Tyre Nichols murder

sidimmu said:

For those saying if you follow police commands correctly, you wont end up getting assaulted, this guy begs to differ.
His head got stomped on, potentially concussing him and then again deliver kicks and more beatings when he is showing signs of being injured.
Cops need a medical lesson in what a concussion does to you and the impacts it can have on further health. All cops involved in TN and the tweet above deserve to be curb stomped, over and over again.

But yeah, again its going to be, if you dont resist none of this will happen to you.
Click to expand...

There's always going to be extreme cases like in the Tyre Nichols case and the one you linked to however I think we can safely say that if you comply the chances of not being killed or beaten are very very high.
 
Efour said:
I assume you have further context on why this guy was apprehended, thus why they went to this level of force seemingly off the bat?

im playing devils advocate on this one. Im so bored of the cliche "look what happens if you dont resist and comply peacefully 1 in 100k arrest videos you end up getting a kick or roughed up anyway."

The murder of the Tyre was off the rails and is obviously criminal and punishable by the courts, hopefully wit maximum heft.
Click to expand...
He is conforming with orders and not resisting, he is not showing any signs of threats.
Tell me why he deserves a stomp to head and being butted with the rifle of a gun?
 
sidimmu said:
He is conforming with orders and not resisting, he is not showing any signs of threats.
Tell me why he deserves a stomp to head and being butted with the rifle of a gun?
Click to expand...
You cant answer sensibly with a zero context 10 second video. Its 99.99999% likely police brutality but without the information its just reaction.
emotional 20/20 hindsight videoclips are not the reality and stress of the situation.
Its so childish to keep posting unrelated zero context clips.

Im not even arguing against you, some police are completely brutal and need punishment but only a fool decides everything from 10 second clips on twitter.
 
All those predominantly picking up on the non cooperation aspect, is almost akin to those that would say if a woman is wearing revealing clothing that she was looking for it, after being raped.

The responsibility to act correctly is always placed on the party in the position of authority. Not on the victim.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
You cant answer sensibly with a zero context 10 second video. Its 99.99999% likely police brutality but without the information its just reaction.
emotional 20/20 hindsight videoclips are not the reality and stress of the situation.
Its so childish to keep posting unrelated zero context clips.

Im not even arguing against you, some police are completely brutal and need punishment but only a fool decides everything from 10 second clips on twitter.
Click to expand...
Yes you can, regardless of the crime he has committed, it is not up to the officers to take any form of justice in what they see fit.
Context of the twitter video is with a gun and a gunshot involved, but at the time of arrest he is in full cooperation and not resisting, yet gets stomped and hit with a gun, so why is that justified? See @Doobedoo answer above this, it dont matter what they have done, they are in the position of authority to bring them to face a court, they must always act professionally first.
 
sidimmu said:
He is conforming with orders and not resisting, he is not showing any signs of threats.
Tell me why he deserves a stomp to head and being butted with the rifle of a gun?
Click to expand...
did you read your twitter thread .. someone said had shot at the police - ergh , which you probably should have deduced yourself.
can you link the actual news article? ... were there accomplices potentially with weapons, or discarded weapon
 
jpaul said:
did you read your twitter thread .. someone said had shot at the police - ergh , which you probably should have deduced yourself.
can you link the actual news article? ... were there accomplices potentially with weapons, or discarded weapon
Click to expand...
If you've been through thw twitter thread, its in there.
Yes he shot a gun at a police car which he will be tried for attempted murder of a police officer.
He surrendered and followed orders, where is the need for a stomp and gun butt?
 
jpaul said:
did you read your twitter thread .. someone said had shot at the police - ergh , which you probably should have deduced yourself.
can you link the actual news article? ... were there accomplices potentially with weapons, or discarded weapon
Click to expand...

On Twitter there is video of him firing at the Police, he's lucky not to be dead.
 
sidimmu said:
If you've been through thw twitter thread, its in there.
Yes he shot a gun at a police car which he will be tried for attempted murder of a police officer.
He surrendered and followed orders, where is the need for a stomp and gun butt?
Click to expand...
Ok next time someone tries to murder you and you get your hands on them when they are cornered lets see if you are clam and maybe not a little bit vindictive.
No its not right. No one thinks it is. The police should be more professional at dealing with it, but that would be more training and a god like level of self-control.
Context of every case matters.
i think im done with this circular chat until the next street beating.
See you all next week.
 
context - I didn't see the link to a news report in the twitter thread , but don't use witter,
as I said, if the police thought gun/accomplice could be nearby, or potentially drugged, then all bet's are off, he needs to co-operate

e: just listened again, more attentively, they were searching for the nearby gun WTF
 
SexyGreyFox said:
On Twitter there is video of him firing at the Police, he's lucky not to be dead.
Click to expand...

See this is the problem. Some people seem happy to turn a blind eye to the police committing extrajudicial killings because at some point they were threatened, even if at the time of the killing they weren't. They aren't Judge Dredd, they don't get to make that call, that is from a jury and a judge after due process.
 
Last edited:
Just remembered that intentionally unannounced raid (though thousands happen yearly...) that claimed an innocent guys life for merely protecting himself from violent intruders, how are you meant to let the cops know you're not a threat when they wrongly invade your house with zero warning looking for possibly armed suspects and you just happen to naturally pick up a sidearm to defend yourself/family without any time in the adrenaline-fueled blur to realise it's the police?
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Ok next time someone tries to murder you and you get your hands on them when they are cornered lets see if you are clam and maybe not a little bit vindictive.
No its not right. No one thinks it is. The police should be more professional at dealing with it, but that would be more training and a god like level of self-control.
Context of every case matters.
i think im done with this circular chat until the next street beating.
See you all next week.
Click to expand...
Thats why I am not a cop and neither is a lot of people in here.
Neither should the two in the vid.
Again point is, regardless of situation, not one video has been shown throughout the pages of this thread with a suspect resisting, but still getting beaten to at the very least a concussion. It appears to be culture and general police policy at this point.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
See this is the problem. Some people seem happy or turn a blind eye to the police committing extrajudicial killings because at some point they were threatened, even if at the time of the killing they weren't. They aren't Judge Dredd, they don't get to make that call, that is from a jury and a judge after due process.
Click to expand...

So if those Coppers pulled a firearm because he was shooting at them you still don't think it's reason to shoot back?
 
SexyGreyFox said:
So if those Coppers pulled a firearm because he was shooting at them you still don't think it's reason to shoot back?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that did I. At that moment of their lives being in danger then of course they can shoot back. Once that danger has passed however and their lives are no longer being threatened they shouldn't feel they are free to kick the **** out of that person or take justice into their own hands. Far too often the excuse issued "well he was asking for it" etc. They are meant to be better than that person, they are meant to be better than us. They are (supposedly) trained and given great power and responsibility yet they don't act like that. They just hand out guns to people who shouldn't be anywhere near the job and even if they do manage to sack an officer, which is often near impossible due to union protection, that officer just moves to the next town or state and gets a job there. Their whole system is a joke. When you have lists of officers who can't testify in court because they have been shown to lie under oath but weren't sacked you have a major problem. And you know that will be a country wide issue.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
I didn't say that did I. At that moment of their lives being in danger then of course they can shoot back. Once that danger has passed however and their lives are no longer being threatened they shouldn't feel they are free to kick the **** out of that person or take justice into their own hands.
Click to expand...

They needed to know where the gun was
 
Last edited:
This is, sadly, too simlar to the cops that shot the guy in the mobility scooter, which I think featured within this forum circa 2 years ago. Although I'm not aware of the judicial outcome of that one.

Back in my military days, I was armed on a daily basis. Usually with a 9mm pistol, sometimes with a rifle, sometimes both. The rules of engagement were, and still are, perfectly clear. You can only shoot someone if they present an immediate threat to life.

A double-leg amputee, 'running away', despite carrying a bladed weapon, is not an immediate threat to life. Christ, it would still be legal to run up behind him and floor him with a swift boot to the back or tripping him over. Even with weapons drawn, it is my opinion that shooting this guy was not lawful. Granted, the footage available at the time of shooting isn't public yet and we can't see what's happened from the Daily Fail video.

From my experience in former and current roles, you resort to training, or 'drills'. I think what we have here, in the majority of cases, but not all, are training issues.

I've worked with a lot of Americans, and it's very obvious they've had their ability to think for themselves revoked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom