.Let's assume I just grant this. What does this do with enforcement on an individual? Because the "environment" grants incentive to commit X crime what changes? Nothing you still prosecute you still enforce the law correct? They still fucked up right? That black dude that fell asleep and ran would still be shot and killed. Nothing changes.
Nothing in and of itself: it was simply to illustrate that people have a limited capacity to affect their environment depending on their station.No they don't depending on the age children don't have the motor skills and advantages such as height or strength. How is this relevant to people being prosecuted? What does it change?
Government is corrupt. Government is incompetent. Constituent funds are going to arbitrary nonsense. Processes don't work as intended. We can propose limitless things but one has to articulate logistics in order to accomplish things. Keep in mind this is a country that doesn't routinely replace infrastructure in terms of even public roads. Take a ride on international highways and notice the decay and neglect even though states are supported almost entirely by Truck routes that depend on those roads. We haven't got to the point of how you fund something like this when you are essentially adding government assistance on the scale of something like the U.S. 330m+ people.Yes and no, Bogan, yes and no. There's nothing to be done in that moment: the die's been cast, as it were.
However, that need not always be the case, and this is where the idea we're discussing comes into play. Why would we choose to be entirely reactive, as far as crime is concerned, if we have the capacity to be proactive?
Understanding how environments promote certain behaviors gives us the ability to be proactive, Bogan. If food deserts promote criminal activity, and you invest in infrastructure in ways that put an end to food deserts, what happens?
Nothing in and of itself: it was simply to illustrate that people have a limited capacity to affect their environment depending on their station.
We can work our way there, though. If a child grows up in a community with excessive heroin use, what meaningful action might that child take to mitigate that influence?