# No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

Detroit Free Press said:
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
<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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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.
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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

##### Cantankerous grump
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 custodyTotal numberMaleFemaleAged 40+Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Police3488%12%56%19%
Prison11597%3%79%22%

### ​

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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 custodyTotal numberMaleFemaleAged 40+Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Police3488%12%56%19%
Prison11597%3%79%22%

### ​

But that says nothing about why they died.

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

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
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.
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.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
I guess your narrative about "the left" defending any black person for any reason is false, then.
Except that several leftist posters on here have not disappointed and have defended Lyoya while attacking Schurr. Playball does not even think he should have been pulled over!
And it's not just this forum. It's also lefty media like NPR who write one-sided hagiographies like this one. He a good boy. Church every week. No mention of his revoked license, two warrants or all the criminal convictions, including for DUI and domestic violence.
So the left is doing what the left does. No surprises.

unless YOU want to bring it up (which you did) and talk about it (which you are)... That's fine. But I guess you need a new theory.
Just because I started the thread does not mean the left will not defend bad guys like St. Patrick of Lyoya simply because of the color of his skin.
hold on to those goalposts! you asked why no one started a discussion... so YOU started the discussion... NOW you claim there is some issue with people responding to the issue YOU raised.
I still see this as you being disappointed your theory asn;t supported... so you went and "poisoned the well", so to speak, to attempt to generate evidence for your theory... My response is simply that I am not buying it. You can't instigate a discussion and then comment that the existence of the discussion is "the problem"... unless YOU are the problem. That might just be the case.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Did Lyoya us any offensive combat moves at all?
You must not know how to fight if you call that fighting.
Him not using any "combat moves" does not mean he wasn't fighting with the officer.

He was resisting arrest. Fighting is what MMA, Boxing & sometimes hockey & baseball legends do.

Edit: The only thing I'd concede on that is it is like WWE fighting, lots of athleticism is required but they aren't really fighting.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
He was resisting arrest. Fighting is what MMA, Boxing & sometimes hockey & baseball legends do.
One of the strangest semantic nitpicks on this forum. Call it "fight", "physical struggle" or whatever you want, Lyoya should not have done it.

Edit: The only thing I'd concede on that is it is like WWE fighting, lots of athleticism is required but they aren't really fighting.
Athleticism is what may have done Lyoya in. If Schurr started to feel fatigued and uncertain that he could hold his own in this fight physical struggle much longer, he would be more inclined to use lethal force to end it, lest he risk Lyoya overpowering him and taking not only his taser but also his gun.

Perps taking an officer's gun during a fight physical struggle happens sometimes, and often it does not end well for the cop.
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!
Pretty sure "they" includes Timonthy Loehman and excludes Tamir Rice and his family.

#### Elixir

If Schurr started to feel fatigued and uncertain that he could hold his own in this fight physical struggle much longer, he would be more inclined to use lethal force to end it,
Another good reason he should never have started it. Cops keep the option of “ending it” front of mind, regardless of actual threat level.
I actually had one walk up to the window of a car, and think he saw a joint on the passenger seat. He suddenly dropped into a ready stance, hand on gun and screamed “you make one move and I’ll blow your fucking head off!”
I had the wherewithal to not move. Ended up with a ticket, but there were witnesses so I brought it to court and raised the issue of departmental liability if official policy included threatening to blow the heads of suspected pot smokers, and individual liability if it was not department policy. The judge declined to render an opinion but invited me to obtain counsel to pursue it. I thanked him very much, paid the ticket fine and got tremendous satisfaction watching that cop squirm.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.
Apparently it is, if you're black.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
Perps taking an officer's gun during a fight physical struggle happens sometimes, and often it does not end well for the cop.
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

How soon people forget these things;

A police officer who was killed at a northern Illinois hotel pleaded for her life before a man allegedly shot her with her own gun after she was disarmed during a struggle, a prosecutor said. Bradley police Sgt. Marlene Rittmanic and her partner, Officer Tyler Bailey, were shot on Dec. 29 while investigating a noise complaint regarding dogs barking in a parked car outside a Comfort Inn.

News

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Perps taking an officer's gun during a fight physical struggle happens sometimes, and often it does not end well for the cop.
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

How soon people forget these things;

A police officer who was killed at a northern Illinois hotel pleaded for her life before a man allegedly shot her with her own gun after she was disarmed during a struggle, a prosecutor said. Bradley police Sgt. Marlene Rittmanic and her partner, Officer Tyler Bailey, were shot on Dec. 29 while investigating a noise complaint regarding dogs barking in a parked car outside a Comfort Inn.

News

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
He was resisting arrest. Fighting is what MMA, Boxing & sometimes hockey & baseball legends do.
One of the strangest semantic nitpicks on this forum. Call it "fight", "physical struggle" or whatever you want, Lyoya should not have done it.

Edit: The only thing I'd concede on that is it is like WWE fighting, lots of athleticism is required but they aren't really fighting.
Athleticism is what may have done Lyoya in. If Schurr started to feel fatigued and uncertain that he could hold his own in this fight physical struggle much longer, he would be more inclined to use lethal force to end it, lest he risk Lyoya overpowering him and taking not only his taser but also his gun.

Perps taking an officer's gun during a fight physical struggle happens sometimes, and often it does not end well for the cop.
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

Bruh, you adding way too much to this portion of the discussion. The dude was resisting arrest. You and I both know what fighting is. It's not semantics. Resisting arrest definitely led to him getting shot in the back of the head. Now whether or not that's punishable is up to officials and their application of the law. It's just how things work Derec. You know that right? Being a law-abiding citizen you should know that investigations follow.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Perps taking an officer's gun during a fight physical struggle happens sometimes, and often it does not end well for the cop.
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!

How soon people forget these things;

A police officer who was killed at a northern Illinois hotel pleaded for her life before a man allegedly shot her with her own gun after she was disarmed during a struggle, a prosecutor said. Bradley police Sgt. Marlene Rittmanic and her partner, Officer Tyler Bailey, were shot on Dec. 29 while investigating a noise complaint regarding dogs barking in a parked car outside a Comfort Inn.

News

How soon people forget these things.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!
Pretty sure "they" includes Timonthy Loehman and excludes Tamir Rice and his family.

The better safe than sorry principle only applies to law enforcement in Derec's world.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Bruh, you adding way too much to this portion of the discussion. The dude was resisting arrest. You and I both know what fighting is. It's not semantics.
People use the word "fight" in a much broader context than organized fighting sports.

Resisting arrest definitely led to him getting shot in the back of the head. Now whether or not that's punishable is up to officials and their application of the law. It's just how things work Derec. You know that right? Being a law-abiding citizen you should know that investigations follow.
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".

#### Derec

##### Contributor
[some random YouTube video from Oklahoma]
What is the relevance of this video to the Lyoya case, if any?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Apparently it is, if you're black.
Nothing to do with race. Had the driver been white and acted the same way, he would have also suffered from a 9mm brain hemorrhage.

What is different is that because he is black there is a lot of media coverage. Eulogized by a nationally (in)famous preacher man. National politician calls him "an American of great distinction". And last but not least, the almost certain multimillion dollar settlement, courtesy of the feckless Grand Rapids city council. None of this would be happening if everything else was the same, but the driver was white.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Another good reason he should never have started it.
I agree. He (Patrick Lyoya) should never have started it.
Because, make no mistake, he started it.
He started it by getting super drunk (0.29%) and deciding to drive a car with mismatched plates with a revoked license.
And when he got out of the car even though he knows the procedure well (since he was arrested so many times).
And when he decided to run.
And finally when he decided to fight and not surrender when the cop caught him.

One could call this: the Increasingly Poor Decisions of Patrick Lyoya ...

Cops keep the option of “ending it” front of mind, regardless of actual threat level.
What some generic "cops" may or may not do is irrelevant to the case of this particular cop and this particular case. And in this case, there was a significant threat level.

I actually had one walk up to the window of a car, and think he saw a joint on the passenger seat. He suddenly dropped into a ready stance, hand on gun and screamed “you make one move and I’ll blow your fucking head off!”
Cool story, bro.

The war on drugs sucks, but the Lyoya shooting is very different. You didn't try to fight the cop or grab any of his weapons. But you know that very well.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Pretty sure "they" includes Timonthy Loehman and excludes Tamir Rice and his family.
Any particular reason to keep derailing with this tragic case that has been discussed to death on here?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
hold on to those goalposts! you asked why no one started a discussion... so YOU started the discussion... NOW you claim there is some issue with people responding to the issue YOU raised.

No goalpost shifting. Regardless of who started the thread, many of the leftist posters on here are predictably defending and supporting Lyoya. Some don't even people like him to be pulled over as they think that amounts to "driving while black".

I still see this as you being disappointed your theory asn;t supported...
BS. On multiple fronts. Including the misuse of the word "theory".
My response is simply that I am not buying it. You can't instigate a discussion and then comment that the existence of the discussion is "the problem"... unless YOU are the problem. That might just be the case.
I never said that "the existence of discussion" was a problem. I like discussions.
But the lefists on here and elsewhere (NPR, MI SecState, local Congresswoman) are predictable in their support for this serial drunk driver and baby mama beater simply because of what hue his skin is. And it is right for me to point that out.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.
He did not say "boys". He said "guys". Is that non-PC now all of a sudden?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
It used to be that cowardice was the presumption of shooting someone in the back until sufficient evidence showed otherwise.
Evidence is in the video.
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?
Once the perp uses deadly force it might be too late, so yes, on some level, yes, it is necessary to shoot based on what they might do.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.
Every situation is different. That most police actions get resolved without firing a shot does not mean the Lyoya case is ipso facto unjustified.
And the presence of SWAT probably contributed to a peaceful resolution. Peace through strength type of thing. Same reason why Lalo decided not to shoot it out with the cop once more of them showed up.
Schurr, on the other hand, was alone, and thus more vulnerable to any threatening behavior by Lyoya.
That is why I support two man patrols. #fundThePolice

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Well, the guys who attempted to rob my in-laws were…black. SWAT still managed to not kill them.
Impossible! If #BLM has taught me anything is that all black suspects get shot on sight while all white ones are taken to Burger King. /s

#### Derec

##### Contributor
The better safe than sorry principle only applies to law enforcement in Derec's world.
Nah. I think it would apply to you as well, if for example you should find yourself faced with a carjacker.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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?
So no one gets killed, for one thing.

#### Elixir

. You didn't try to fight the cop or grab any of his weapons. But you know that very well.

I was lucky:
* I knew about cowboy cops on the Boulder PD and,
Most important-
* I AM WHITE

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
The better safe than sorry principle only applies to law enforcement in Derec's world.
Nah. I think it would apply to you as well, if for example you should find yourself faced with a carjacker.

Yeah, but certainly not for officers who might open fire on me because they "fear for their life" without cause. After all, how could I be certain when that is the case? Better safe than sorry right?

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
And as they say, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!
Pretty sure "they" includes Timonthy Loehman and excludes Tamir Rice and his family.
Definitely not. They (specifically) certainly thought the risk of being carried by 6 was far better than the risk of being judged by 12... that is exactly why they chose the route they took... better dead than in jail.