Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[PACOX]

I'm not liking this Atlanta incident. I feel like it's being orchestrated to discredit the movement. To make it look like it's all about anarchy.

The police to stop killing people. Police need to be more about descalation besides neutralizing the 'threat' ASAP by any means (heavy handed and with a gun).

From the videos I've seen the cops could have done things differently but nothing was overly offensive. This wasn't a case where a cop got mad at someone being combative so they shot him. The gentleman was appeared to demonstrably under the influence of something. He the scuffle with the police, fine. He then manages to get one of their tasers and runs off with it. You now have a dangerous situation. It's not the fact that he had a taser, it's the summation of everything leading up to that point that makes it a very dangerous situation. Being under the influence, combative, taking a weapon from LEO. Hindsight, he just had a taser, in the moment he is now a potentially threat to life and limb. If he is willing to take the taser you do not know what he might do next.

I don't trust that the powers that be are taking a heavy handed approach in the name of justice. They want say, "See we released the tapes. Fired the officer, and people still aren't happy.".

[Cosmic Janitor]

I'm not liking this Atlanta incident. I feel like it's being orchestrated to discredit the movement. To make it look like it's all about anarchy.

The police to stop killing people. Police need to be more about descalation besides neutralizing the 'threat' ASAP by any means (heavy handed and with a gun).

From the videos I've seen the cops could have done things differently but nothing was overly offensive. This wasn't a case where a cop got mad at someone being combative so they shot him. The gentleman was appeared to demonstrably under the influence of something. He the scuffle with the police, fine. He then manages to get one of their tasers and runs off with it. You now have a dangerous situation. It's not the fact that he had a taser, it's the summation of everything leading up to that point that makes it a very dangerous situation. Being under the influence, combative, taking a weapon from LEO. Hindsight, he just had a taser, in the moment he is now a potentially threat to life and limb. If he is willing to take the taser you do not know what he might do next.

I don't trust that the powers that be are taking a heavy handed approach in the name of justice. They want say, "See we released the tapes. Fired the officer, and people still aren't happy.".

It was still excessive obviously but the sitation is quite different to the one that sparked all this in the first place. Also I agree that blaming this on the shop is helping no one and is a major disservice to the movement for any rational thinking person. What are they supposed to do if a guy under the influence is sleeping in the entrance to your parking lot. An intoxicated driver is a danger, that is actually one of these cases where you are supposed to call the cops.

[Zaydin]

First, I am against no-knock raids and I believe that they should go deeply through what lead them to do the raid because if anything was falsified then they should be charged with a crime and go to jail.

But, to make your statement ignoring that it happened in a gun fight between the cops and her boyfriend (Who did hit one of the cops) seems like a stretch.

It is horrible that she died. If they did anything wrong with the process or identifying themselves, then hold them accountable. But stating the truth "killing an unarmed person asleep in their bed" and leaving out "while in a gun fight with the other person in their bed" twists what happened.

The cops are 100% the criminals here. They did not announce their presence, broke into the wrong apartment and adding the cherry on top of the police misconduct shit sundae, they already had the suspect in custody. Her boyfriend thought someone was breaking in to rob them and Kentucky is a Castle Doctrine state and he had every right to defend himself from what he thought were burglars.

[Kasierith]

#5; Proper response to that should be "Am I being detained officer?" followed by "on what grounds?" if they say yes. Get that shit recorded for the lawsuit. If they're not detaining you, the answer should be "nah, I don't want to. I'm driving away now." Never do shit like this because a cop asks you to. They either have legal grounds to oblige you to (they're detaining you for some reason), or they don't and what they're really asking is for you to give up your rights and freedoms because they really want to arrest you but need an unlawful search to try and find a reason why.

Asking "am I being detained" is not the sweeping indictment and game changer that people purport it to be in youtube videos. The officer doesn't have to give you an answer to this question. They don't have to tell you why if they say that you are being detained.. they are required to produce this answer to the court, not to you. They aren't allowed to directly lie in this particular instance, but can readily muddle the waters. In the case of a traffic stop, because you are operating a motor vehicle in a public spot, based on a very low bar of reasonable suspicion (you looked like you were going fast) the police have the authority to detain you to check license and registration and ask further questions leading potentially to other investigations as a form of temporary detention separate from what you are referring to, the point in the contact with police where what you say should be protected by a lawyer. "Am I being detained" is a much more significant question during actions such as stop and frisk, where the officers don't have such a low bar for reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain you separate from the above mentioned line in the sand.

If a police officer pulls you over for whatever traffic violation, and you ask if you're being detained, most are simply going to tell you this is a traffic stop, and leave it up in the air to continue with the status quo, let you go from the traffic stop which is a special form of limited detainment, or escalate to detaining you in an official capacity. If you try to leave at that moment because they didn't give you the answer you wanted, you are risking the actual legal bar for detainment being present and thus are attempting to leave police custody. Because as above, they are not legally obligated to inform you that you are being detained even if you are, or any specific question asked during a stop.

Also, you aren't going to succeed at suing a police officer for asking you a question after they say no you aren't being detained. All it means is if you respond you can argue before court that you felt you were being detained and compelled to answer without being allowed the appropriate legal representation, and if you leave and they come after you for resisting arrest you can get charges dropped.


Tldr: dealing with the law enforcement isn't as simple as asking a simple question and if it doesn't go exactly the way you want you can pull out a lawsuit. There are multiple factors to consider. The actual definition and ramifications of detainment, the bar of reasonable suspicion, the bar for detainment which is based on reasonable expectations as much as an explicit answer and can vary based on jurisdiction, what exactly the officer is looking to accomplish (escalating to searching a vehicle for drugs is a legally very different outcome than screening with questions). If you come to the United States, don't do something that could potentially escalate an encounter beyond its original premises (by, say, driving off on the officer when they didn't say you were free to go because they said it was a traffic stop) because it's a lawyers job to apply all this to individual cases and know where the lines are.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and just as an addendum.. the stone faced "I do not talk to cops" stance during a traffic stop is legally valid and unassailable by the police... but you are potentially screwing yourself over. A police officer conducting a traffic stop for a violation is authorized for a range of responses, from simply letting you go with or without a verbal warning, to the proverbial kitchen sink with numerous charges from speeding to seatbelt. Officers aren't required to write a set number of tickets. If you actually talk to them like normal beings and give a reasonable explanation for your actions that can explain (I am completely new to this area and the stop sign was hard to see from my small car, i didn't know it was there until i was already within the intersection) you give an avenue for the officer giving a verbal warning. I'm not saying that if you are polite and cooperate you get out of tickets. But I can say that if you do that thing where you refuse to say a single word, and simply put license registration and a note saying "I never talk to cops" through the window to them, be prepared to deal with them exclusively via tickets and legal action.

[Kellhound]

Asking "am I being detained" is not the sweeping indictment and game changer that people purport it to be in youtube videos. The officer doesn't have to give you an answer to this question. They don't have to tell you why if they say that you are being detained.. they are required to produce this answer to the court, not to you. They aren't allowed to directly lie in this particular instance, but can readily muddle the waters. In the case of a traffic stop, because you are operating a motor vehicle in a public spot, based on a very low bar of reasonable suspicion (you looked like you were going fast) the police have the authority to detain you to check license and registration and ask further questions leading potentially to other investigations as a form of temporary detention separate from what you are referring to, the point in the contact with police where what you say should be protected by a lawyer. "Am I being detained" is a much more significant question during actions such as stop and frisk, where the officers don't have such a low bar for reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain you separate from the above mentioned line in the sand.

If a police officer pulls you over for whatever traffic violation, and you ask if you're being detained, most are simply going to tell you this is a traffic stop, and leave it up in the air to continue with the status quo, let you go from the traffic stop which is a special form of limited detainment, or escalate to detaining you in an official capacity. If you try to leave at that moment because they didn't give you the answer you wanted, you are risking the actual legal bar for detainment being present and thus are attempting to leave police custody. Because as above, they are not legally obligated to inform you that you are being detained even if you are, or any specific question asked during a stop.

Also, you aren't going to succeed at suing a police officer for asking you a question after they say no you aren't being detained. All it means is if you respond you can argue before court that you felt you were being detained and compelled to answer without being allowed the appropriate legal representation, and if you leave and they come after you for resisting arrest you can get charges dropped.


Tldr: dealing with the law enforcement isn't as simple as asking a simple question and if it doesn't go exactly the way you want you can pull out a lawsuit. There are multiple factors to consider. The actual definition and ramifications of detainment, the bar of reasonable suspicion, the bar for detainment which is based on reasonable expectations as much as an explicit answer and can vary based on jurisdiction, what exactly the officer is looking to accomplish (escalating to searching a vehicle for drugs is a legally very different outcome than screening with questions). If you come to the United States, don't do something that could potentially escalate an encounter beyond its original premises (by, say, driving off on the officer when they didn't say you were free to go because they said it was a traffic stop) because it's a lawyers job to apply all this to individual cases and know where the lines are.

Actually in Oregon the Police can no longer ask unrelated questions during traffic stops. (See OREGON v ARREOLA-BOTELLO)

[Kasierith]

Actually in Oregon the Police can no longer ask unrelated questions during traffic stops. (See OREGON v ARREOLA-BOTELLO)

Don't believe I ever mentioned that, just pointed out that in general they are not required to provide an answer, but my assumption would be that if they alter course into another area of discussion there must be reasonable suspicion as a basis for that tangent.

Though as with all things in the US, your state may vary. As I indicated above don't take deterministic action that can land you in deeper trouble without a lawyer.

[Not A Cat]

Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less-lethal.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/po...ers-since-2000

You're asking an officer to take a hit, that could possibly kill him.

And no, there wasn't a second officer with taser, that's the officer that had his taser stolen. So if Brooks had successfully tasered the pursuing officer the other officer's only recourse would also have been to shoot him.

The shooting officer had his taser and was attempting to use to subdue Brooks, either because he missed or because Brook's intoxication caused it to fail to affect him. He only drew and fired his gun when Brooks shot the taser at them.

You're right, tasers aren't non-lethal, but I still don't think it justifies having the cop kill this man as he was running away. The other cop may not have had his taser, but he was present. There's no way the officer felt his life was actually in danger, he made a bad call and now a man who shouldn't be dead, is dead.

Clearly the department thought it was a bad call as well since he was fired.

[Kellhound]

Don't believe I ever mentioned that, just pointed out that in general they are not required to provide an answer, but my assumption would be that if they alter course into another area of discussion there must be reasonable suspicion as a basis for that tangent.

Though as with all things in the US, your state may vary. As I indicated above don't take deterministic action that can land you in deeper trouble without a lawyer.

" In the case of a traffic stop, because you are operating a motor vehicle in a public spot, based on a very low bar of reasonable suspicion (you looked like you were going fast) the police have the authority to detain you to check license and registration and ask further questions leading potentially to other investigations as a form of temporary detention separate from what you are referring to, the point in the contact with police where what you say should be protected by a lawyer."

That is what I was replying to. Even questions like "Any drugs or weapons in the car?" "Had anything to drink tonight?" are now a no-no in Oregon, sans reasonable suspicion (like smelling like alcohol or having visible indications a weapon might be present).

- - - Updated - - -

You're right, tasers aren't non-lethal, but I still don't think it justifies having the cop kill this man as he was running away. The other cop may not have had his taser, but he was present. There's no way the officer felt his life was actually in danger, he made a bad call and now a man who shouldn't be dead, is dead.

Clearly the department thought it was a bad call as well since he was fired.

In the current climate, shooting a black male is going to get an officer fired almost all the time, justified or not.

[Endus]

Asking "am I being detained" is not the sweeping indictment and game changer that people purport it to be in youtube videos. The officer doesn't have to give you an answer to this question.

If they don't tell you you're being detained, or place you under arrest, they've issued no lawful order that you have to stick around. You can just leave. That's the point of the question. If they say "no", you say "it's been swell, I'm outie", and you leave. If they say "yes", then you cooperate, but ideally record everything, because they need to demonstrate reasonable grounds for detaining you, and you're recording everything in case they slip up.

It doesn't take a lot for them to have grounds, as you note, but it draws a clear line between "do you have a lawful reason to be bothering me", and "are you hoping I'll slip up and give you that kind of reason".

If a police officer pulls you over for whatever traffic violation, and you ask if you're being detained, most are simply going to tell you this is a traffic stop, and leave it up in the air to continue with the status quo, let you go from the traffic stop which is a special form of limited detainment, or escalate to detaining you in an official capacity. If you try to leave at that moment because they didn't give you the answer you wanted, you are risking the actual legal bar for detainment being present and thus are attempting to leave police custody. Because as above, they are not legally obligated to inform you that you are being detained even if you are, or any specific question asked during a stop.

You can also phrase it as "Am I free to go?" They need a law based on reasonable suspicion to say "no". A traffic stop usually provides such, because they're in the middle of assessing your civil infringement of something like a speed limit.

And again; the purpose is to establish a clear distinction between "lawfully within your powers to stop me and ask questions" and "hassling me because you're hoping I'll give you cause".

Also, you aren't going to succeed at suing a police officer for asking you a question after they say no you aren't being detained.

Never meant to suggest that. Cops can lie their asses off to you about a lot of stuff. And they can ask whatever questions they want, generally; the goal of course is to get you to admit to information they have no legal requirement to oblige you to divulge. "Where were you coming from, tonight?" for instance. The only real point to such a question is to place you as a potential suspect if you're coming from a crime scene. And really, if you WERE the criminal in question, are you gonna tell the truth? It's a bait question and answering it is largely a trap.

Oh, and just as an addendum.. the stone faced "I do not talk to cops" stance during a traffic stop is legally valid and unassailable by the police... but you are potentially screwing yourself over.

It can absolutely get you arrested because you did not clear yourself as a potential suspect of a crime. At which point you should not say a damned thing until your lawyer's present, because nothing you say to the cops will be used in your defense. If they decide they like you for a crime, they can flat-out ignore your clear and definitive alibi with multiple witness confirmations. In which case, you'll have to hope your lawyer can present and detail that in court in a way that offsets whatever the DA is bringing against you. There's a reason the Miranda declaration states that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". Never for you. The police are not on your side, if you're under arrest. They're hoping they can pin the crime on you.

The problem is, only the cops know how the stop is going to play out. You have no control. And no way to gain any control. Information you provide might convince them to let you go, but it's entirely up to the officers, and the actual information really doesn't matter. If they decide they like you for the crime, you won't be able to talk your way out of it, and arguing with the officers is just going to give them information to use against you. This is where issues of privilege come in; I got detained once as a 16-year-old because me and my buddy were fingered by his GFs shithead dad; he claimed we were casing houses and there'd been a rash of smash-and-grabs in the area. Our stories lined up and the truth came out, but pretty much entirely because his GF backed us up; if she hadn't, the two of us would've been arrested. It could've gone really badly. As it was, the cops offered us the opportunity to press charges against the dad (we declined), and we went home. But this was in Nova Scotia, Canada. And we were both white kids. If we'd been a couple black kids in a lot of towns in the USA? Don't think we'd have been given that benefit of the doubt. In which case, us talking to the cops would have been a giant mistake.

Here's a decent vid from years and years ago, from both the perspective of a lawyer/law professor, and a chief of police. Who both agree with the maxim of "never talk to the police";


- - - Updated - - -

You're right, tasers aren't non-lethal, but I still don't think it justifies having the cop kill this man as he was running away. The other cop may not have had his taser, but he was present. There's no way the officer felt his life was actually in danger, he made a bad call and now a man who shouldn't be dead, is dead.

Clearly the department thought it was a bad call as well since he was fired.

The issue with a taser in the Atlanta case is pretty clear-cut, because the cops can't have it both ways. If it's a lethal threat when pointed at the officers, warranting lethal force in response, then it was a lethal force use against their victim in the first place. If it's not a lethal threat and is a non-lethal restraint device, then pointing it at the officers cannot be construed as warranting lethal force in response.

It's kind of like that protestor who was charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for throwing a tear gas canister back at the cops. If it's such, then wasn't it a deadly-force assault on peaceful protestors when the police fired it out of a gun at the crowd? You can't apply double standards like that. It's horseshit.

[Felya]

From the videos I've seen the cops could have done things differently but nothing was overly offensive. This wasn't a case where a cop got mad at someone being combative so they shot him. The gentleman was appeared to demonstrably under the influence of something. He the scuffle with the police, fine. He then manages to get one of their tasers and runs off with it. You now have a dangerous situation. It's not the fact that he had a taser, it's the summation of everything leading up to that point that makes it a very dangerous situation. Being under the influence, combative, taking a weapon from LEO. Hindsight, he just had a taser, in the moment he is now a potentially threat to life and limb. If he is willing to take the taser you do not know what he might do next.

I have a friend, who drove into a drive through, after crashing... got out and peed on the intercom, then went back and fell asleep. Did not get shot to death... never got into a predicament of going from sleep, to killed...

Darren McFadden didn’t get killed... maybe if the cop called for back up, that kid wouldn’t be dead:


Police escalated the issue... police lost their taser... the kid is dead.

[Kasierith]

If they don't tell you you're being detained, or place you under arrest, they've issued no lawful order that you have to stick around. You can just leave. That's the point of the question. If they say "no", you say "it's been swell, I'm outie", and you leave. If they say "yes", then you cooperate, but ideally record everything, because they need to demonstrate reasonable grounds for detaining you, and you're recording everything in case they slip up.

It doesn't take a lot for them to have grounds, as you note, but it draws a clear line between "do you have a lawful reason to be bothering me", and "are you hoping I'll slip up and give you that kind of reason".



You can also phrase it as "Am I free to go?" They need a law based on reasonable suspicion to say "no". A traffic stop usually provides such, because they're in the middle of assessing your civil infringement of something like a speed limit.

And again; the purpose is to establish a clear distinction between "lawfully within your powers to stop me and ask questions" and "hassling me because you're hoping I'll give you cause".



Never meant to suggest that. Cops can lie their asses off to you about a lot of stuff. And they can ask whatever questions they want, generally; the goal of course is to get you to admit to information they have no legal requirement to oblige you to divulge. "Where were you coming from, tonight?" for instance. The only real point to such a question is to place you as a potential suspect if you're coming from a crime scene. And really, if you WERE the criminal in question, are you gonna tell the truth? It's a bait question and answering it is largely a trap.



It can absolutely get you arrested because you did not clear yourself as a potential suspect of a crime. At which point you should not say a damned thing until your lawyer's present, because nothing you say to the cops will be used in your defense. If they decide they like you for a crime, they can flat-out ignore your clear and definitive alibi with multiple witness confirmations. In which case, you'll have to hope your lawyer can present and detail that in court in a way that offsets whatever the DA is bringing against you. There's a reason the Miranda declaration states that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". Never for you. The police are not on your side, if you're under arrest. They're hoping they can pin the crime on you.

The problem is, only the cops know how the stop is going to play out. You have no control. And no way to gain any control. Information you provide might convince them to let you go, but it's entirely up to the officers, and the actual information really doesn't matter. If they decide they like you for the crime, you won't be able to talk your way out of it, and arguing with the officers is just going to give them information to use against you. This is where issues of privilege come in; I got detained once as a 16-year-old because me and my buddy were fingered by his GFs shithead dad; he claimed we were casing houses and there'd been a rash of smash-and-grabs in the area. Our stories lined up and the truth came out, but pretty much entirely because his GF backed us up; if she hadn't, the two of us would've been arrested. It could've gone really badly. As it was, the cops offered us the opportunity to press charges against the dad (we declined), and we went home. But this was in Nova Scotia, Canada. And we were both white kids. If we'd been a couple black kids in a lot of towns in the USA? Don't think we'd have been given that benefit of the doubt. In which case, us talking to the cops would have been a giant mistake.

Here's a decent vid from years and years ago, from both the perspective of a lawyer/law professor, and a chief of police. Who both agree with the maxim of "never talk to the police";


- - - Updated - - -



The issue with a taser in the Atlanta case is pretty clear-cut, because the cops can't have it both ways. If it's a lethal threat when pointed at the officers, warranting lethal force in response, then it was a lethal force use against their victim in the first place. If it's not a lethal threat and is a non-lethal restraint device, then pointing it at the officers cannot be construed as warranting lethal force in response.

It's kind of like that protestor who was charged with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" for throwing a tear gas canister back at the cops. If it's such, then wasn't it a deadly-force assault on peaceful protestors when the police fired it out of a gun at the crowd? You can't apply double standards like that. It's horseshit.

The point of my post is that they don't have to give you an answer. The "are you being detained" is bad legal advice not because it isn't legally sound, not because it isn't applicable or usable, but because lawyers like in your video overstate its usefulness, and because lay people then expand out even further beyond that.

What would you do if the officer asks what you're up to this evening, you ask your question, and they respond with license and registration? Continue pushing for the question? Comply? Resist? This particular legal take pretty much sets up a strawman for how the police officer will react, because it overlooks the fact that legally, with the caveat of individual states may vary, they do not have to answer to you. They answer to the judge and the court.

Like mentioned above, the best use of it is for stop and frisk. Forcing the situation right off the bat, do you have reasonable suspicion of something to talk to me right now. If not, have a nice day. The same does not apply with traffic stops, where the mere fact that you are stopped means you are under a form of temporary detainment and there are certain police actions permissible accordingly without them needing to confirm anything.

[Aurrora]

You're right, tasers aren't non-lethal, but I still don't think it justifies having the cop kill this man as he was running away. The other cop may not have had his taser, but he was present. There's no way the officer felt his life was actually in danger, he made a bad call and now a man who shouldn't be dead, is dead.

Do you hear yourself? Tasers can kill but he should have still allowed himself to be tasered. You're armchair quarterbacking a situation that went from peaceful to the suspect being armed in less than 15 seconds, and lethal force wasn't used until he attacked officers with a weapon.

His partner was present and then what? He would have shot him instead? He had already physically overpowered the both of them so what could he do without his taser and an incapacitated partner?

Clearly the department thought it was a bad call as well since he was fired.

His firing was political, you'll notice the mayor called for his firing, his police chief resigned, and then he was fired.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a friend, who drove into a drive through, after crashing... got out and peed on the intercom, then went back and fell asleep. Did not get shot to death... never got into a predicament of going from sleep, to killed...

Well, guess your friend had enough sense not to steal an officers weapon and try to shoot him with it. Kinda strange how that works.

Police escalated the issue... police lost their taser... the kid is dead.

Are you seriously suggesting that police attempting to put handcuffs on someone after they spent 20 minutes doing a sobriety test is an escalation?

[Felya]

Well, guess your friend had enough sense not to steal an officers weapon and try to shoot him with it. Kinda strange how that works.

Really? Sense of a guy that peed on the intercom? No... the cops were competent... same as the video...

Are you seriously suggesting that police attempting to put handcuffs on someone after they spent 20 minutes doing a sobriety test is an escalation?

No... I’m showing you what competent cops do...

Edit: competent cops don’t put them selfs in a position to get their gear stolen. Competent cops should call for back up, because they know drunk people, are not the most rational. The kid got killed by a cop, who escalated a situation beyond his control.

[Aurrora]

No... I’m showing you what competent cops do...

Different situation, this is someone unconscious in a car in gear, not someone armed and resisting arrest. It's like you're completely ignorant of the situation you're attempting to speak of. Watch the body cam footage.

[luc54]

People shared the link but it's worth watching what happened. They give weird, confusing instructions - can't even clearly communicate with their fellow officers - and shoot the clearly compliant victim for trying to obey in a slightly incorrect way.

Worst part is this piece of shit cop gets acquitted of the murder and later on this happens:

In August 2018, Brailsford was reinstated by the Mesa Police Department, staying for a further 42 days in what the department described as a "budget position". The department agreed to reimburse Brailsford for medical expenses related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Brailsford's lawyer has said that Brailsford suffered PTSD due to his shooting of Shaver and the resultant criminal trial. The reinstatement allowed Brailsford to apply for "accidental disability" suffered during the course of work. As a result, Brailsford was unanimously approved to be retired on medical grounds. Brailsford was also given a pension of $2,500 per month. The fact that Brailsford was ultimately medically retired instead of remaining fired was only revealed to the public in July 2019.[4][5][36] According to a pay stub attached to Brailsford's bankruptcy file, he has been working for a steel company in Glendale, Arizona.[37

Gotta give benefits to murderers.

[Felya]

Different situation, this is someone unconscious in a car in gear, not someone armed and resisting arrest. It's like you're completely ignorant of the situation you're attempting to speak of. Watch the body cam footage.

He wasn’t armed and he wouldn’t have been resisting arrest, if the cop called for back up, because drunk people be crazy. Darren McFadden is a god damn living weapon... yet... those two cops didn’t have issues...

[Egomaniac]

First, I am against no-knock raids and I believe that they should go deeply through what lead them to do the raid because if anything was falsified then they should be charged with a crime and go to jail.

But, to make your statement ignoring that it happened in a gun fight between the cops and her boyfriend (Who did hit one of the cops) seems like a stretch.

It is horrible that she died. If they did anything wrong with the process or identifying themselves, then hold them accountable. But stating the truth "killing an unarmed person asleep in their bed" and leaving out "while in a gun fight with the other person in their bed" twists what happened.

The guy was sleeping when people came unannounced through his door. If it were anyone other than the cops you'd be applauding him for his bravery in dealing with a threat

[Aurrora]

He wasn’t armed and he wouldn’t have been resisting arrest, if the cop called for back up, because drunk people be crazy. Darren McFadden is a god damn living weapon... yet... those two cops didn’t have issues...

He did call for backup, the cop that performed the sobriety test WAS the backup.

The key difference is McFadden didn't attempt to fight them. Also, how many officers were there? Looks like two to me.

[Jastall]

Isn't that telling of the problem, though? That people need to know how to interact with police, rather than police knowing how to deal with people? I mean, obviously there are extreme examples - if you're trying to kill a police officer, we shouldn't expect the police to just fall over and take it. But these protests aren't about the extremes. They're about a guy kneeling on a guy's neck for 8 minutes while he's already been made harmless, and they're about this kind of behavior being normal. They're about the fact that every person in America has to know how to not spook a cop so that they don't get shot.

Just take a minute and think about that. You have to treat a police officer - the person trained to protect you and your community, someone you should trust the most - like a rabid bulldog that could flip at any wrong move. How have we normalized this?

That is indeed the million dollar question. There's a difference between not wanting to mess with cops, and being justifiably afraid of simply chatting with them.

It's such a large problem, however. Such an attitude from the police likely stems from multiple sources- American civilians being somewhat frequently armed, organized crime being quite powerful and trigger happy in some regions, low existing trust in the police among several communities, manpower needs demanding shorter training periods than is the norm in Western countries... I'm sure there's a boatload of others that I don't know about. But the situation is simply not tenable.

[PACOX]

Police escalated the issue... police lost their taser... the kid is dead.

Did you actually watch the video? The cops we fair with the man up until the shooting. Even throughout the initial struggle, they showed as much restraint as you can when someone is fighting you - even going after your weapon. It wasn't until the gentleman tried ran off with the taser and tried to use that he got shot.
I've watched the video several times and I don't think they intended to harm the man until attempted to use the taser.

The gray area is that he only had a taser - but considered everything that happened before that its hard me straight up call the police out in this incident.

This isn't the simple case of a cop getting mad at someone resisting.