No thread on Patrick Lyoya?

[bilby]

<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.

 

[bilby]

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.

And resisting arrest isn't a capital crime.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[bilby]

Another nonsensical sentence. There is no way to guarantee that a perp who attacks a cop will not be able to overpower him or her and take their weapon.

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.

And if the officer isn't armed he can lose the physical fight and be killed.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Derec]

Why not?

Because many bad guys have guns themselves. Duh!

It works elsewhere.

It works where guns are heavily regulated and gun crime is very uncommon. Neither applies to US.

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

There is nothing mythical here. Just the reality of guns being plentiful and gun crime relatively common.

 

[Derec]

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.
We do not deliberately expose firefighters to undue risk just to give fire a fighting chance.

 

[Derec]

Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.

Why should the police officer have to back away and let the bad guy get away?

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.

Potato - potahto. Upshot is, do not fight with police. Do not go for their weapons.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[Derec]

Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and

Nobody asks for ass-kissing, not from white or black suspects.

2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

Nanosecond? This went on for minutes.
And again, there is zero evidence race played any role at all.

 

[Derec]

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

It definitely is unreasonable. Chances of getting shot by police are low enough (regardless of race) and become very low when looking at unjustified police killings. And the chance that a police officer might want to outright murder you is infinitesimal.
Even given that, by population, black people are somewhat more likely to be killed by police, an e.g. 2x increase of a very small chance is still a very small chance.

And resisting arrest isn't a capital crime.

Category error. "Capital crime" refers to judicial punishments. This is about use of lethal force against a threat in the field. A capital crime is not required for lethal force to be justified. Conversely, even if a capital crime is committed, lethal force may not be justified. If you murder somebody with malice aforethought and then peacefully surrender to police, they have no grounds for using lethal force, even if your crime is death penalty eligible.

 

[Derec]

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

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

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

He had previous DUIs too. He was a danger to everyone on the road driving like this. Playball (and others), do you still think Schurr was wrong for even pulling over this rolling menace to society?

 

[Elixir]

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.

Derec can bloviate you to death on this and most other subjects.
Unarmed (with guns) police successfully mitigate crime in other countries, but other countries don’t feature decades of government control by the NRA, resulting in the whole country being awash in 1.2 firearms per person.
Derec can thank his conservatard peers for this situation. It’s a shame that he sees the “solution” as killing people because they probably pose a lethal threat, rather than getting rid of (or effectively regulating) guns.
But that’s how it’s going to be, because we (esp whites) would rather have cowboy justice administered at will by macho morons, than try to deal with our societal ills. Kinda like how an unattractive appearance doesn’t preclude unpaid sex. Something else does. But why worry about that, when you can just purchase it?

 

[ZiprHead]

Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.

Why should the police officer have to back away and let the bad guy get away?

Because it's better than shooting the person in the back of his head. Duh...

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[laughing dog]

Dude, e you understand that
1)if a black suspect fails to automatically kiss the arresting officer's ass, they are resisting arrest, and

Nobody asks for ass-kissing, not from white or black suspects.

Literal interpretations of figurative language is a pretty obtuse rebuttal.

2) if a black suspect does not submit to an officer's command within a nanosecond, they are fighting,

Nanosecond? This went on for minutes.
And again, there is zero evidence race played any role at all.

My observations were clearly about police idolators, not the incident.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

We do not deliberately expose firefighters to undue risk just to give fire a fighting chance.

Once you consider fire is not a human being, which makes your comparison rather silly,

 

[Elixir]

Once you consider fire is not a human being, which makes your comparison rather silly,

I wonder if Derec could name a single black person who was killed by a cop, and it was the cop's fault.
EVER.
I doubt it.
As far as I can tell, he just wishes they'd kill more of 'em.
And no, Derec, I am not "attacking you", just tellin' like it is as far as how it appears to me.
You can go right ahead and state that I'm wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Toni]

Schurr could have just backed away to stop the attack.

Why should the police officer have to back away and let the bad guy get away?

And trying to defend yourself, even though it's illegal, is in no way an attack.

Potato - potahto. Upshot is, do not fight with police. Do not go for their weapons.

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.

 

[Elixir]

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.