No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[Gun Nut]

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?

What comic book are you reading that has an entire populace of a society that at one time had more guns than people, suddenly have no guns WHATSOEVER, so that the police no longer need guns AT ALL?

 

[Gun Nut]

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

Why should police officer have to back off in light of a perp resisting arrest?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Pet peeve: "This sub-task is no cause for a reaction to the whole"
No drop of water is responsible for the flood.

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

 

[TomC]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Neither is driving drunk.
But drunk driving does often result in dying.
Tom

 

[bilby]

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.

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

"Action is faster than reaction" literally justifies any pre-emptive strike. It is carte blance for killing by the police.

Sorry, your apologia is unconvincing.

It's why people get shot with their own guns--if you let your opponent into arms reach of you they very well might be able to take your gun.

...therefore you are better off not having a gun to begin with.

If you are going to get yourself shot, the minimum precaution you should probably take is to not provide a weapon for your opponent.

 

[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.

Fuck no that’s not the point. And exactly what racist shit is this that now that I’ve disclosed that the robbers are black you feel entitled to refer to them as boys? What the actual fuck.

They were outwitted by an 80 something year old man and his wife. Less intelligent t and more cowardly people would have compli d instead of finding a way to alert the police.

I referred to them as "bad guys". Nowhere did I say "boys".

Most hostage situations end peacefully because they know they won't survive going up against the SWAT team.

Most hostage situations ended peacefully before SWAT teams existed. So you are clearly mistaken in your belief about why these situations end peacefully.

 

[bilby]

I do not have a problem with police shootings being investigated. I have a problem with people jumping to conclusions and automatically taking Lyoya's side just because he was black. Not only on here, but in the media too. Like the NPR article that went on and on how great Patrick Lyoya was and never bothered to mention his extensive criminal record. And not just the media, but politicians too. Like Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) who called Lyoya "an American of great distinction".

Whether or not she thinks that the shooting was justified or not, given everything we know about Lyoya, nobody can claim he was "an American of great distinction".

This. These days there seems to be an automatic assumption that if the bad guy didn't have a gun it's automatically wrongful. The reality is that in a hand-to-hand fight with an officer it's always armed conflict.

Re-read what you just wrote, without the assumption that cops must be armed, and see how little sense it makes without that assumption.

Armed police are not a fundamental axiom. You can have police who are not armed.

 

[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?

What comic book are you reading that has an entire populace of a society that at one time had more guns than people, suddenly have no guns WHATSOEVER, so that the police no longer need guns AT ALL?

In 1918 and again in 1945, the UK was awash with guns and ammo of all kinds.

The police never needed to be routinely armed.

No society since the invention of firearms has ever had no guns whatsoever, and that's not a prerequisite for an effective police force not routinely equipped with guns.

Illegal guns are cheap and easy to obtain in the UK. It's far from being a gun free society.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Neither is driving drunk.
But drunk driving does often result in dying.
Tom

Are you really comparing a death due to an accident (drunk driving) to death from a deliberate action (shot in the back of the head in "self defense) or just failing to be clever?

 

[laughing dog]

I do not have a problem with police shootings being investigated. I have a problem with people jumping to conclusions and automatically taking Lyoya's side just because he was black. Not only on here, but in the media too. Like the NPR article that went on and on how great Patrick Lyoya was and never bothered to mention his extensive criminal record. And not just the media, but politicians too. Like Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) who called Lyoya "an American of great distinction".

Whether or not she thinks that the shooting was justified or not, given everything we know about Lyoya, nobody can claim he was "an American of great distinction".

This. These days there seems to be an automatic assumption that if the bad guy didn't have a gun it's automatically wrongful. The reality is that in a hand-to-hand fight with an officer it's always armed conflict.

True, it is pretty one-sided with the police with weapons, their buddies, most of the justice system, and a significant number of kneejerk police worshippers who will defend just about any killing of a suspect (especially black ones).

 

[laughing dog]

If that officer was fast enough to realize that "Action is faster than reaction" and shoot to kill in the back of the head, he was fast enough to back off.

Why should police officer have to back off in light of a perp resisting arrest?

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Pet peeve: "This sub-task is no cause for a reaction to the whole"
No drop of water is responsible for the flood.

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

Again, it used to be the case that shooting someone in the back was considered cowardly.

 

[TomC]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Neither is driving drunk.
But drunk driving does often result in dying.
Tom

Are you really comparing a death due to an accident (drunk driving) to death from a deliberate action (shot in the back of the head in "self defense) or just failing to be clever?

I am really comparing them. Neither is an accident, but neither is an automatic death sentence penalty. Both are extremely risky behavior. Choices that sometimes result in death. But they remain choices made by the perpetrators.

In this case, Lyoya chose both. The combination killed him.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

"Since when is death the penalty for a BLACK PERSON to simply twitch their finger slightly!!!!?one1?"
Ever since that person chose to hold a gun, point it at someone, and position that finger over the trigger, obviously.

"Since when is having a run in the park deserving of EXECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT"
Ever since that person chose to wield a knife and run directly at a group of children while screaming, "I'll kill them all!!!", obviously.

and, most relevantly, "since when does having a little scuffle with someone create cause to be shot??"
Ever since that person chose to have a scuffle with a clearly identified police officer and attempt to take their weapon(s).

Have you ever considered that the police are not always right just as they are not always wrong? You seem to be taking the approach that the police are infallible. I'm only thinking this because all of the scenarios you mentioned paint the police in a specific light when in reality more than those scenarios exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Neither is driving drunk.
But drunk driving does often result in dying.
Tom

I hate crap analogies, political threads are always rife with them. A person driving drunk dies in a car accident, not at the hands of a person charged by the State to enforce or protect the law.

Actions carry risks. Some people are fine with police officers killing civilians, for any number of things. Loren has an inexhaustible list of infractions that justify deadly force. The question is, do we condone most officer actions that lead to deaths and just ignore it? Do we scrutinize each of them like the FAA would with a plane crash in order to develop protocols to reduce the likelihood of something similar happening again? Do we charge them with crimes for killing a civilian?

Then the issue becomes how do we investigate these cases when the police clam up even in cases of egregious violations of civil rights? How can the police police itself? Who can we trust to police the police fairly given the light of the risk they legitimately face? Who can the police trust to police them?

But we can't ask these questions until people stop ignoring the question "Is it immoral to ignore the death at the hands of an officer?"

 

[laughing dog]

The fact you feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes. Resisting arrest is not an automatic death sentence penalty in the USA.

Neither is driving drunk.
But drunk driving does often result in dying.
Tom

Are you really comparing a death due to an accident (drunk driving) to death from a deliberate action (shot in the back of the head in "self defense) or just failing to be clever?

I am really comparing them. Neither is an accident, but neither is an automatic death sentence penalty. Both are extremely risky behavior. Choices that sometimes result in death. But they remain choices made by the perpetrators.

In this case, Lyoya chose both. The combination killed him.
Tom

A simple "failing to be clever" would have sufficed.

In particular, death by drunk driving is usually accidental. Yes, someone chose to engage in risky behavior but that does not mean they chose to have an accident.

On the otherhand, being shot in the back may be the result of a choice to engage in risky behavior, but the shooter also had a choice to make at the moment of pulling the trigger: it is no accident on the part of the shooter.

It is either intellectually dishonest or downright stupid to conflate the two for comparison.

 

[Gospel]

This is what fighting an officer looks like. And this officer was justified in shooting the suspect (IMO).



Lyoya on the other hand was only resisting arrest. The officer just so happened to be outmatched and rather than take the L and call for backup to make the arrest he messed up and shot someone who was resisting without violence (misdemeanor). So regardless of what you feel about the black guy's past and the black guy being drunk the black guy was shot in the back of the head for a misdemeanor.

BUT BUT BUT THE DUI IS A FELONY!! If it was his first offense and no one was killed it's a misdemeanor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is what fighting an officer looks like. And this officer was justified in shooting the suspect (IMO).



Lyoya on the other hand was only resisting arrest. The officer just so happened to be outmatched and rather than take the L and call for backup to make the arrest he messed up and shot someone who was resisting without violence (misdemeanor). So regardless of what you feel about the black guy's past and the black guy being drunk the black guy was shot in the back of the head for a misdemeanor.

BUT BUT BUT THE DUI IS A FELONY!! If it was his first offense and no one was killed it's a misdemeanor.

Resisting without violence except for taking the taser.

 

[Gospel]

Resisting without violence except for taking the taser.

The video doesn't show him taking the Taser, the video does show him using his hand to hold the taser to evade being tased. If he wanted that taser he'd have to fight the officer for it. You know, throw a punch, twist an arm or wrist. Something to actively try to gain possession, none of which is seen in the video. Everything he did was evasive, not aggressive. . The officer made a call and it will be up to law enforcement to decide whether or not it was the right one. Despite what you and I may think.

 

[TomC]

Everything he did was evasive, not aggressive. .

That's totally bullshit.
Evasive would have started with driving sober. He had a BAC that would put most people in the hospital. Seriously, .29?

Nothing Lyoya did was evasive or defensive. He attacked.
And attacked.

And wound up dead. He lost his battle with society. The one he'd been fighting for some time. The one he was fighting in the car, before he got pulled over.
.29 BAC.
He was a violent perp. He lost that particular fight.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Grand Rapids

1. Deadly Force Applications a. Officers may discharge a firearm in connection with the performance of their official police duties to:

(1) Defend against a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself/herself.
(2) Defend against a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury to another officer or citizen.
(3) Prevent the escape of a subject who is fleeing from an inherently violent felony crime, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject poses a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.


(1) That's quite a lot of WWE wrestling to receive no injury. But I guess it's reasonable for him to believe after all that time struggling with Lyoya that all of a sudden he'd get injured somewhere, sometime down the road.

(2) Oh I'm sure he cared about the citizens in that community. Seems like the citizens at the scene (and I use the term lightly since their resident status isn't confirmed) aren't trusted enough to utilize their aid. Ya know, say things like talk to your boy while he waits for backup. They also didn't seem to want to get involved because I dunno, maybe the cops there aren't all that great? I know I'd help out if an Orange county officer was having a hard time. In fact, I have done it for a Seminole county officer answering a public disturbance call. My neighbor at that time was giving the officers a good talking to because he felt his music wasn't loud. I told the neighbor to calm down the officer is just doing his job & the officer appreciated it. Even hung around for a bit to talk afterward to both of us.

(3) The bolded part...........


I get it though, what Lyoya did was incredibly stupid knowing that SOME police officers aren't looking out for your safety when you decide to not comply. They also deal with a lot of dangerous people and it's hard to tell who is who. It's not their job to sort out who is not a threat and who is when dealing with someone resisting arrest.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nothing Lyoya did was evasive or defensive. He attacked.
And attacked.

WTF?!? He was trying to run away.