Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 0 seconds ago
Once a person is in restraints (handcuffed) whether it is police training/practice or not. There should be no need to still be on top of them neck or otherwise imo.

Drugs don’t help and ultimately cause a lot of risk to peoples’ health let alone circumstances such as these that will only get the heart racing further.

But if we take Floyd for example, once he’s cuffed that’s pretty much that. He’s surrounded by armed cops, what’s he going to do? Get up and Rambo style take their weapons off them and kill them? Even I don’t believe that and I acknowledge the incredible risk officers take in their duty (especially in the US).

We’ve seen what little effect tasers can have and even shooting can have little effect on suspects but once cuffed, it’s game over for the suspect 99.99999% of the time and there’s no need for kneeling type practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in a one vs one situation is it only acceptable. But I think that is rare also.

comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 seconds ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkcaldy, where coincidentally our local MP had resigned from his party (who previously suspended him for anti semitism) to join Alex Salmond’s creepy party 😒. This may also be impacting my mood this morning!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaah the kingdom of Fife
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neale Hanvey, as mediocre a politician as you could find. Could tie him in verbal knots in my sleep. He’ll not do the right thing and trigger a bi-election though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you could do likewise with Kenny Mac too mate.

Locally, unionist politicians are fairly poor and have been for ages...SF have some shockers too

Can't think of many Labour or Tory figures she deserve respect either.

There are few inspirational figures in modern politics and talking about America highlights this case.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 19 seconds ago
Cops can't shoot people in the back running away? Nonsense. It depends on what the criminal has done or is accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the details of the situation. If they’re unarmed then I’d say no. If they’re armed then I’d say it’s more justifiable, still extremely complicated.

comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Son of the Soil (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 7 minutes ago

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 4 minutes ago
C'mon man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Biden admin and MSM are not sending or allowing cameras in????
=====
Soon you won't be able to record the police in the UK, leave alone a border immigration camp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this one of the implications of the new legislation going through parliament? I find peoples woeful understanding in general of public photography laws to be such that most would think this was already the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True.

In a job centre, the public were not allowed to photgrapgh us, the staff at work, or in my case eating sausage rolls and drinking coffee.

Taking pics of cops might be dodgy, especially in NI, if you think about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s interesting it’s one of those things where I come down very much on the side of individual liberties. If someone is out in public filming and they can see you guys working through a window or such, that is absolutely fine with me. Someone with a camera to me is the same as someone’s eyes.

Not far from where I live a black man was killed by police where some of the assault on him was caught on film. It is this film that has helped lead to the public inquiry into his death.

I agree that someone filming police could be carrying out surveillance, but similarly someone just standing without a camera, or driving or walking or riding past, could be doing the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.

What reason did police give for killing the man?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally know ex-Met cops who were openly racist and viewed many young black males as criminals and suspicious.

Living in South London, I found this not to be the case and the local white guys were often more, dodgy or "moody". Lol


If that is the proppa rabbit?

Ffs am a phanny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they perceived he was a threat and was required to be restrained as was on drugs and uncooperative. It was the nature of the restraint which lead to the asphyxiation and ultimately his death.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Awful, if a man or woman says I can't breathe, believe them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell no.

I've put the guy in handcuffs, he's on his belly on the floor with two other cops holding him down.

When he says I can't breathe it obviously a ploy so he can try to escape.

I'm not falling for that and my knee stays where it is, on his neck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That.. and shooting guys in the back running away is not good, but cameras have opened our eyes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine shooting a man running way from you in the back and then facing no repercussions or consequences for that.

In this day and age.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should not happen

I cannot think of a scenario where it is ok...terror suicide bomb vest perhaps, or if the guy is running to stab or shoot someone.

Not just making a run for it.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 19 seconds ago
Cops can't shoot people in the back running away? Nonsense. It depends on what the criminal has done or is accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the details of the situation. If they’re unarmed then I’d say no. If they’re armed then I’d say it’s more justifiable, still extremely complicated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.

Threat to life Must be imminent, via terror bomb attack or knife-gun visible attack about to happen?

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 3 minutes ago
Cops can't shoot people in the back running away? Nonsense. It depends on what the criminal has done or is accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. If you are said to have a bomb in your car then police will shoot you if you make a run for it.

However, I think it's pretty obvious the scenarios being referred to here are not of that nature.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 19 seconds ago
Cops can't shoot people in the back running away? Nonsense. It depends on what the criminal has done or is accused of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the details of the situation. If they’re unarmed then I’d say no. If they’re armed then I’d say it’s more justifiable, still extremely complicated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. That is why a blanket statement or law doesn't work. The situation dictates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, it would be a case of incidents judged on individual circumstances.

TBAB said shooting someone in the back. He didn't need to explain that it's not a blanket comment surely? Isn't that obvious?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Also, as harsh as this may sound these days and it applies more so to the US but clearly happens in the UK too, we’re talking about people who are not complying with the police.

If a bouncer wants to kick you out of a club and you tell him to fk off, you can expect to be lamped on the chin. Whether that is legal or not doesn’t change that it is likely to happen.
If you’re carrying a knife or gun, waving it around like a lunatic and refuse to follow police orders (in the US more so) then you can expect to be shot to pieces.

We cannot absolve the individuals of all responsibility.

Like that silly woman who shot at the cop after a completely normal and polite police stop. She just lost the plot, didn’t comply, went into her car, got her gun and shot the officer. Now her family have lost her.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 9 seconds ago
Whether armed or not, serial or serious violent offenders that bolt should have a target on their back. Simply because if the run and get away, they will inflict more violence on others.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Cop with gun in hand will now make the decision or what? We already have enough cases of mistaken identity.

Would you rather a violent criminal gets away or an innocent father/mother/ son/daughter/cousin/uncle/aunt killed for no reason?

I'd let many violent offenders escape before I kill even one innocent personally.

More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago

Also, as harsh as this may sound these days and it applies more so to the US but clearly happens in the UK too, we’re talking about people who are not complying with the police.

If a bouncer wants to kick you out of a club and you tell him to fk off, you can expect to be lamped on the chin. Whether that is legal or not doesn’t change that it is likely to happen.
-----
You can't compare police to these scenarios. Completely different levels of responsibility. Comparing a bouncer evicting a reveller from a private place to police shooting people is a bit daft.

I could indulge you though. What if the bouncer pulls out a gun and shoots the reveller? Would that be ok because they weren't complying with the bouncer?

comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless armed is all I would add.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Depends if that violent criminal that got away broke into my house a murdered my family.
----+
He's innocent of that until proven guilty. Some guys run away because they have a stick of weed in their pocket. A huge majority of arrests are not violent offenders and shooting people in the back is just insane.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that we are dealing with a mountain of scenarios. A positive ID on a serial rapist? Gun him down if he flees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats not the polices job though and never should be, even if they do deserve it

comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.

Also, the violent behaviour is allegedly at the point of arrest, not proven fact.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that we are dealing with a mountain of scenarios. A positive ID on a serial rapist? Gun him down if he flees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reference what kloppinson mentioned above we have due process.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
More broadly the only scenario where deadly force should be used if there is an immediate and credible threat to innocent life. So yes a suicide vest wearing terrorist would meet that criteria, a criminal (even a violent one) fleeing the scene wouldn’t IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that we are dealing with a mountain of scenarios. A positive ID on a serial rapist? Gun him down if he flees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats not the polices job though and never should be, even if they do deserve it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be a dangerous approach that would lead to deaths of innocents or petty criminals on a regular basis.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator