Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !

Fuggan · 8 Apr 2015 at 22:44

Spunkey said:

Was going to post this. Impressed it was the #2. +rep

andi · 8 Apr 2015 at 22:47

TheVoice said:
Utter rubbish, American police departments are often incredibly well funded, you only have to look at their vehicles, the kit and technology they have and the armoury of weapons available to them. Officers are well-paid too. You make them sound like they're underpaid cops patrolling the Favelas.

And often they're not. Often they're required to pay for their own equipment and uniforms, as the department can't afford to.

Curio · 8 Apr 2015 at 22:58

Sliver said:
I reject your hypothesis that these guns will simply disappear into the black market and so the problem will remain/be worse. We have a black market in the UK where guns can be bought. Gun crime is not a problem in the UK. Change the law and you change the people by and large.

Oops, forgot about this thread...

A gun black market in the UK? Sure....and how many guns is that? Because guns are so hard to get hold of in the first place in the UK, the numbers in the black market are relatively small. In the US, you start with MILLIONS of guns legally owned, and a large chunk of those would filter down into the black market. You're comparing apples to oranges. Guns are a huge part of US culture and simply banning them and arresting those who don't comply would be ridiculous. It would be like the UK government banning teabags! (almost...).

Again, a silly assumption. Change the law and the people will change by and large, those who resist will be prosecuted and forced to change. This is why we have laws. To force people to comply. A minority may resist but they will ultimately be forced to comply.

Wow, that's quite a fantasy....and also completely misjudges the number of people who are pro guns and how passionately they hold their rights under the constitution. You think the 4.5 million members of the NRA, for example, would just say "oh ok, fair enough"? You don't understand a large portion of the US population.

Nonsense. Sorry but nonsense.

No, just outright banning guns in the US is nonsense. There are much better strategies for getting on top of the problem, and even those are usually shot down (excuse the pun) before they get anywhere.

Von Smallhausen · 8 Apr 2015 at 23:42

Thompson_NCL said:
A violent criminal fleeing from the police should be shot.

Maybe in Mega City One ...... certainly not in any other circumstances.

tbyeah · 9 Apr 2015 at 00:20

scorza said:
Of course, the real problem here is income inequality in the US, but no-one wants to talk about that - it's easier to scream RACIST and ruin a police officer's life.

People screaming racist is not ruining this guys life.

Him shooting an unarmed man ambling away at near walking pace 8 times in the back ruined his life.

diamount · 9 Apr 2015 at 00:26

scorza said:
They're not very well trained, not very well equipped and not very well supported, yet asked to do some of the most difficult policing jobs in the world. I'd like to see some of our smug bobbies try and patrol a US ghetto for a day.

Lol, 'most difficult policing in the world'. What a load of tripe.

mcast · 9 Apr 2015 at 07:21

I can't see any justifiable reason for that guy to be shot in the back.

scorza · 9 Apr 2015 at 07:47

VoG said:
Well Officer ****er has now been fired, and dropped by his lawyer, and The South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers’ Association ( SCLEOA ) which provides legal representation to it's members has declined to assist Officer ****er because his case "does not meet the SCLEOA criteria of a meritorious defense case".

Taken from the http://www.theguardian.com/uk

Seems everybody is now lining up to kick his ass, the dashcam footage from his cruiser must be pretty damning then.

EDIT why the hell is the forum censoring his name?.

'And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he goats: one lot "For the Lord," and the other lot, "For Azazel."'

Von Smallhausen · 9 Apr 2015 at 09:20

scorza said:
Apparently Mr Scott had also been tasered when he made a grab for the taser, so it sounds like the officer had exhausted all forms of non-lethal violence.

Of course, the real problem here is income inequality in the US, but no-one wants to talk about that - it's easier to scream RACIST and ruin a police officer's life.

The real problem is the suspect being shot at eight times while fleeing from the officer and killed, not to mention the alleged dropping of a Taser near the body.

Lethal force was not an option for the incident in question .... what it was, was execution.

scorza · 9 Apr 2015 at 09:31

Von Smallhausen said:
The real problem is the suspect being shot at eight times while fleeing from the officer and killed, not to mention the alleged dropping of a Taser near the body.

Lethal force was not an option for the incident in question .... what it was, was execution.

No, an execution would be something like what happened to Jean-Charles de Menezes, which of course gets the officer in charge a promotion and not a prison sentence.

SPG · 9 Apr 2015 at 10:20

Again, he was told to stop but kept on running, he was also in the UK Illegally.

If he did stop the officer in question would have known he was not the suspected terrorist and a 50/50 chance of being told to be on your way. But no he decided to run and the officer in question made the decision he was a terrorist and shot him.

His own fault for running. This is not 1954 anymore where the bobby's are all happy chappys.

Von Smallhausen · 9 Apr 2015 at 10:29

scorza said:
No, an execution would be something like what happened to Jean-Charles de Menezes, which of course gets the officer in charge a promotion and not a prison sentence.

A very poor straw to clutch on I'm afraid.

Von Smallhausen · 9 Apr 2015 at 10:32

SPG said:
Again, he was told to stop but kept on running, he was also in the UK Illegally.

If he did stop the officer in question would have known he was not the suspected terrorist and a 50/50 chance of being told to be on your way. But no he decided to run and the officer in question made the decision he was a terrorist and shot him.

His own fault for running. This is not 1954 anymore where the bobby's are all happy chappys.

What is often brushed under the carpet is that the officers who pursued him piled on top of him when he was shot in the belief that he was wired with explosives and in an attempt to lessen the blast, knowing it would kill them too.

scorza · 9 Apr 2015 at 11:11

SPG said:
Again, he was told to stop but kept on running, he was also in the UK Illegally.

Neither of those things are true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Sliver · 9 Apr 2015 at 11:24

I wonder how long before the next unarmed black/white man is shot by the police. Seems like it's a happening all to often. I know the UK is not exactly Eden, but at least I never have to worry about the police shooting me over nothing.

Mr Joshua · 9 Apr 2015 at 14:55

Watching the video and hearing this guy tell the judge he has two step kids with one on the way I find it hard not feel sorry for the situation he now finds himself in. However, I reconcile it with the fact this imbecile thought it was acceptable to take the life of someone who was running away and posed no immediate threat.

tbyeah · 9 Apr 2015 at 15:16

I have no sympathy. Cold blooded deliberate murder, only has any remorse or guilt because he was caught.

thep02 · 9 Apr 2015 at 15:21

tbyeah said:
I have no sympathy. Cold blooded deliberate murder, only has any remorse or guilt because he was caught.

It's not remorse or guilt just plain cowardly fear.

drs101 · 9 Apr 2015 at 16:55

Zbornak said:
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that British police officers will murder people if they are armed, from that explanation?

I was pointing out that British police are just as willing to abuse people when they think they can get away with it, give them all guns and they will shoot more people.

TheVoice · 9 Apr 2015 at 17:26

drs101 said:
I was pointing out that British police are just as willing to abuse people when they think they can get away with it, give them all guns and they will shoot more people.

You presumably have statistics to back this up? This isn't really the thread for arguing for or against the arming of UK police officers anyway.

It rather goes without saying that more people will be shot if more officers have guns, that doesn't mean there's necessarily a misuse of force going on and you can't present it as so. Taser use has gone up as more officers have Tasers, incapacitant spray use went up as more officers were equipped with it etc.