I think there's some things to keep in mind, and you will see that a big issue is quality of police officers in dealing with criminals, and the training they receive.

The police searched his car, and then searched him. So they know 100% he was not carrying a weapon. This is important because they know the only weapon he had was the taser, and they knew what happens when you miss with a taser, and especially once he drops it and keeps running, he's no longer a threat to them at that moment.

They tried to subdue him but the two of them couldn't handle a staggeringly drunk man. When the taser was brought out, he was able to get it off before it was used, AND get away, using it HIMSELF to try to escape

The key to me is after he unsuccessfully fired the taser, at what point is he a threat to the cops? Dude was probably running to his sister's house. How can it be "self defense" when you shoot him in the BACK? Was he backing towards you with a discharged taser? Yes "when you point a weapon at a cop, expect to get shot". But what about AFTER you point a weapon, and miss, no longer having a usable weapon, and are running away. Should you expect to get shot and killed when you run away after not harming anyone?

So to me it's just a collection of bad decisions on both sides, leading to tragedy. Murder? I dunno... Disciplinary action? Absolutely. He shouldn't be a cop. Does it emphasize the need to have higher quality officers and better training? Absolutely. Also on a wider scale, does it remind us that racial inequality (not to mention economy class) leads many towards drugs, alcohol and crime? I'm sure many would deny that (I know we'll hear it but i'm not going to respond), but I think that's a huge issue that BLM hopes to begin resolving. And what Bernie wanted to try resolving.

"Defund Police" sounds like people want there to be no cops, but the point is to turn the police more into social workers than "enforcers". Maybe instead of arresting a guy who was drunk driving, sending him further down whatever spiral he was in, let him go home and sober up and maybe get help he desperately needs (which is also not highly accessible, another thing we need to deal with which defund the police may allow). Arresting him may have prevented a car accident from happening that night, but what about when he gets out of jail? The cops actually have that choice, and that's obviously not the choice that was made here, despite the general politeness of the incident before it went to shit. It maybe SHOULD be the default choice, and maybe for some cops it is.

:wgaf:

Killing another person how? They should have called for back up and followed him. But the cops were probably too embarrassed to do so.

It's kinda funny, Riddoch electric brings their vehicles to us for service. I've worked on that transit several times.
The young man in the video is the son of the business owner.

Couple co-workers and i were having a good laugh at the fb replies at lunch.
That kid just kept digging his hole deeper and deeper. Calling them terrorists and saying they tried to hit him with their truck when he was the one who jumped out in front of it and told them to hit him. Which Mr. Cheema, the driver and their neighbor, clearly says "i don't want to hit you". Riddoch jr. there playing the "you tried to hit a disabled 20 y/o with your truck!" card. -He messed his leg up from a motorcycle accident awhile ago-

So i guess the story goes Riddoch jr and his buddies were ripping up and down the street on their motorcycles a week or so ago, so Mr Cheema filed a report about it. That's where the little squabble started i guess.
The kid's a real entitled little turd IMO.
And his dad's not much of a party either from what the service advisors tell me. Still don't think his business shoulda got dragged through the mud though when he had nothing to do with it.

Jesus Christ. You don't resist arrest,then take an officer's weapon away from him during a struggle, fire it at them, and expect the cops to play pattycake.
That's not a precedent anyone should want set.
Wtf world are people living in?

You just justified murder by assuming the only other option is "pattycake"...

I'm telling you that it's almost hypocritical to suggest something like that. You are analyzing a la keyboard warrior style AFTER the fact.

Police are trained and sworn to protect. And they are trained to shoot for the torso. It's the largest mass on our body. It was unfortunate that the suspect died from the injury, but what you are saying is that the police was shooting with the idea to kill the suspect. If he was shooting to kill, I think there'd be a lot more shots fired.

In a situation like that, the priority was to neutralize the threat. It was a person with a record, under influence, resisting arrest, armed (to a certain degree), and had the willingness to engage.

If the police didn't neutralize the perceived threat ATM while he still could, he wouldn't be doing his job.

Again... think about the alternate scenario I suggested, it's basically what you are asking, keep on following him... and if another bystander gets hurt because of this decision, who would you blame? Who would the public blame?

Yes I get the argument of "oh he didn't have deadly forces". But he clearly showed the willingness to hurt others in order to get what he wanted. When there is motive, having a weapon or not becomes irrelevant because the person himself is the weapon.

I really don't think hitting a moving target, while you're moving, exactly where you want to hit it is as easy as you think, if that's what you're implying.

The skill to shoot a moving target in the legs with a pistol? That's basically impossible.

Not that he should've been shooting what sounds like a cuffed guy with a spent taser in the back.

I don't know what you think I'm suggesting... I'm not the one saying "shoot at his feet" or anything like that. When you shoot at someone, it's center mass to stop them coming at you, and to kill them.

When you shoot someone in the back, it's to stop them from getting away from you, and to kill them

The first one applies to "self defense" as in "if I didn't shoot him, he would have harmed me". The second applies if someone is going around posing a danger to everyone around - like the guy in Nova Scotia. You kill him as soon as you see him.

The cop's defense in this case will have to prove that he thought if he didn't kill the guy, he would have harmed someone else. He assumed that his intent on resisting arrest was so that he intended to get away so he could go hurt people, rather than what most people might suggest was to just not get touched by cops and go sleep off his drunkenness.

After 40 minutes of being completely compliant and reasonable, it might be hard for the cop to convince a jury that he thought Rayshard was going to imminently try to hurt people if the they didn't try arresting him then and there, and also that if he'd fled, that the only other option was to kill Rayshard, because otherwise he would have gone on to harm someone else instead of running away..

You don't kill someone as fucking punishment for getting away from your arrest attempt.

Who are they trying to protect? Just let the guy run and follow him. When he gets tired then beat him with batons and arrest him. The cops' ego got hurt and he shot him in the back. The gun should be the absolute last resort. Know ones life was at stake.

Situations like this (cop getting beaten up) happen all the time and no one dies.

https://www.cheknews.ca/rcmp-officer...-fight-382962/

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news...-traffic-stop/

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news...irate-suspect/

Lmk when the Redskins change their name and the US changes the anthem.

Small steps. Land o lakes also changed their logo.

Kansas City Chiefs... Washington Redskins... Atlanta Braves... Chicago Blackhawks... their days are all numbered

Sometimes I feel people forget police officers are humans too. Unless we start using AI for enforcing, it's never going to be a perfect scenario where just the perfect amount of force is used every single time.

It's easy in hindsight to point out he was only just running away. He ran out of "ammo" on his taser so whew, he missed, so the officers were completely safe after that. But this isn't a movie where cops are counting remaining shots in the heat of the moment. All the cop knows is this guy just stole a weapon, tried to attack, and is trying to escape, and now he needs to be put down immediately.

Police officers also have family they want to go back to at the end of the day. When someone grabs a weapon and then tries to use it to attack, those are some extreme lengths to be pulling on a cop. I really hate saying this, but "play stupid games and win stupid prizes." Once again I'll ask at what line can we draw when it's justified to take out the gun? Are officers expected to be sacrificial pawns just because it's "part of the job"? Like, there were two officers, let's hesitate and wait. If one officer gets taken out, then the 2nd officer will know to move onto the next step of enforcement accordingly...

Yes, in hindsight, it was only a taser. He wasn't going to kill anyone directly by tazing one officer, even if he was on target. But that's besides the point. It was a threat. It was very clear this man was willing to go to lengths to attack. If life ran at half speed, maybe every reactive scenario can be played out much better. But this happened all so fast.

We can sit here blaming the training and what not. Maybe it's true. Police need better training to address these situations more accurately. But at some point, I also feel "better training" really just means to hesitate and be willing to sacrifice getting severely injured or killed should they train to react more slowly even when things escalate.

This is the part I disagree with. We're not talking about a bank robber here. Or even a drug dealer. We're dealing with a guy who was drunk driving, and passed out in a drive thru. A guy who was totally compliant and polite the whole time, for almost 40 minutes. He tried to get away (bad idea) but that doesn't mean "he needs to be put down". He wasn't even running from a warrant. You want to "put down" someone trying to duck a drunk driving charge?

I agree things go fast and cops are in a very dangerous line of work. That's why I emphasize that the training needs to be good, and the goal should be as social workers rather than going around trying to lock people up who aren't imminently endangering the world.

all sports teams with indian related names and logos right now:

https://i.ibb.co/71LMFDf/dd0.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...488/darkie.jpg

My toothpaste is racist, i knew it, but I used this brand..and have been for a long time, colgate will rebrand this.. again..somehow...

https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/18/ex...-matter-demos/

Always makes me think of the quote from pulp fiction.

“ Antwan didn't expect Marsellus to react the way he did, but he had to expect a reaction.”

https://static3.srcdn.com/wordpress/...slims-menu.jpg

......

I don't blame the cop.
Why would someone run from being arrested AND steal a taser while running is something i can't comprehend.

When you run and then turn around firing something at someone, he/she (a cop in this case) would not have the mindset to distinguish "oh, he is firing at me with the taser he took 25 second ago". Training has always taught to protect yourself, we aren't playing a video game.

The cop's life is a life itself, he has to protect himself also. Who's to say the dude wasn't carrying and pulled out a gun while running.

There are LOTS of stupid situation when a black man answers the door with his remote control and mistaken it as a gun... shot and dies...

Fraction of a second judgment calls aren't always the best, but when its life and death... cop has the right to protect himself.

The guy was shot in the back.

I guess there's always 2 sides to an argument.

I'm all for BLM and it's just good/bad timing for this to happen but seriously, he was so drunk he passed out in the middle of the drive-thru, that in itself was enough to get arrested and car towed.
Then to resist arrest, grab an officers weapon and try to run. I can't defend that.
That 40minute calm and respectful conversation does give the benefit that that the police were not prejudiced towards him because of colour.

Would he have opened fire if it was an Asian in that situation? Who knows.
The cop had basically 1 in 50 chance to hit the heart, he was just aiming at the main part of the body.

With this case, it should have NEVER gotten to the handcuff stage ... what the hell was that for? Officer should have offered the guy a ride to his sister's house to sleep off the booze. You gotta know when someone is worth handcuffing and arresting and when someone is not.

Can we trust that he would have stayed there? Does him having a previous DUI account for anything?