More guns, more safety

[Hibbyradge]

Or something like that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42523045

[-Jonesy-]

Pretty tragic stuff and clearly wrong on so many levels from the accused gamer however if the last couple of years are anything to go by, cops in the US are pretty much given carte blanch to execute unarmed civilians.

Check out the recent Dean shaver/Philip brailsford shooting, the video was recently made public. I will warn you it's graphic as hell but shows a drunken sobbing man, on his knees, begging for his life while cops scream condradictory orders at him while threatening to kill him. Shaver makes the slightest of moves with one arm while crawling and was shot 5 times by Brailsford from his personal use AR-15 which had the inscription "You're F***ed" on the barrel.

Brailsford was cleared of any charges.

Land of the free...

[Allant1981]

Pretty tragic stuff and clearly wrong on so many levels from the accused gamer however if the last couple of years are anything to go by, cops in the US are pretty much given carte blanch to execute unarmed civilians.

Check out the recent Dean shaver/Philip brailsford shooting, the video was recently made public. I will warn you it's graphic as hell but shows a drunken sobbing man, on his knees, begging for his life while cops scream condradictory orders at him while threatening to kill him. Shaver makes the slightest of moves with one arm while crawling and was shot 5 times by Brailsford from his personal use AR-15 which had the inscription "You're F***ed" on the barrel.

Brailsford was cleared of any charges.

Land of the free...

i seen this video on twitter a couple of weeks ago, this guy was in no way a threat to the police and they made it almost impossible for him to comply with their demands, that police officer was itching to shoot him

[Colr]

Pretty tragic stuff and clearly wrong on so many levels from the accused gamer however if the last couple of years are anything to go by, cops in the US are pretty much given carte blanch to execute unarmed civilians.

Check out the recent Dean shaver/Philip brailsford shooting, the video was recently made public. I will warn you it's graphic as hell but shows a drunken sobbing man, on his knees, begging for his life while cops scream condradictory orders at him while threatening to kill him. Shaver makes the slightest of moves with one arm while crawling and was shot 5 times by Brailsford from his personal use AR-15 which had the inscription "You're F***ed" on the barrel.

Brailsford was cleared of any charges.

Land of the free...

Police in the US seem to be able to shoot people with impunity (especially if they are black). It’s a bit of a contrast to the UK.

[easty]

i seen this video on twitter a couple of weeks ago, this guy was in no way a threat to the police and they made it almost impossible for him to comply with their demands, that police officer was itching to shoot him

And the police demands were completely unnecessary. If they'd told him to lie down with his hands behind his back then you wouldn't have had a drunk and emotional guy stumbling about trying to crawl. Absolutely scandalous.

As for this incident, the quotes in the article from the police seem to put all blame on the "swatter" guy who made the fake call...they shot an unarmed man, who'd done nothing wrong, at his front door. Take some ****ing responsibility for the complete shambles that went on.

[Pete]

I’m reluctant to link this incident to any other type or talk about gun control.

Police were acting on the information they received and in their eyes, they were protecting the hostages. Any blame lies 100% at the door of the hoaxer, who should be charged with murder or manslaughter. It might make these “gamers” think twice.

[easty]

I’m reluctant to link this incident to any other type or talk about gun control.

Police were acting on the information they received and in their eyes, they were protecting the hostages. Any blame lies 100% at the door of the hoaxer, who should be charged with murder or manslaughter. It might make these “gamers” think twice.

You can't say 100% of the blame lies with the hoaxer. The police cannae be allowed to just rock up and shoot somebody, then work out if they were right or wrong afterwards. The guy hadn't done anything wrong.

[Pete]

You can't say 100% of the blame lies with the hoaxer. The police cannae be allowed to just rock up and shoot somebody, then work out if they were right or wrong afterwards. The guy hadn't done anything wrong.

I don’t like what the term “rock up and shoot someone” implies. No doubt there are rogue officers out there but this was a SWAT team acting as if it were a hostage situation.

“They said one round was released by officers after the 28-year-old failed to comply with verbal orders to keep his hands up, and appeared to move his hands toward his waist multiple times.”

The guy probably didn’t know what was going on, hence his reaction but what are the SWAT team supposed to do? Give him a chance to explain himself when 99 out of 100 times it probably isn’t a hoax and he opens fire or lights a match?

These people don’t muck about which is why these pranksters are essentially sending an execution squad to someone’s door and have blood on their hands.

[easty]

I don’t like what the term “rock up and shoot someone” implies. No doubt there are rogue officers out there but this was a SWAT team acting as if it were a hostage situation.

“They said one round was released by officers after the 28-year-old failed to comply with verbal orders to keep his hands up, and appeared to move his hands toward his waist multiple times.”

The guy probably didn’t know what was going on, hence his reaction but what are the SWAT team supposed to do? Give him a chance to explain himself when 99 out of 100 times it probably isn’t a hoax and he opens fire or lights a match?

These people don’t muck about which is why these pranksters are essentially sending an execution squad to someone’s door and have blood on their hands.

SWAT or regular police, whoever - they can't be allowed to shoot someones who's done nothing wrong.

100% the guy didn't know what was going on, if the police were outside my house and I opened the door to see them pointing guns at me I'd be scared and confused. There was an order to keep his hands up, was he ever told why they were there though?

Aye, 99 times in a hundred it's not a hoax (prob 999 times in a thousand even), but that one time when someone gets shot on his doorstep for nothing means it's not acceptable.

[hibsbollah]

The point is, the police get away with shooting people with impunity, in massive numbers in the US. When have you ever read about a conviction of a cop in these cases?

[Pete]

SWAT or regular police, whoever - they can't be allowed to shoot someones who's done nothing wrong.

100% the guy didn't know what was going on, if the police were outside my house and I opened the door to see them pointing guns at me I'd be scared and confused. There was an order to keep his hands up, was he ever told why they were there though?

Aye, 99 times in a hundred it's not a hoax (prob 999 times in a thousand even), but that one time when someone gets shot on his doorstep for nothing means it's not acceptable.

What’s the alternative then? Give these 999 genuine nutters a bit more freedom when confronted, just in case it’s a hoax? How many officers would be shot or how many innocent hostages would be killed? Would that be acceptable?

They’re brutal for a reason and that’s because they’re working on the basis that, unlike here, the hostage taker will definitely have a genuine forearm and is prepared to use it.

I suppose the OP actually has a point. A SWAT team is a sad symptom of America’s gun culture, where such brutality and deadliness is essential for the good guys to try and stay on top of a society steeped in firearms.

[-Jonesy-]

Video of this incident has been released, cops are a good 30/40m on the other side of the street, hard to see from the footage the victims hand movements but seems like the decision was taken very very rashly to shoot

[Pete]

The point is, the police get away with shooting people with impunity, in massive numbers in the US. When have you ever read about a conviction of a cop in these cases?

I agree but I think this is a bit different to the recent cases that have come to light. There’s no excuse for shooting guys in the back who are running away.

[easty]

What’s the alternative then? Give these 999 genuine nutters a bit more freedom when confronted, just in case it’s a hoax? How many officers would be shot or how many innocent hostages would be killed? Would that be acceptable?

They’re brutal for a reason and that’s because they’re working on the basis that, unlike here, the hostage taker will definitely have a genuine forearm and is prepared to use it.

I suppose the OP actually has a point. A SWAT team is a sad symptom of America’s gun culture, where such brutality and deadliness is essential for the good guys to try and stay on top of a society steeped in firearms.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I just think that if the police are going to shoot someone, then the absolute very least they should be doing first is making sure it's the right person.

[Smartie]

It goes right to the top and right back to the American constitution.

As long as a normal punter in a house is allowed to have a crazy arsenal of weapons, police are entitled to be a bit edgy answering calls like this, will feel justified when they shoot an unarmed man like this, and "swatters" will know that a simple hoax call can cost lives.

Get rid of the guns, get rid of the problem.

It would be very, very unlikely to happen in this country (although not impossible) simply because we don't have as many guns kicking around. But ask the family of yon Brazilian chappy who was shot on the underground a few years ago - if the police feel a threat exists here, they will deal with it as decisively as they need to.

I think that trying to pick out whether the victim, the police or the hoaxer was more to blame misses the point entirely.

[easty]

It goes right to the top and right back to the American constitution.

As long as a normal punter in a house is allowed to have a crazy arsenal of weapons, police are entitled to be a bit edgy answering calls like this, will feel justified when they shoot an unarmed man like this, and "swatters" will know that a simple hoax call can cost lives.

Get rid of the guns, get rid of the problem.

It would be very, very unlikely to happen in this country (although not impossible) simply because we don't have as many guns kicking around. But ask the family of yon Brazilian chappy who was shot on the underground a few years ago - if the police feel a threat exists here, they will deal with it as decisively as they need to.

I think that trying to pick out whether the victim, the police or the hoaxer was more to blame misses the point entirely.

The victim? He's not in the slightest bit to blame, quite clearly.

[Smartie]

The victim? He's not in the slightest bit to blame, quite clearly.

By all accounts he moved his hands towards his waist and didn't keep them above his head. That's the justification that the police had for shooting him.

In their minds he might have had a weapon and they were not prepared to find out.

I'm not saying this is right - quite the opposite - but the fact that this possibility existed meant that the police would have felt some justification in acting the way they did, and will in all likelihood they will at least partly be blaming the victim.

[Pete]

By all accounts he moved his hands towards his waist and didn't keep them above his head. That's the justification that the police had for shooting him.

In their minds he might have had a weapon and they were not prepared to find out.

I'm not saying this is right - quite the opposite - but the fact that this possibility existed meant that the police would have felt some justification in acting the way they did, and will in all likelihood they will at least partly be blaming the victim.

I think that’s precisely why the police shot him but I don’t think anyone will be blaming him in any way.

[Smartie]

I think that’s precisely why the police shot him but I don’t think anyone will be blaming him in any way.

The police will be blaming him.

My point is that the police will be blaming him and the hoaxer, the family of the victim will blame the police and the hoaxer, the hoaxer will probably say that the trigger-happy police and the victim were to blame.

The public will take one side or another, depending on their point of view.

These situations will continue to crop up as long as there are guns as readily available as there are.

There is a higher chance of you being caught up in one of these "accidents" when you choose to live in a county with a trigger happy police force and a guns'r'us store on every street corner. If you believe you have the right to bear arms, you've also got to accept that there is an increased risk of you or a loved one innocently being gunned down.


The situation doesn't arise, the victim is still alive, nobody needs to blame anyone if every time police went to a call like this that they weren't expecting a reasonable likelihood of confronting an armed man.

Prevention is best.

[Pete]

The police will be blaming him.

My point is that the police will be blaming him and the hoaxer, the family of the victim will blame the police and the hoaxer, the hoaxer will probably say that the trigger-happy police and the victim were to blame.

The public will take one side or another, depending on their point of view.

These situations will continue to crop up as long as there are guns as readily available as there are.

There is a higher chance of you being caught up in one of these "accidents" when you choose to live in a county with a trigger happy police force and a guns'r'us store on every street corner. If you believe you have the right to bear arms, you've also got to accept that there is an increased risk of you or a loved one innocently being gunned down.


The situation doesn't arise, the victim is still alive, nobody needs to blame anyone if every time police went to a call like this that they weren't expecting a reasonable likelihood of confronting an armed man.

Prevention is best.

I disagree with your first sentence. They’ll be using his failure to comply as justification for opening fire but they won’t be blaming him in any way.

As for the rest of your post, you’re preaching to the converted mate. :aok:

[SuperAllyMcleod]

It’s the ‘shoot to kill’ policy that astounds me. Surely a swat team are full of trained marksmen that could shoot someone in the arm/shoulder if they made a move for a ‘perceived ‘ weapon?

America’s attitude to guns is so different to ours that I think we fail to understand it. The answer is to get rid of guns but so few Americans agree so it’s never going to happen. We just have to hope the UK never go down that route.

[Colr]

It goes right to the top and right back to the American constitution.

As long as a normal punter in a house is allowed to have a crazy arsenal of weapons, police are entitled to be a bit edgy answering calls like this, will feel justified when they shoot an unarmed man like this, and "swatters" will know that a simple hoax call can cost lives.

Get rid of the guns, get rid of the problem.

It would be very, very unlikely to happen in this country (although not impossible) simply because we don't have as many guns kicking around. But ask the family of yon Brazilian chappy who was shot on the underground a few years ago - if the police feel a threat exists here, they will deal with it as decisively as they need to.

I think that trying to pick out whether the victim, the police or the hoaxer was more to blame misses the point entirely.

So from the pro-gun lobby perspective, do we say here that the police were in the wrong so the innocent guy should have been able to defend himself against these bad guys by having a gun himself?

[neil7908]

It's incredible how many of these cases the police statement afterwards says the person shot "appeared to be reaching for their waist" and yet no gun was found on them.

Note also the use of "appeared". It's not that they did it but they "appeared" to do it. Why would someone who is innocent, and doesn't have a gun on them possibly make a move like that?

Like the police over here the majority are good but far, far too many get away with clearly criminal behaviour as the establishment closes rank and wont go after them. Like so much that's wrong with American society the terrible injustice is destroying the fabric of the country.

I agree getting rid of guns is the answer but that is not going to happen, in the short term at least. Reforming the police and law should be an easier task.

[calumhibee1]

So from the pro-gun lobby perspective, do we say here that the police were in the wrong so the innocent guy should have been able to defend himself against these bad guys by having a gun himself?

This is a prime example of a time when someone could have defended themselves in the way the constitution was designed to allow them to. While us in Britain look at it and say get rid of the guns and the police don’t have to be on edge like they obviously are, Americans will suggest that the guy could have blew away the SWAT team with a rocket launcher and AK47. A ridiculous suggestion of course but you know that a lot of them will be thinking it.

[snooky]

They are stuck in the psyche of the Wild West and don't appear to have any desire to get out of it.
I blame John Wayne

[Johnny_Leith]

It’s the ‘shoot to kill’ policy that astounds me. Surely a swat team are full of trained marksmen that could shoot someone in the arm/shoulder if they made a move for a ‘perceived ‘ weapon?

America’s attitude to guns is so different to ours that I think we fail to understand it. The answer is to get rid of guns but so few Americans agree so it’s never going to happen. We just have to hope the UK never go down that route.

A wounded limb won't necessarily prevent a potentially armed assailant from firing his/her weapon(s). You'd be surprised what a wounded human is capable of when pumped full of adrenaline (not to consider drugs, etc)

They'll aim for 'critical mass' to ensure the person is 'neutralised' as quickly as possible. There's a range of factors to consider when taking a shot; what's behind your target, ricochet potential, your safety, surrounding public/houses, the calibre of your weapon and so on. They don't want to get into a gunfight so will look to prevent it by taking lethal action quickly.

I'm not agreeing with this 'policy' merely speculating it's rationality. it's understandable when an assailant is obviously armed and dangerous, it becomes a whole lot more grey when they can't tell if a suspect is armed. Not a job I'd want to do!