+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Response to the killing of George Floyd (/thread-900334.html)
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Rice93 - 06-28-2020 12:13 AM
(06-27-2020 06:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-25-2020 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-24-2020 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: That seems to be the move from what other police officers are saying. He had a Taser which (wording carefully here to not make the 2Aers freak out on me) has a limited amount of rounds? Two rounds? Which may have already been spent?
Couple of points ---
are you aware that the unexempted use of a taser under Ga law is assault with a deadly weapon?
Using any deadly weapon, the question of any number of rounds or charges is immaterial. Think of this -- lets say he wrassled a 2 shot 44 magnum from the cop. Also assume that the cop is not entirely aware of how many shots have been expended. I would hope that in any world, the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed, and that the number of rounds in the chamber is decidedly not part of the calculus when that weapon is being pointed.
In my world (having done a defensive shooting course for the first time in the early 90s), the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed at you is the trigger --- not uncertainty of whether 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, or 15 have been previously fired.
From the law enforcement people I know, that is still the same analysis.
Rule 1: (the Michael Brown rule, mind you) never wrassle a policeman.
Rule 1a: never make an attempt to grab an officer's weapon.
Rule 2: never point a dangerous weapon at another.
Rule 2a: never point a dangerous weapon at a cop, in particular.
Rule 3: never use a weapon of any sort at or on a cop.
Seems like all of the above were broken here.
Quote:It is another questionable (I think we can agree on that?) police decision
Only if somehow you find a way around the 5 maxims above. Somehow you do?
Which of the 5 above do you find questionable?
I am still curious why the Atlanta shooting is 'questionable' given the points above?
I said "questionable" based on hearing and reading what police officers and legal experts had to say about this case. I certainly didn't say "outrageous" or "clearly unjust". I'm not an expert here and I noted in my first posts on this shooting that the shooting victim didn't behave well. I also noted that this police shooting likely wouldn't have made waves months ago (should be read as I didn't think this was especially egregious as far as I could tell).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/17/rayshard-brooks-video-legal-experts-analyze-key-moments-shooting/3202332001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/14/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-killing-lawful-but-awful/3189478001/
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-28-2020 07:55 AM
(06-28-2020 12:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:(06-27-2020 06:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-25-2020 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-24-2020 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: That seems to be the move from what other police officers are saying. He had a Taser which (wording carefully here to not make the 2Aers freak out on me) has a limited amount of rounds? Two rounds? Which may have already been spent?
Couple of points ---
are you aware that the unexempted use of a taser under Ga law is assault with a deadly weapon?
Using any deadly weapon, the question of any number of rounds or charges is immaterial. Think of this -- lets say he wrassled a 2 shot 44 magnum from the cop. Also assume that the cop is not entirely aware of how many shots have been expended. I would hope that in any world, the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed, and that the number of rounds in the chamber is decidedly not part of the calculus when that weapon is being pointed.
In my world (having done a defensive shooting course for the first time in the early 90s), the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed at you is the trigger --- not uncertainty of whether 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, or 15 have been previously fired.
From the law enforcement people I know, that is still the same analysis.
Rule 1: (the Michael Brown rule, mind you) never wrassle a policeman.
Rule 1a: never make an attempt to grab an officer's weapon.
Rule 2: never point a dangerous weapon at another.
Rule 2a: never point a dangerous weapon at a cop, in particular.
Rule 3: never use a weapon of any sort at or on a cop.
Seems like all of the above were broken here.
Quote:It is another questionable (I think we can agree on that?) police decision
Only if somehow you find a way around the 5 maxims above. Somehow you do?
Which of the 5 above do you find questionable?
I am still curious why the Atlanta shooting is 'questionable' given the points above?
I said "questionable" based on hearing and reading what police officers and legal experts had to say about this case. I certainly didn't say "outrageous" or "clearly unjust". I'm not an expert here and I noted in my first posts on this shooting that the shooting victim didn't behave well. I also noted that this police shooting likely wouldn't have made waves months ago (should be read as I didn't think this was especially egregious as far as I could tell).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/17/rayshard-brooks-video-legal-experts-analyze-key-moments-shooting/3202332001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/14/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-killing-lawful-but-awful/3189478001/
The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? In what instances should they not be enforced?
Remember, there is a whole herd of voices that state that 'how dare George Floyd was even approached for the mere issue of passing counterfeit money.'
What guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 08:42 AM
(06-28-2020 07:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:(06-27-2020 06:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-25-2020 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-24-2020 12:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: That seems to be the move from what other police officers are saying. He had a Taser which (wording carefully here to not make the 2Aers freak out on me) has a limited amount of rounds? Two rounds? Which may have already been spent?
Couple of points ---
are you aware that the unexempted use of a taser under Ga law is assault with a deadly weapon?
Using any deadly weapon, the question of any number of rounds or charges is immaterial. Think of this -- lets say he wrassled a 2 shot 44 magnum from the cop. Also assume that the cop is not entirely aware of how many shots have been expended. I would hope that in any world, the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed, and that the number of rounds in the chamber is decidedly not part of the calculus when that weapon is being pointed.
In my world (having done a defensive shooting course for the first time in the early 90s), the mere fact that a deadly weapon is being pointed at you is the trigger --- not uncertainty of whether 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, or 15 have been previously fired.
From the law enforcement people I know, that is still the same analysis.
Rule 1: (the Michael Brown rule, mind you) never wrassle a policeman.
Rule 1a: never make an attempt to grab an officer's weapon.
Rule 2: never point a dangerous weapon at another.
Rule 2a: never point a dangerous weapon at a cop, in particular.
Rule 3: never use a weapon of any sort at or on a cop.
Seems like all of the above were broken here.
Quote:It is another questionable (I think we can agree on that?) police decision
Only if somehow you find a way around the 5 maxims above. Somehow you do?
Which of the 5 above do you find questionable?
I am still curious why the Atlanta shooting is 'questionable' given the points above?
I said "questionable" based on hearing and reading what police officers and legal experts had to say about this case. I certainly didn't say "outrageous" or "clearly unjust". I'm not an expert here and I noted in my first posts on this shooting that the shooting victim didn't behave well. I also noted that this police shooting likely wouldn't have made waves months ago (should be read as I didn't think this was especially egregious as far as I could tell).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/17/rayshard-brooks-video-legal-experts-analyze-key-moments-shooting/3202332001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/14/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-police-killing-lawful-but-awful/3189478001/
The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? And what guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
Well, the vandalism laws for one. The trespassing laws for another. The assault laws too.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 08:44 AM
(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-28-2020 10:34 AM
(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 10:37 AM
(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
One thing coming clear from interviews with rioters/looters/vandals/protesters - they feel entitled to their behavior, regardless of the extremity or legality of it.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-28-2020 10:41 AM
(06-28-2020 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
One thing coming clear from interviews with rioters/looters/vandals/protesters - they feel entitled to their behavior, regardless of the extremity or legality of it.
Where else have we heard 'the end justifies the means'? That ethos is at the root of the 'Living Constitution' and 'Living Law' theory of judicial interpretation.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 10:46 AM
(06-28-2020 10:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
One thing coming clear from interviews with rioters/looters/vandals/protesters - they feel entitled to their behavior, regardless of the extremity or legality of it.
Where else have we heard 'the end justifies the means'? That ethos is at the root of the 'Living Constitution' and 'Living Law' theory of judicial interpretation.
I need one of the leftists to explain to me how electing Biden will make this better.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 11:23 AM
(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
The Brownshirt equivalence seems apropos.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - georgewebb - 06-28-2020 03:16 PM
(06-28-2020 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
The Brownshirt equivalence seems apropos.
Perhaps the reporter brought it on itself by smirking. Remember when smirking was a crime? Such innocent days...
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-28-2020 06:06 PM
(06-28-2020 03:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:(06-28-2020 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(06-28-2020 08:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(06-28-2020 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Did y'all catch the video of the 'protesters' assaulting the OANN anchor last night?you cannot call them protesters if they are committing crimes. You must refer to them as a tiny minority of extremists.
Kind of fun to watch the shitbird Maoist wannabes strutting their stuff in the streets.
But yeah, post a link.
https://thepostmillennial.com/journalist-jack-posobiec-assaulted-by-antifa-in-front-of-emancipation-memorial
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec
The twitter account has within it about 12 different videos in it, detailing the length and the extent of the incident.
Once again it is the shitbird leftist brownshirts strutting their stuff.
The Brownshirt equivalence seems apropos.
Perhaps the reporter brought it on itself by smirking. Remember when smirking was a crime? Such innocent days...
I wonder if Sandaman was smirking when the CNN suit settled.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-28-2020 06:12 PM
I am still pondering hearing any responses to the 'Atlanta shooting is questionable (I assume to everyone)' issue.
All I seem to get is dead silence, and a whole bunch of 'pointing to someone else and a statement that that is what they said, and I have no ability to make a judgement for my own little lonesome.'
It wasnt too long ago that the charge of 'parroting a stance' was made by some.
I guess that because 'someone else' said it is questionable that is the end all be all from that perspective.
Kind of falls in with the discussion on 'systemic racism' it seems. Sure appears to be a lot of 'parroted positions' with zero follow through on deeper dives. Imagine that.
Sure seems to be a lot of front loaded assertions that go silent when prompted on a deeper dive.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-28-2020 07:20 PM
I think sometimes certain people think "questionable = wrong.
I certainly have some questions about it. But that doesn't the shooting was wrong, nor does it mean it was right. It means questions should be addressed.
But I have no question about the crux of the matter: he was not not shot because he was black. There was no police racial bias, no brutality.
All too often, it seems that incidents either make the news or don't make the news based solely on the race of the civilian. I just read yesterday of a police call that ended with two dead. I presume they were both white, or it would be all over the MSM. But the silence does lend itself to the impression so many have that only black people get shot by police. Because all the police, in every town, coast to coast, are racist.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-29-2020 10:16 AM
(06-28-2020 07:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? In what instances should they not be enforced?
Remember, there is a whole herd of voices that state that 'how dare George Floyd was even approached for the mere issue of passing counterfeit money.'
What guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
This is why I suggest more unarmed/lesser armed police for these offenses not tied to violence. If it's simply informing someone of their crime like a traffic ticket, that's clear. If it's trying to arrest someone but not for a violent crime, maybe you have non-lethal support. That way we don't have to just let such crimes walk, yet we also don't have to have every cop armed to the teeth with a dozen decisions to have to make while running and with adrenaline pumping.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Owl 69/70/75 - 06-29-2020 10:37 AM
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-28-2020 07:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.This is why I suggest more unarmed/lesser armed police for these offenses not tied to violence. If it's simply informing someone of their crime like a traffic ticket, that's clear. If it's trying to arrest someone but not for a violent crime, maybe you have non-lethal support. That way we don't have to just let such crimes walk, yet we also don't have to have every cop armed to the teeth with a dozen decisions to have to make while running and with adrenaline pumping.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? In what instances should they not be enforced?
Remember, there is a whole herd of voices that state that 'how dare George Floyd was even approached for the mere issue of passing counterfeit money.'
What guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
The problem with that is how do you know what situations may require a violent response by police? You send an unarmed/lesser-armed officer to serve a warrant for hot checks, and the accused decides to start shooting, what then? The problem I see is that it is really hard to identify situations that do not have the potential to escalate, particularly when a large segment of the population is trained to resist rather than comply with police. And once a situation escalates, there usually isn't time to call in armed backup.
It's a great idea conceptually, but I think it has some serious practical implication issues.
I still like the idea of speed and traffic cameras (your phase 1 IIRC) because far too many of our violent endings, and in particular far too many of our dead officers, result from simple traffic stops. Take that piece out of the equation, and I think the numbers get a lot better on both sides.
But I'm just not sure your phase 2 works as a practical matter.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 06-29-2020 10:50 AM
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-28-2020 07:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? In what instances should they not be enforced?
Remember, there is a whole herd of voices that state that 'how dare George Floyd was even approached for the mere issue of passing counterfeit money.'
What guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
This is why I suggest more unarmed/lesser armed police for these offenses not tied to violence. If it's simply informing someone of their crime like a traffic ticket, that's clear. If it's trying to arrest someone but not for a violent crime, maybe you have non-lethal support.
The cops in Atlanta actually were "trying to arrest someone but not for a violent crime". The perp decided (perhaps in a drunken state) to literally take down an officer in the process *of* arresting him.
How would disarming the situation help?
No offense, but *any* arrest (or any stop, for that matter) has the potential of a violent attack directed at an officer. Think Michael Brown, who hadnt even been arrested or detained.
Quote:That way we don't have to just let such crimes walk, yet we also don't have to have every cop armed to the teeth with a dozen decisions to have to make while running and with adrenaline pumping.
I dont see how you can 'arrest', 'stop', *or* 'detain' anyone as law enforcement in an unarmed manner. That is, unless you you put people out there who are either somewhat suicidal in nature and dont care about the possibility of death or violent assault from a detainee, or who are so monumentally short in grey matter than that possibility doesnt register.
While very long sighted (and I agree with it in principle), I just dont see that being a viable position. I dont think any LE at the proverbial 'tip of the spear' should be denied the ability to protect themselves. Nor do I think that any of such LE would willingly do the job of 'safe stops' without such protection -- because in reality in those situations there truly is no 'safe stop', no 'safe detaining', nor any such 'safe arrest' situation.
While the focus is always on the end result of the 'stop' or 'arrest' in a fatal outcome (Michael Brown, George Floyd, Atlanta), in each and every instance the individual that escalated the stop or arrest was the deceased. Each and every one of them.
This is *not* saying the end result of a dead body is justified, nor a 'good thing', nor anything less than a tragic event. But the initiator of escalation in every one of the above was the detained.
And *that* in and of itself in the major drawback to the disarming of any law enforcement, of any sort, whom are empowered to stop, detain, or arrest.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 06-29-2020 10:56 AM
(06-29-2020 10:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:(06-28-2020 07:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: The articles (especially the first one) note that the biggest 'question' was the decision to not simply let a drunk driver walk. I dont find that especially questionable.
If this is 'questionable', then what other laws being broken should we simply ignore? In what instances should they not be enforced?
Remember, there is a whole herd of voices that state that 'how dare George Floyd was even approached for the mere issue of passing counterfeit money.'
What guidance must the police observe on whether to enforce the law or not?
This is why I suggest more unarmed/lesser armed police for these offenses not tied to violence. If it's simply informing someone of their crime like a traffic ticket, that's clear. If it's trying to arrest someone but not for a violent crime, maybe you have non-lethal support. That way we don't have to just let such crimes walk, yet we also don't have to have every cop armed to the teeth with a dozen decisions to have to make while running and with adrenaline pumping.
I think you are putting some unarmed people n harm's way. If these lesser police stop somebody for a minor traffic violation but discover they are wanted for __________, what do they do? Politely ask the subject to wait around until higher levels of police can get there?
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-29-2020 12:17 PM
Guys... We have a case-study in the UK. How do they do it?
I really don't see how a cop being ambushed makes much difference if he is armed or not... unless we're suggesting that they come guns drawn to every stop.
Here is an article from 2017 suggesting that 90% of UK police only have things like Mace or 'perhaps' a stun gun.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551
That's why I don't think too much about the details because we have a case-study. Do what works, fix what doesn't... best practices 'safe' six-sigma review
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 06-29-2020 12:22 PM
(06-29-2020 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think you are putting some unarmed people n harm's way. If these lesser police stop somebody for a minor traffic violation but discover they are wanted for __________, what do they do? Politely ask the subject to wait around until higher levels of police can get there?
In order for this to happen, you'd have to have Joe Felon driving John Notfelon's car and committing a traffic violation.
No. You give him the ticket or maybe you decide not to and perhaps you then track him using traffic cameras or other local armed police or even some means of actually 'tagging' the car, since you now have probable cause... and have him stopped later or at home.... now knowing that Joe Felon sometimes drives John Notfelon's car.
This shouldn't be 1980 where it takes minutes to get back a report by license plate. They should be able to get it electronically within moments of deciding they witnessed a moving violation
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - RiceLad15 - 06-29-2020 01:30 PM
(06-29-2020 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: Guys... We have a case-study in the UK. How do they do it?
I really don't see how a cop being ambushed makes much difference if he is armed or not... unless we're suggesting that they come guns drawn to every stop.
Here is an article from 2017 suggesting that 90% of UK police only have things like Mace or 'perhaps' a stun gun.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551
That's why I don't think too much about the details because we have a case-study. Do what works, fix what doesn't... best practices 'safe' six-sigma review
Owl#s is about to come in and tell you how we can’t compare practices in the UK and Australia for some reasons I can’t quite remember. But it’s gonna happen.
Welcome to the club of being on the end of people on the parliament telling you how problems are not solvable in any way, shape, or form.