No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[bilby]

Update in the St. Patrick of Lyoya case: He was not only drunk, but super drunk (BAC 0.29%) at 8:30 in the morning.

Patrick Lyoya's autopsy report released by Kent County, blood-alcohol levels over limit

Kent County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Cohle performed the autopsy last month. He previously said his office requested toxicology and tissue test results be expedited.
The autopsy report shows Lyoya’s blood ethanol at 290 mg/dL. That is a blood alcohol concentration of .29, experts said.
In Michigan, a person with blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher is legally considered too intoxicated to drive. Blood-alcohol levels at or above .17 while driving can be considered "super drunk" and bring heightened penalties.
Dr. Ernest Chiodo, a physician, toxicologist and former medical director of the city of Detroit, described the levels in the report as “highly, highly intoxicated.” Most people would be falling down drunk, he said.
Oakland County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic said it would probably take a minimum of 15 drinks to reach the level of .29.

He had previous DUIs too. He was a danger to everyone on the road driving like this.

Oh well, I guess that excuses shooting him in the back of the head.

Yeah, over here we have very strict laws on DUI. Novice drivers (learners and P plate drivers) and drivers of heavy vehicles or public transportation (including taxis) must have a BAC of zero (ie below the detection limit of the test apparatus); Experienced drivers of light vehicles must be below 0.05, with heightened penalties for anyone 0.1 or higher, and even more severe penalties for drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or more.

The maximum penalty for a first offence of high-range drink driving (0.15 or over) is a fine of $3,859 or a prison term of up to 9 months. High range drink driving results in automatic suspension of a driver's licence for a minimum of 9 months, and for repeat offenders, their vehicle may be impounded, and they may have to pay a fine of $8,271, or serve a jail term determined by the court.

These penalties may seem quite harsh, particularly to people who are fined for a BAC between 0.05 and 0.07, who would be considered 'sober' under the law in many other countries. But it's noticeable that they do not include being summarily gunned down without a trial, and before any blood alcohol testing has even been done.

 

[Toni]

Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

You can even grab your trusty AR15, drive a State or two away, brandish your weapon until someone reacts, then kill a couple of people, keep strolling around intimidating people and STILL not get shot, or even roughed up whatsoever. But ya gotta be fairly white to do that. If you abide by THAT rule the sky is the limit. Not because cops are so expert at realizing good outcomes.

Well, the guys who attempted to rob my in-laws were…black. SWAT still managed to not kill them.

 

[steve_bank]

Apparently the and his family do not speak English.

Sharpton disgraced himself and dispite his history in Civil Rights shows himself to be a shameless self promoter.

Yet again he was a wondeful person wronged by police. We never ever hear anyone say if he or she had not resisted he would not have been harmed.

Another example of the benefits of immigration without any education and language requirements. Bring people in who have little chnance in the economy and they resort to crime, who would have thought.

From what I have seen black African immigrants with some English and the equivalent of our primary education assimilate. They get jobs and go to school.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I mean, it's great that Breonna Taylor's boyfriends charges were eventually dropped--there was ZERO reason to charge him!

He did shoot a police officer in the leg. The only reason his charges were dropped were his race and the anti-police insurrections throughout 2020.

He wasn't charged because he legitimately believed he was acting in self defense--he didn't realize it was the police busting in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

then you can understand the position of the police idolaters.

And 2 + 2 = 3.

Your response indicates that is true in your world.

This moron had plenty of opportunity to quit his stupidity, he just couldn't accept that he was going to jail. This wasn't a failure to kiss ass or any other such nonsense.

While he took no offensive action he kept taking illegal defensive actions that would turn a very minor offense (having the plate on the wrong car) into a serious one. Defensive actions weren't going to change the outcome, at some point he would have to either give up or take offensive actions.

Thank you for intentionally parodying a police idolator to help me make my point.

Once again you have completely failed to address the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

<Picks up rifle, shoots Bilby-cop. You can't stop me because you can't use deadly force first. I have plenty of time to aim.>

Being armed to the teeth does nothing to protect anyone, cop or otherwise, who doesn't shoot first.

If you want to protect against possible threats, rather than actual and demonstrable ones, your only option is to shoot on sight anyone and everyone who can possibly threaten you. Which is basically everybody.

This isn't what cops do (thankfully), because they recognise that their defence isn't their guns; It's their organisation.

You can always shoot a cop. But you can't get away with doing it, because a dead cop isn't the end of your interaction with the authorities, it's just the beginning - and you will lose.

That's why cops in the UK are highly effective at preventing crime while not being routinely armed. It's been demonstrated to work, so your hypothesis that it cannot is just wilful ignorance.

You can shoot, or stab, or taze, a cop in London, and he cannot respond with bullets, because be doesn't have a gun. This isn't a problem for the Met Police though - because they have access to vast resources in backup.

Assault a cop in London, and you will never be able to stop running. Kill one, and you will be hunted down at almost any expense and inconvenience, by a large and well equipped organisation.

This is also why it's needless to kill a fleeing suspect. Running away just delays the inevitable, it's really not likely to be a successful strategy for a suspect.

And it's better for everyone - suspects, cops, and bystanders - to let suspects flee, and then go round them up later in a controlled manner.

What you're missing is with the assumption you can just go round them up. In practice that means they usually don't get rounded up unless they're just little fish that can't hide out effectively.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only time you could legally resist is if you reasonably believe it is not actually an arrest--either that it's kidnappers using police uniforms as a ruse, or that the officer actually plans to murder you.

The latter isn't a particularly unreasonable belief for black men in the USA.

How many have been killed in police custody??

And resisting arrest isn't a capital crime.

Self defense isn't a sentence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course there fucking is.
No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.

No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it is just not realistic for US cops to be unarmed.

Why not?

It works elsewhere. There's nothing unrealistic about it; It just fails to subscribe to a national myth. You could, and should, do better.

But you don't want to.

Saying it works doesn't make it so. The guy gets rough with the cops and gets away. You can take down the little fish but you're not going to fare well with the big fish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.

It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.

One would think that shooting someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD would not indicate the shooter was in a situation of "undue risk".

You might think so but that doesn't mean you're correct.

Action is faster than reaction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About 20 years or so ago, my inlaws, who lived in a very nice suburb of a major city were the victims of an armed in home invasion. One of the robbers forced my FIL to drive to withdraw money from a bank and the other held my MIL captive, a knife at her throat. Long story but my father in law was able to alert the police who set up SWAT teams, who in turn, rescued my MIL. Both of the robbers were taken into custody. No shots were fired. No one was hurt, despite both robbers being armed and holding two elderly people, one of whom was in a walker, captive for several hours. Thank heavens.

I'm writing this to point out that indeed, there are alternatives to shooting people in the back of the head during traffic stops. Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

Most bad guys aren't interested in shooting it out with the police and surrender when they're looking down the barrel of an officer's gun even if they have their own weapon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, over here we have very strict laws on DUI. Novice drivers (learners and P plate drivers) and drivers of heavy vehicles or public transportation (including taxis) must have a BAC of zero (ie below the detection limit of the test apparatus); Experienced drivers of light vehicles must be below 0.05, with heightened penalties for anyone 0.1 or higher, and even more severe penalties for drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or more.

The maximum penalty for a first offence of high-range drink driving (0.15 or over) is a fine of $3,859 or a prison term of up to 9 months. High range drink driving results in automatic suspension of a driver's licence for a minimum of 9 months, and for repeat offenders, their vehicle may be impounded, and they may have to pay a fine of $8,271, or serve a jail term determined by the court.

These penalties may seem quite harsh, particularly to people who are fined for a BAC between 0.05 and 0.07, who would be considered 'sober' under the law in many other countries. But it's noticeable that they do not include being summarily gunned down without a trial, and before any blood alcohol testing has even been done.

You still don't get it.

The relevance of his high BAC is a matter of explaining why he was behaving so stupidly.

 

[Toni]

About 20 years or so ago, my inlaws, who lived in a very nice suburb of a major city were the victims of an armed in home invasion. One of the robbers forced my FIL to drive to withdraw money from a bank and the other held my MIL captive, a knife at her throat. Long story but my father in law was able to alert the police who set up SWAT teams, who in turn, rescued my MIL. Both of the robbers were taken into custody. No shots were fired. No one was hurt, despite both robbers being armed and holding two elderly people, one of whom was in a walker, captive for several hours. Thank heavens.

I'm writing this to point out that indeed, there are alternatives to shooting people in the back of the head during traffic stops. Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

Most bad guys aren't interested in shooting it out with the police and surrender when they're looking down the barrel of an officer's gun even if they have their own weapon.

Sigh. Way to miss the point. The police managed to rescue someone held hostage WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. I mean there were SWAT teams there! And no one was injured.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.

It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.

One would think that shooting someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD would not indicate the shooter was in a situation of "undue risk".

You might think so but that doesn't mean you're correct.

It used to be that cowardice was the presumption of shooting someone in the back until sufficient evidence showed otherwise.

Action is faster than reaction.

Are you seriously arguing that shooting someone in the back of the head is justified because of what they might do? Do you really how effed up that is?

 

[laughing dog]

Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and
2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

then you can understand the position of the police idolaters.

And 2 + 2 = 3.

Your response indicates that is true in your world.

This moron had plenty of opportunity to quit his stupidity, he just couldn't accept that he was going to jail. This wasn't a failure to kiss ass or any other such nonsense.

While he took no offensive action he kept taking illegal defensive actions that would turn a very minor offense (having the plate on the wrong car) into a serious one. Defensive actions weren't going to change the outcome, at some point he would have to either give up or take offensive actions.

Thank you for intentionally parodying a police idolator to help me make my point.

Once again you have completely failed to address the point.

You are mistaken. But thank you for continuing your parody of a police idolator.

 

[bilby]

Of course there fucking is.
No matter how superhumanly powerful your mythical 'bad guy' might be, he cannot take a gun away from a policeman who doesn't have one.

No matter how often you repeat this nonsense, it is just not realistic for US cops to be unarmed.

Why not?

It works elsewhere. There's nothing unrealistic about it; It just fails to subscribe to a national myth. You could, and should, do better.

But you don't want to.

Saying it works doesn't make it so. The guy gets rough with the cops and gets away. You can take down the little fish but you're not going to fare well with the big fish.

Do you get your entire understanding of criminology from bad 1980s TV dramas?

 

[Hermit]

The only time you could legally resist is if you reasonably believe it is not actually an arrest--either that it's kidnappers using police uniforms as a ruse, or that the officer actually plans to murder you.

The latter isn't a particularly unreasonable belief for black men in the USA.

How many have been killed in police custody??

In the US:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 17,358 individuals in custody died during the period from 2007 to 2010.[14] Other publications focus on the rate per 100,000. US jails report deaths that total a mortality rate of 128, and prisons at 264 per 100,000.[15]
...
Based on some findings, African-American males appear to be over-represented as victims of sudden custody deaths. Further research with larger sample sizes is necessary.[16]

In Australia:

In 2013-2015, there were 149 deaths in custody in Australia, the majority occurred in prison while a minority occurred in police custody. The majority of prisoners who died in prison and police custody were male, over 40 years of age and non-Indigenous.[94] For deaths in immigration detention, see the section on immigration detention facilities.

Deaths in custody in Australia, 2013-2015[94]

Type of custody	Total number	Male	Female	Aged 40+	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Police	34	88%	12%	56%	19%
Prison	115	97%	3%	79%	22%

​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

About 20 years or so ago, my inlaws, who lived in a very nice suburb of a major city were the victims of an armed in home invasion. One of the robbers forced my FIL to drive to withdraw money from a bank and the other held my MIL captive, a knife at her throat. Long story but my father in law was able to alert the police who set up SWAT teams, who in turn, rescued my MIL. Both of the robbers were taken into custody. No shots were fired. No one was hurt, despite both robbers being armed and holding two elderly people, one of whom was in a walker, captive for several hours. Thank heavens.

I'm writing this to point out that indeed, there are alternatives to shooting people in the back of the head during traffic stops. Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

Most bad guys aren't interested in shooting it out with the police and surrender when they're looking down the barrel of an officer's gun even if they have their own weapon.

Sigh. Way to miss the point. The police managed to rescue someone held hostage WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. I mean there were SWAT teams there! And no one was injured.

No, you miss the point. It's the very presence of that kind of firepower that is the reason it was resolved peacefully. The bad guys knew that resistance would only get them shot by a sniper, they gave up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. It's not a job for cowards.
Like with firefighters, the job entails the risk that you could be seriously injured or even killed.
If people can't handle that, they should find a different career.

It's not a job for cowards, you are absolutely right.
At the same time, we should not expect cops to take on undue risk just to reduce risk to perps.

One would think that shooting someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD would not indicate the shooter was in a situation of "undue risk".

You might think so but that doesn't mean you're correct.

It used to be that cowardice was the presumption of shooting someone in the back until sufficient evidence showed otherwise.

Action is faster than reaction.

Are you seriously arguing that shooting someone in the back of the head is justified because of what they might do? Do you really how effed up that is?

The guy was trying to take the cop's taser and it appears the shot was provoked by his getting it. At that range he very well might be able to use it on the cop before the cop can react.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only time you could legally resist is if you reasonably believe it is not actually an arrest--either that it's kidnappers using police uniforms as a ruse, or that the officer actually plans to murder you.

The latter isn't a particularly unreasonable belief for black men in the USA.

How many have been killed in police custody??

In the US:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 17,358 individuals in custody died during the period from 2007 to 2010.[14] Other publications focus on the rate per 100,000. US jails report deaths that total a mortality rate of 128, and prisons at 264 per 100,000.[15]
...
Based on some findings, African-American males appear to be over-represented as victims of sudden custody deaths. Further research with larger sample sizes is necessary.[16]

In Australia:

In 2013-2015, there were 149 deaths in custody in Australia, the majority occurred in prison while a minority occurred in police custody. The majority of prisoners who died in prison and police custody were male, over 40 years of age and non-Indigenous.[94] For deaths in immigration detention, see the section on immigration detention facilities.

Deaths in custody in Australia, 2013-2015[94]

Type of custody	Total number	Male	Female	Aged 40+	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Police	34	88%	12%	56%	19%
Prison	115	97%	3%	79%	22%

​

But that says nothing about why they died.

The issue is whether they died at the hands of a cop.

 

[bilby]

About 20 years or so ago, my inlaws, who lived in a very nice suburb of a major city were the victims of an armed in home invasion. One of the robbers forced my FIL to drive to withdraw money from a bank and the other held my MIL captive, a knife at her throat. Long story but my father in law was able to alert the police who set up SWAT teams, who in turn, rescued my MIL. Both of the robbers were taken into custody. No shots were fired. No one was hurt, despite both robbers being armed and holding two elderly people, one of whom was in a walker, captive for several hours. Thank heavens.

I'm writing this to point out that indeed, there are alternatives to shooting people in the back of the head during traffic stops. Or during the commission of an armed robbery or armed home invasion.

Most bad guys aren't interested in shooting it out with the police and surrender when they're looking down the barrel of an officer's gun even if they have their own weapon.

Sigh. Way to miss the point. The police managed to rescue someone held hostage WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT. I mean there were SWAT teams there! And no one was injured.

No, you miss the point. It's the very presence of that kind of firepower that is the reason it was resolved peacefully. The bad guys knew that resistance would only get them shot by a sniper, they gave up.

Which of course explains why nobody in the UK ever surrenders to their unarmed police.

Well, either that or your post-hoc rationalisation to explain a situation you have almost zero knowledge of is utter drivel.