Do You Have A Favourite Type Of Bean?
ChatterBank1 min ago
Another One Resisting Arrest, When Will They Learn?
34 Answers
https:/
Probably thought with Floydgate he could get away with anything. He stole a Tazer and tried to use it on the officer, he was shot, quite rightly, so why was the officer fired? Why did the police chief feel the need to resign? All this has done is now give carte Blanche to resist arrest.
Probably thought with Floydgate he could get away with anything. He stole a Tazer and tried to use it on the officer, he was shot, quite rightly, so why was the officer fired? Why did the police chief feel the need to resign? All this has done is now give carte Blanche to resist arrest.
Answers
Allen, writing garbage like that does nothing to improve things. Quite the opposite in fact. It's always difficult to comment on these things. Firstly because it always seems to transpire the story was missing a load when first reported. Secondly because in the USA guns are rife and decisions like these are made in seconds. Pointing a weapon at US (and a fair...
13:40 Sun 14th Jun 2020
What you are describing is a situation that clearly needs to change. It's unacceptable that the police are an authority that require total and unconditional obedience, that act on the implicit assumption that you are guilty until proven innocent, and that a single toe out of line is viewed as grounds for arrest, violence or even death.
"To protect and serve"? Who is serving whom?
"To protect and serve"? Who is serving whom?
jim
In your cosy little world which is not awash with firearms both legal and illegal a cop in America has to assume everyone has a concealed weapon or is prepared to use it. Many American cops have been killed for letting their guard down. If British police have intelligence that a person of interest or a suspect of a crime involving firarms is to be apprehended they call for a specialist firearms unit to make the arrest. I can assure you that their approach is no less robust than their American counterpart. The only difference is the volume of illegal firearms held in the two countries and better intelligence of whom is likely to possess them. An aggressive approach has to be made in the correct circumstances to (a) show who is in control of the situation and (b) to ensure that instructions given are loud and very clear as how to comply. If you comply then everyone goes back to bed. If not it will end in tears and cops don't get paid enough to be yours or any one else's Aunt Sallys.
In your cosy little world which is not awash with firearms both legal and illegal a cop in America has to assume everyone has a concealed weapon or is prepared to use it. Many American cops have been killed for letting their guard down. If British police have intelligence that a person of interest or a suspect of a crime involving firarms is to be apprehended they call for a specialist firearms unit to make the arrest. I can assure you that their approach is no less robust than their American counterpart. The only difference is the volume of illegal firearms held in the two countries and better intelligence of whom is likely to possess them. An aggressive approach has to be made in the correct circumstances to (a) show who is in control of the situation and (b) to ensure that instructions given are loud and very clear as how to comply. If you comply then everyone goes back to bed. If not it will end in tears and cops don't get paid enough to be yours or any one else's Aunt Sallys.
retrocop - // An aggressive approach has to be made in the correct circumstances to (a) show who is in control of the situation and (b) to ensure that instructions given are loud and very clear as how to comply. //
I would entirely agree.
Years ago, I attended the filming of the assault course section of the tv show The Krypton Factor, and I noticed that the sergeant in charge yelled continuously at all the contestants as they moved across the course.
When I asked him why he felt the need to communicate at industrial level volume his response was simple - everyone is full of adrenalin and concentrating on what they are doing - if he spoke to them in a normal tone at a normal level, they simply wouldn't hear him, and for their safety, he needed to be sure that his instructions were heard and understood, and more importantly, responded to instantly, hence the level and apparent brusqueness with which they were delivered.
I would entirely agree.
Years ago, I attended the filming of the assault course section of the tv show The Krypton Factor, and I noticed that the sergeant in charge yelled continuously at all the contestants as they moved across the course.
When I asked him why he felt the need to communicate at industrial level volume his response was simple - everyone is full of adrenalin and concentrating on what they are doing - if he spoke to them in a normal tone at a normal level, they simply wouldn't hear him, and for their safety, he needed to be sure that his instructions were heard and understood, and more importantly, responded to instantly, hence the level and apparent brusqueness with which they were delivered.
// a cop in America has to assume everyone has a concealed weapon or is prepared to use it.//
and can assume that every juryman he is likely to meet is easily gulled - because they were before - easy to deceive bums
after trying to overpower a man and handcuff him and he breaks free and he MAY have a gun -
well he certainly wasnt pleased to see them! (*) yeah right officer
(*) Mae West - is that a gun down your pants or are you pleased to see me?
and can assume that every juryman he is likely to meet is easily gulled - because they were before - easy to deceive bums
after trying to overpower a man and handcuff him and he breaks free and he MAY have a gun -
well he certainly wasnt pleased to see them! (*) yeah right officer
(*) Mae West - is that a gun down your pants or are you pleased to see me?
PP
A true case of cops failing to assume their suspect had a gun. They let their guard down and were fortunate they were not the victim.Due to sloppy policing this man need not of been a victim but they failed to'shake him down' when brought into custody. I bet they show the clip at every police academy 'lest they forget to frisk their prisoners!'
https:/
A true case of cops failing to assume their suspect had a gun. They let their guard down and were fortunate they were not the victim.Due to sloppy policing this man need not of been a victim but they failed to'shake him down' when brought into custody. I bet they show the clip at every police academy 'lest they forget to frisk their prisoners!'
https:/
PP
The prisoner in custody had shot a Sheriff's deputy twice in the abdomen after a routine traffic stop. Deputy survived. Suspect soon after arrested whereby three different Law Enforcement agencies assumed he had been searched. He also should of been hand cuffed. None of these preventative standard measures were carried out.
Here is the end result. Don't watch if you feel squeamish.
The prisoner in custody had shot a Sheriff's deputy twice in the abdomen after a routine traffic stop. Deputy survived. Suspect soon after arrested whereby three different Law Enforcement agencies assumed he had been searched. He also should of been hand cuffed. None of these preventative standard measures were carried out.
Here is the end result. Don't watch if you feel squeamish.
https:/
Seems that the officer in question:
1. Shot Rayshard Brooks twice in the back.
2. Kicked him while he was on the ground, dying.
3. Shot Brooks while knowing that the stolen taser was, in fact, no longer usable as it has already been discharged.
4. Was therefore in no danger whatsoever.
5. Refused to provide any medical aid, which was both policy at the time and also the human thing to do.
I'm wondering if this leads to a revision of opinions among those who were defending the officer and suggesting that Brooks was "quite rightly" shot when he posed no practical threat.
Seems that the officer in question:
1. Shot Rayshard Brooks twice in the back.
2. Kicked him while he was on the ground, dying.
3. Shot Brooks while knowing that the stolen taser was, in fact, no longer usable as it has already been discharged.
4. Was therefore in no danger whatsoever.
5. Refused to provide any medical aid, which was both policy at the time and also the human thing to do.
I'm wondering if this leads to a revision of opinions among those who were defending the officer and suggesting that Brooks was "quite rightly" shot when he posed no practical threat.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Body & Soul11 mins ago
Jokes16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.