On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 9/24/2016 10:05 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 07:53:04 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 9/24/2016 5:09 AM, bob haller wrote:
if hit it would disable the person immediately, but not kill them.

perhps something combining a physical hit with a neuro toxin that causes fast paralysis.

so the suspect isnt able to hurt anyone else,


They have Tasers for that. Unfortunately, they seem to think a taser has
to be followed by a few bullets to be effective.

BS! In the Tulsa situation two different officers deployed weapons -
one chose a gun the other the Taser. Not second guessing which was the
correct choice, but that comment makes it seem the police are trying to
kill someone rather than stopping a threat which is the intent (or
should be). If the police WANTED to kill those people, the surest way
would be to just ignore them and their calls for help when their
neighbors turn on them.


+1

And in another recent incident, the shooting outside the convenience
store in Louisiana, the police apparently first used a taser and for
whatever reason, it wasn't effective. They wound up wrestling with
the perp on the ground and then shooting him. The perp had a gun in
his pocket. Taser's aren't perfect, they rely on a dart with a wire
sticking in the perp. Faced with an imminent deadly threat, they are
not the solution.



What people either forget or choose to ignore is that the streets are
not a testing lab. The officer has a split second to react to the
threat (real or perceived) and there normally is no time to try Plan B.

Exactly. That's why it's so difficult to convict a cop in one of
these shootings. If I was on the jury, even if the cop made a mistake,
I'd have a tough time finding them guilty when they have a split second
to make a decision in a volatile, toxic, dangerous situation that they
did not create. The perp created it.




I'm not a LE officer but those I know who are even think that the
incidence of this action is out of control.

No doubt there are cases such as that. However, until all the facts are
in and everything has been thoroughly analyzed the ones that you know -
if they are speaking of either the Charlotte or Tulsa incident - should
pour themselves a large cup of STFU and wait until the investigation is
completed. It what they would want if they were in those officer's
shoes. Either that or they are just idiots - Hey! It happens even in
the best of departments.g


+1



BTW, could the Tulsa quick charging wind up being nothing more than an
effort to placate the BLM crowd? Like Baltimore? Will the charges
stand? Will there be a conviction? Stay tuned.

+1

That seems to be the safest route these days. Charge knowing you have
no case, then let the jury acquit a year or two later, when things have
cooled down. What leads one to suspect that could be the case in Tulsa
is how quick the charges were brought. It's hard to imagine they did
a full, fair investigation of all the evidence in that short period of
time.