US Police Shoot Unarmed Man With His Hands Up

[silent ninja]

Well you got tasay they're as consistent as their movies: shoot first, ask questions later

Clearly the IQ level of street officers in usa is very low. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but constructively they need to look at what level they're recruiting. The calibre seems to be a bunch who probably couldn't get employed anywhere else...so let'sjoin police force, great package, pensions etc Or maybe they just like shooting black folk

[Sonic]

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

[Digga]

Sonic said:

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

I re-read twice and wondered what happened to the patient - how or why on earth the care worker was hit, rather than him. Not that the patient deserved being shot either, but even crazed, gun-toting police logic would surely see the person not lying down as the bigger threat. So were they aiming at the patient, ignoring the carer's pleas and missed and hit the carer by mistake?

Either way someone needs their firearms confiscating and locking in the naughty cupboard.

[Lynchie999]

US "cops" aren't very good at assessing the situation are they ?! - its obvious those two guys posed no threat what so ever ?! yet the cops cower behind street furniture with their guns raised....

maybe that chapter was accidentally left out of the training manual...

[John145]

Digga said:

Sonic said:

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

I re-read twice and wondered what happened to the patient - how or why on earth the care worker was hit, rather than him. Not that the patient deserved being shot either, but even crazed, gun-toting police logic would surely see the person not lying down as the bigger threat. So were they aiming at the patient, ignoring the carer's pleas and missed and hit the carer by mistake?

3 shots were fired, one hit someone. Whether that person was the intended victim of those shots is anyone's guess.

[Digga]

John145 said:

3 shots were fired, one hit someone. Whether that person was the intended victim of those shots is anyone's guess.

You'd hope the idiot who pulled the trigger knew who he was aiming at and was capable of hitting them at that range. I wonder if there's a recording from the officer's own camera - surely they have to 'state' who their intent to hit?

[R8Steve]

John145 said:

Digga said:

Sonic said:

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

I re-read twice and wondered what happened to the patient - how or why on earth the care worker was hit, rather than him. Not that the patient deserved being shot either, but even crazed, gun-toting police logic would surely see the person not lying down as the bigger threat. So were they aiming at the patient, ignoring the carer's pleas and missed and hit the carer by mistake?

3 shots were fired, one hit someone. Whether that person was the intended victim of those shots is anyone's guess.

It must take a special amount of effort to fire a shotgun at someone at close range and miss twice (possibly three times if the carer wasn't even the intended target).

I've read it and watched the video several times now and i just can't work out why they would feel the need to shoot anyone in this instance. It makes zero sense.

[WinstonWolf]

R8Steve said:

John145 said:

Digga said:

Sonic said:

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

I re-read twice and wondered what happened to the patient - how or why on earth the care worker was hit, rather than him. Not that the patient deserved being shot either, but even crazed, gun-toting police logic would surely see the person not lying down as the bigger threat. So were they aiming at the patient, ignoring the carer's pleas and missed and hit the carer by mistake?

3 shots were fired, one hit someone. Whether that person was the intended victim of those shots is anyone's guess.

It must take a special amount of effort to fire a shotgun at someone at close range and miss twice (possibly three times if the carer wasn't even the intended target).

I've read it and watched the video several times now and i just can't work out why they would feel the need to shoot anyone in this instance. It makes zero sense.

Yup, the situation was calm, the care worker had his hands up and explained to the police in words of one syllable what was going on yet they still pulled the trigger.

YEHAA!!!

[glazbagun]

Lynchie999 said:

US "cops" aren't very good at assessing the situation are they ?! - its obvious those two guys posed no threat what so ever ?! yet the cops cower behind street furniture with their guns raised....

maybe that chapter was accidentally left out of the training manual...

I was thinking that. It almost looked like a scene from a sitcom with the sensible guy on the ground thinking "how did today end up like this?" while the guy in his care amuses himself, blissfully unaware of the chaos he's landed his mate in. Do they have binoculars in cop cars?

I guess the mentality may come from policing an area where you get shot at a lot.

[Lucas Ayde]

Certainly doesn't seem to be racism - just an INCREDIBLY over the top by police to the 'situation' (clue: there was no situation, just some report which they could have ascertained wasn't true, very quickly). combined with, presumably, some extremely poor firearms proficiency. I'm assuming that they meant to shoot the mental patient and not his carer - not that they had any business shooting the mental patient either.

[scherzkeks]

Digga said:

Regrettably, I'm sure you are right. I do firmly believe society and democracy are changing as technology and the internet make knowledge more freely available.

I posted this once before, but I used to work with ex cops. The stories they used to tell when they felt they could "trust" you not to repeat it nearly made me lose my faith in humanity.

Part of it is our societal appetite for violence and collective hatred of anything weak (poor people), and part of it is that bullies are attracted to this kind of work.

[glazbagun]

silent ninja said:

Well you got tasay they're as consistent as their movies: shoot first, ask questions later

Clearly the IQ level of street officers in usa is very low. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but constructively they need to look at what level they're recruiting. The calibre seems to be a bunch who probably couldn't get employed anywhere else...so let'sjoin police force, great package, pensions etc Or maybe they just like shooting black folk

There is actually discrimination against applicants who are too intelligent. I am not making this up:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iq...

Don't want any of them there smart people in the police force. They're so clever they might want to leave!

[Digga]

WinstonWolf said:

R8Steve said:

John145 said:

Digga said:

Sonic said:

Sheepshanks said:

Not sure people realise it was the health worker who was shot, not the patient?

Even after reading the article i didn't quite twig because it makes such little sense for the police to shoot an unarmed therapist led on the ground with his arms in the air following instruction and trying to do his job returning a mentally ill patient back to hospital... fking mental.

I re-read twice and wondered what happened to the patient - how or why on earth the care worker was hit, rather than him. Not that the patient deserved being shot either, but even crazed, gun-toting police logic would surely see the person not lying down as the bigger threat. So were they aiming at the patient, ignoring the carer's pleas and missed and hit the carer by mistake?

3 shots were fired, one hit someone. Whether that person was the intended victim of those shots is anyone's guess.

It must take a special amount of effort to fire a shotgun at someone at close range and miss twice (possibly three times if the carer wasn't even the intended target).

I've read it and watched the video several times now and i just can't work out why they would feel the need to shoot anyone in this instance. It makes zero sense.

Yup, the situation was calm, the care worker had his hands up and explained to the police in words of one syllable what was going on yet they still pulled the trigger.

YEHAA!!!

Consider the video again, from the perspective of someone hepped up on caffeine and donuts. We should all be grateful it was just three shots really.

[anonymous-user]

R8Steve said:

It must take a special amount of effort to fire a shotgun at someone at close range and miss twice (possibly three times if the carer wasn't even the intended target).

I've read it and watched the video several times now and i just can't work out why they would feel the need to shoot anyone in this instance. It makes zero sense.

Practice?

[Digga]

scherzkeks said:

Digga said:

Regrettably, I'm sure you are right. I do firmly believe society and democracy are changing as technology and the internet make knowledge more freely available.

I posted this once before, but I used to work with ex cops. The stories they used to tell when they felt they could "trust" you not to repeat it nearly made me lose my faith in humanity.

Part of it is our societal appetite for violence and collective hatred of anything weak (poor people), and part of it is that bullies are attracted to this kind of work.

I have a mate who's a copper. He is the anti-bully. Probably one of the toughest, hardest people I know (used to instruct Jiu Jitsu) who would never, ever show it or talk about it until, well, it is all over. He's most definitely one of the good guys, but sadly I don't think he's all that enamored with a lot of his colleagues.

[Mario149]

Digga said:

onsider the video again, from the perspective of someone hepped up on caffeine and donuts. We should all be grateful it was just three shots really.

I know I shouldn't, but that got me giggling

[rich85uk]

Sky news recently did a programme about US cops coming over here to receive training about dealing with situations without shooting the offender, was quite an eye opener to the difference in mentality between UK and US police, those from the US seemed shocked by our general health and safety, human rights etc attitude and the fact a firearms officer is automatically suspended pending an investigation every time they fire their gun.

This is a classic example of the difference, after a certain period of time a firearm was used because the man did not follow orders even though he was an unstable man playing with a toy truck. Granted there is a much greater risk of a member of the public having a firearm but the default answer is not to shoot anyone who does not listen

[TheInternet]

silent ninja said:

Well you got tasay they're as consistent as their movies: shoot first, ask questions later

Clearly the IQ level of street officers in usa is very low. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but constructively they need to look at what level they're recruiting. The calibre seems to be a bunch who probably couldn't get employed anywhere else...so let'sjoin police force, great package, pensions etc Or maybe they just like shooting black folk

[anonymous-user]

Anyone know how Risk assessment is taught to UK BiB and the Armed forces?

[silent ninja]

glazbagun said:

silent ninja said:

Well you got tasay they're as consistent as their movies: shoot first, ask questions later

Clearly the IQ level of street officers in usa is very low. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but constructively they need to look at what level they're recruiting. The calibre seems to be a bunch who probably couldn't get employed anywhere else...so let'sjoin police force, great package, pensions etc Or maybe they just like shooting black folk

There is actually discrimination against applicants who are too intelligent. I am not making this up:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iq...

Don't want any of them there smart people in the police force. They're so clever they might want to leave!

That's crazy and reinforces my point.
ONLY.IN.AMERICA.