# No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Derec’s wall of (12) posts in a row bespeaks desperation to rationalize his own previous statements. But I didn’t see where he named a single blacks person who was unjustly executed by cowboy cops.
Did anyone else see that?
(His drivel is too boring to read 12 posts in a row).
The cops that shot the unarmed guy 12 times in the video I posted above are being charged with manslaughter.

#### laughing dog

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

#### laughing dog

##### 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.
It is pretty clear #BLM has taught you nothing.
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.
Nope.
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.
Wow, the police have carte blanche to kill based on what they "perceive" (something the public or the justice system can never know for certain) someone might do.

You do realize such a policy would give credence to private citizens killing police officers based on what they feel the officers might do.

#### 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.
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.
What? Timothy Loehman did not so such thing - he is alive and well and free after killing unarmed 12 year old Tamir Rice.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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.

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.

#### 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.
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.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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.

I don't think these are three decisions, but three aspects of one decision. He decided he wasn't going to be taken in, that manifested in his three actions.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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?

And note that "bad guys" doesn't really even specify gender. Russia is the "bad guys" in Ukraine, that says nothing about the sex of their troops.

Staff member

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran 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.
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

##### Veteran Member
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

##### Celestial Highness
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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.

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

##### 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.
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

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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

##### 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?
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### 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?
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

##### Celestial Highness
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

##### Unify Africa
"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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Unify Africa
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

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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

##### Unify Africa
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

##### Celestial Highness
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

##### Unify Africa
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.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Nothing Lyoya did was evasive or defensive. He attacked.
And attacked.
WTF?!? He was trying to run away.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
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

Hey I don't like the guy either, but I'm not gonna use my imagination to explain away why him getting shot in the back of the head over a misdemeanor is acceptable.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
The only apparent threat to the officer was from having the taser taken, but it looks to me like he might have gotten it.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
The officer sure didn't secure that tazer after shooting him.

Edit: remember folks..the color of that taser. Play the where's waldo game and find the taser in his hand.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Another game we can play is how many times a taser can be fired and how many times it was fired and by whom.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
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?
In one case, a person deliberately chooses to drive drunk (and incidentally causes harm). In another case, a person deliberately chooses to attempt to take a cop's weapon (and incidentally causes harm).
Apples and Oranges... are both fruit.

#### Gun Nut

##### Veteran Member
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.
and it is used to be a "war crime" to not line up in a neat row to face your enemy on an open battlefield and take turns loading and firing smoothbore muskets at each other until one side has no one left standing. Taking cover was "cowardly", too. So.. so much for that.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
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

Hey I don't like the guy either, but I'm not gonna use my imagination to explain away why him getting shot in the back of the head over a misdemeanor is acceptable.
Explain away?

Misdemeanor?

Lyoya fought an armed person and tried to take his weapon. That's a reliable way to become dead. Lyoya picked almost everything here. He's not a victim.

The fact that Lyoya's intended victim was a cop just makes him extra stupid/suicidal.
Tom

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Explain away?
Yup, that's what you're doing.

Misdemeanor?
Cite the felony.

Lyoya fought an armed person and tried to take his weapon.
Fought Definition: "take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons. You may want to use a different word.
That's a reliable way to become dead. Lyoya picked almost everything here. He's not a victim.
Sure, when the officer doesn't do his job correctly it's a reliable way to become dead. Lyoya picked resisting arrest. I didn't use the word Victim at any time during this discussion. That's up to law enforcement to determine after examining the evidence.
The fact that Lyoya's intended victim was a cop just makes him extra stupid/suicidal.
Tom
Yes, it is incredibly stupid to resist arrest guilty of a crime or not.

#### Elixir

Derec went silent when I asked, so this is for TomC:

Can you provide an example of a cop shooting a black person that wasn’t either justifiable or excusable?
If you can outline what makes it so, that would be great.
This is not a “gotcha” question. I am just trying to get a feel for where that line is in the minds of conservatives. So far, it seems not to exist. YMMV, and I hope it does.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Can you provide an example of a cop shooting a black person that wasn’t either justifiable or excusable?
If you can outline what makes it so, that would be great.
Yes. Two immediately spring to mind.

One was Timothy Thomas. 20ish black guy in Cincinnati, shot in the back around 1998. Caused a mini Ferguson. The NAACP did a very interesting investigation of the whole situation in Cincinnati. The results weren't what you might think.

Another was a black guy in Chicago several years ago. Shot in the back in a parking garage. For a couple of weeks, the Chicago PD explained that he'd been shot fleeing arrest. He was a really ugly dude, long history of violent crimes.
Then, some video turned up on the news. A parking garage staff had actual security cam footage from that night. It clearly shows the guy laying face down and handcuffed. A half dozen cops are surrounding him with weapons drawn. One just pulls his trigger and shoots the guy. Shit really hit the fan. The shooter got serious prison time, the other cops got some time for obstruction of justice, I think the Chief of Police had to resign.
All very well deserved, IMHO.

Yeah. I really can. That's just the first two I thought of.
Tom

#### Elixir

Thanks TC.
So … two in the last twenty-something years that come to mind. I had forgotten about that IL case.
But I bet I could find twenty white guys unjustly shot by cops in the same period or less.
So it’s basically not a problem involving racism whatsoever. It’s just that it’s hard being a cop and people make mistakes.

Only … I’m not a black person but I met one once … not a BLM protester type or anything, but was deeply concerned for his son (coincidentally also black) coming to driving age. Because he had lost track of how many times he had been stopped by cops, and felt lucky to have never been arrested. He must have been a terrible driver; in over 50 years of driving I was stopped maybe a half dozen times. It does seem though, a common thing for minorities. Better drivers ed curricula definitely called for.

#### laughing dog

##### 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?
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.
and it is used to be a "war crime" to not line up in a neat row to face your enemy on an open battlefield and take turns loading and firing smoothbore muskets at each other until one side has no one left standing. Taking cover was "cowardly", too. So.. so much for that.
When one has to reach back over 150 years to prove a point, it is pretty pathetic.

But hey, if you want to justify cowardly behavior, that is your privilege.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Thanks TC.
So … two in the last twenty-something years that come to mind. I had forgotten about that IL case.
But I bet I could find twenty white guys unjustly shot by cops in the same period or less.
So it’s basically not a problem involving racism whatsoever. It’s just that it’s hard being a cop and people make mistakes.

In another thread you referred to an IIDB member as an extremist who doesn't consider themselves to be one.

I see you, and LD among others, as quite the same.
Tom

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Another game we can play is how many times a taser can be fired and how many times it was fired and by whom.

Tasers have two operating modes.

As a ranged weapon most are one-shot, a few can be fired twice. However, all that is fired are wires, the electronics stay in the gun and it continues to function as a stun gun even when "empty". It's not quite as effective in this mode because the current doesn't go as far, but it's still considered incapacitating.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
Another game we can play is how many times a taser can be fired and how many times it was fired and by whom.

Tasers have two operating modes.

As a ranged weapon most are one-shot, a few can be fired twice. However, all that is fired are wires, the electronics stay in the gun and it continues to function as a stun gun even when "empty". It's not quite as effective in this mode because the current doesn't go as far, but it's still considered incapacitating.

All of this will (or should) be considered during the investigation. Like what model taser was it? How much time between discharges. Could the officer retreat and issue commands while relying on his main firearm ( since the taser may have been out of range shots).

All that plays into proving the officer had reason to believe his life was at risk. Whether you or I like it or not.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Derec went silent when I asked, so this is for TomC:
I did not go silent because you asked, but because of time constraints. That's also the reason for the wall of posts that you (at least I think it was you) have bemoaned earlier.

Can you provide an example of a cop shooting a black person that wasn’t either justifiable or excusable?
There have been some. Jordan Edwards, 15, from Texas, comes to mind.

The fact though is that vast majority of police shootings, regardless of race, are justified.
Most have been armed, but unarmed != not a threat, because there have been cases of perps overpowering police officers and taking their guns.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Cite the felony.
From the Michigan Legislature:
Michigan Penal Code said:
750.479 Resisting or obstructing officer in discharge of duty; penalty; definitions.
Sec. 479.

(1) A person shall not knowingly and willfully do any of the following:
(a) Assault, batter, wound, obstruct, or endanger a medical examiner, township treasurer, judge, magistrate, probation officer, parole officer, prosecutor, city attorney, court employee, court officer, or other officer or duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process, rule, or order made or issued by lawful authority or otherwise acting in the performance of his or her duties.
(b) Assault, batter, wound, obstruct, or endanger an officer enforcing an ordinance, law, rule, order, or resolution of the common council of a city board of trustees, the common council or village council of an incorporated village, or a township board of a township.
(2) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (5), a person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. (3) A person who violates this section and by that violation causes a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to an individual described in this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than$5,000.00, or both.
(4) A person who violates this section and by that violation causes serious impairment of a body function of an individual described in this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (5) A person who violates this section and by that violation causes the death of an individual described in this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than$20,000.00, or both.
(6) This section does not prohibit an individual from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law that is committed by that individual while violating this section.
(7) The court may order a term of imprisonment for a violation of this section to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for a violation arising out of the same criminal transaction as the violation of this section.
(8) As used in this section:
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.
(b) "Serious impairment of a body function" means that term as defined in section 58c of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.58c.

It's not difficult to look this stuff up. In addition he had a felony warrant out for domestic violence (to go with his previous domestic violence conviction).

Fought Definition: "take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons. You may want to use a different word.
Would you prefer assault?
The discussion over the semantics of the word "fight" is largely academic.

Sure, when the officer doesn't do his job correctly it's a reliable way to become dead. Lyoya picked resisting arrest. I didn't use the word
Lyoya repeatedly made bad choices. Choices perhaps not reliable to cause his own death, but certainly to make it many orders of magnitude more likely than if he had complied with the traffic stop and the arrest.

Yes, it is incredibly stupid to resist arrest guilty of a crime or not.
We can agree on that.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
In 1918 and again in 1945, the UK was awash with guns and ammo of all kinds.
1918 and 1945 means these were held by returning soldiers. Not exactly analogous.

The police never needed to be routinely armed.
US police definitely do need to be routinely armed, given the large number of guns in civilian hands and especially in hands of criminals.

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.

To impose restrictions on guns severe enough so that it would be feasible for US police to not be routinely armed, you would need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

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

The "disarm the police" digression is fruitless. It is never going to happen, even if you were to convince us here that it would be feasible, which it isn't.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Re-read what you just wrote, without the assumption that cops must be armed, and see how little sense it makes without that assumption.
In the US it is a necessary assumption.
Lyoya did not decide to wrestle with a UK bobby. He wrestled an armed US cop.
Maybe he got lost.

Armed police are not a fundamental axiom. You can have police who are not armed.
Who said that it was an axiom?
However, it is the reality in the US and almost every other country.

UK et al are an anomaly here, not the US. And even in the UK it does not apply everywhere.

#### Gospel

##### Unify Africa
It's not difficult to look this stuff up. In addition he had a felony warrant out for domestic violence (to go with his previous domestic violence conviction).

Thanks! now that we've cited the felony, what is the legal response to said felony? Hint: It's not shooting the person in the back of the head.