RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:Why do you need a policeman to respond to a report of someone sleeping in a car in a car park?

Puja

If the restaurant was concerned, then who else do they call? The car was blocking the drive through.

That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:Why do you need a policeman to respond to a report of someone sleeping in a car in a car park?

Puja

If the restaurant was concerned, then who else do they call? The car was blocking the drive through.

That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

The Guardian initially reported it as blocking the drive-thru. Haven't read anything since. But even then, why not just go and tap on the window? And if he doesn't respond, tap harder?

It's a terrible state of affairs that you feel the need to call the police for that.

And then it's an even worse state of affairs that a black man fears so much for his life he runs away.

And then it's an even worse state of affairs that some idiot who has been given a gun by a state authority shoots him in the back as he runs away!

Several layers of shit, right there.

Compare and contrast to the UK, where the black guys carried a thug out of the protests as they feared for his life. And took him to the police so he'd be safe.

There is a level of trust in the UK police force and that is a good thing.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:Why do you need a policeman to respond to a report of someone sleeping in a car in a car park?

Puja

If the restaurant was concerned, then who else do they call? The car was blocking the drive through.

That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

It’s reported in a couple of media outlets, obviously lots of facts to be confirmed at this point.

I would assume that the drive thru staff did try to communicate with the driver, but I’ve not read anything to confirm or deny that.

And the initial reports would suggest that he has driven off the public road onto the drive through whilst intoxicated. If correct, that is very much police business. This isn’t the police hassling a random black man. This is police trying to arrest someone who has just failed a breathalyser test who has been driving his vehicle. That’s legitimate activity for the police, unless you don’t give a toss about drink driving. Any police force in the world that is vaguely civilised would do the same.

The problem here is the excessive use of force used to prevent a fleeing subject, which I understand has now been classified as homicide.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
If the restaurant was concerned, then who else do they call? The car was blocking the drive through.

That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

It’s reported in a couple of media outlets, obviously lots of facts to be confirmed at this point.

I would assume that the drive thru staff did try to communicate with the driver, but I’ve not read anything to confirm or deny that.

And the initial reports would suggest that he has driven off the public road onto the drive through whilst intoxicated. If correct, that is very much police business. This isn’t the police hassling a random black man. This is police trying to arrest someone who has just failed a breathalyser test who has been driving his vehicle. That’s legitimate activity for the police, unless you don’t give a toss about drink driving. Any police force in the world that is vaguely civilised would do the same.

The problem here is the excessive use of force used to prevent a fleeing subject, which I understand has now been classified as homicide.

Well, yes, but also the image the police have in this guy's head.

As reported, driving under the influence can be classed as both a misdemeanour and a felony. Why do they need to handcuff someone for a misdemeanour? That's excessive before you get anywhere else. So as soon as they handcuff him, warning signs go off in his head that he's going to be charged with a felony - ie: not treated fairly.

An obviously drunk man does not need to be handcuffed, surely, if up to that point he has shown no aggression. Which, if you watch the video, he has not.

It's a failure of the system, again. In several possible ways.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

It’s reported in a couple of media outlets, obviously lots of facts to be confirmed at this point.

I would assume that the drive thru staff did try to communicate with the driver, but I’ve not read anything to confirm or deny that.

And the initial reports would suggest that he has driven off the public road onto the drive through whilst intoxicated. If correct, that is very much police business. This isn’t the police hassling a random black man. This is police trying to arrest someone who has just failed a breathalyser test who has been driving his vehicle. That’s legitimate activity for the police, unless you don’t give a toss about drink driving. Any police force in the world that is vaguely civilised would do the same.

The problem here is the excessive use of force used to prevent a fleeing subject, which I understand has now been classified as homicide.

Well, yes, but also the image the police have in this guy's head.

As reported, driving under the influence can be classed as both a misdemeanour and a felony. Why do they need to handcuff someone for a misdemeanour? That's excessive before you get anywhere else. So as soon as they handcuff him, warning signs go off in his head that he's going to be charged with a felony - ie: not treated fairly.

An obviously drunk man does not need to be handcuffed, surely, if up to that point he has shown no aggression. Which, if you watch the video, he has not.

It's a failure of the system, again. In several possible ways.

The use of handcuffs is often standard when transporting a prisoner. Do you want someone kicking off in the back of a vehicle? Fighting a pair of police officers will escalate the offence very quickly so the logic in that argument breaks down very quickly. He is of course quite drunk so he probably wasn't likely to act logically, which is a strong argument for handcuffs in the first place.

Up to the shooting part, there is nothing there that a British policeman wouldn't do.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's kinda my point. There should be several levels of response between calling nobody and calling LethallyArmedJusticeSoldiers.

I haven't seen anything about the car blocking the drive - I had been under the impression it was in a bay. Do you have a sauce? If it was blocking the drive, then that makes me feel better about the restaurant. Still the same level of bad about the police.

Puja

It’s reported in a couple of media outlets, obviously lots of facts to be confirmed at this point.

I would assume that the drive thru staff did try to communicate with the driver, but I’ve not read anything to confirm or deny that.

And the initial reports would suggest that he has driven off the public road onto the drive through whilst intoxicated. If correct, that is very much police business. This isn’t the police hassling a random black man. This is police trying to arrest someone who has just failed a breathalyser test who has been driving his vehicle. That’s legitimate activity for the police, unless you don’t give a toss about drink driving. Any police force in the world that is vaguely civilised would do the same.

The problem here is the excessive use of force used to prevent a fleeing subject, which I understand has now been classified as homicide.

Well, yes, but also the image the police have in this guy's head.

As reported, driving under the influence can be classed as both a misdemeanour and a felony. Why do they need to handcuff someone for a misdemeanour? That's excessive before you get anywhere else. So as soon as they handcuff him, warning signs go off in his head that he's going to be charged with a felony - ie: not treated fairly.

An obviously drunk man does not need to be handcuffed, surely, if up to that point he has shown no aggression. Which, if you watch the video, he has not.

It's a failure of the system, again. In several possible ways.

You write very authoritatively about the law in the State of Georgia, are you some sort of expert?
I ask this because I was under the impression that in Georgia, a DUI could only be a felony if it's your 4th in 10 years, and it's kind of hard to fit someone up for that. Mind you, even a first offence (misdemeanour) can carry a 10 day jail sentence and is an automatic 1yr driving ban, so it's not like a misdemeanour is just a ticking off.

In the US, I have never heard of someone being arrested without the use of handcuffs. It's viewed as being both a safety precaution and a symbolic act. At least in Texas, it is not discretionary. I don't know about Georgia, but I would be very surprised if it was.

This shooting was a disastrous error on the part of the Police Officer, for which he will rightly face a probable prison sentence, but the video showed both Policemen apparently following the book right up until he took aim and fired. For which there is no excuse.

I'm slightly baffled by the burning down of the Wendy's. What culpability is the restaurant supposed to have had?

Obviously their fault because they didn’t fancy dealing with a drunk person parked in their drive through.

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
It’s reported in a couple of media outlets, obviously lots of facts to be confirmed at this point.

I would assume that the drive thru staff did try to communicate with the driver, but I’ve not read anything to confirm or deny that.

And the initial reports would suggest that he has driven off the public road onto the drive through whilst intoxicated. If correct, that is very much police business. This isn’t the police hassling a random black man. This is police trying to arrest someone who has just failed a breathalyser test who has been driving his vehicle. That’s legitimate activity for the police, unless you don’t give a toss about drink driving. Any police force in the world that is vaguely civilised would do the same.

The problem here is the excessive use of force used to prevent a fleeing subject, which I understand has now been classified as homicide.

Well, yes, but also the image the police have in this guy's head.

As reported, driving under the influence can be classed as both a misdemeanour and a felony. Why do they need to handcuff someone for a misdemeanour? That's excessive before you get anywhere else. So as soon as they handcuff him, warning signs go off in his head that he's going to be charged with a felony - ie: not treated fairly.

An obviously drunk man does not need to be handcuffed, surely, if up to that point he has shown no aggression. Which, if you watch the video, he has not.

It's a failure of the system, again. In several possible ways.

You write very authoritatively about the law in the State of Georgia, are you some sort of expert?
I ask this because I was under the impression that in Georgia, a DUI could only be a felony if it's your 4th in 10 years, and it's kind of hard to fit someone up for that. Mind you, even a first offence (misdemeanour) can carry a 10 day jail sentence and is an automatic 1yr driving ban, so it's not like a misdemeanour is just a ticking off.

In the US, I have never heard of someone being arrested without the use of handcuffs. It's viewed as being both a safety precaution and a symbolic act. At least in Texas, it is not discretionary. I don't know about Georgia, but I would be very surprised if it was.

This shooting was a disastrous error on the part of the Police Officer, for which he will rightly face a probable prison sentence, but the video showed both Policemen apparently following the book right up until he took aim and fired. For which there is no excuse.

I'm slightly baffled by the burning down of the Wendy's. What culpability is the restaurant supposed to have had?

I was just going on what I had read.

Fair enough on handcuffs, but I stand by the image of the police reference.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The point being that education not birth is the key factor, and with the demise of the grammar school, social mobility slowed down.

There isn’t a rigid class system in this country. There is nothing stopping you from moving up or down the ladder. But it’s harder
To get a good start with poor education.

Digby wrote:It's not just the loss of grammar schools, with the rise of the professional classes having already happened a lot of social mobility that might now be happening has already happened

I'd ask for some evidence to back that up, but I just can't be arsed.

Your bleating that there's no class problem in the UK is getting a bit antiquated, you see.

Are you asking for evidence that there are less grammar schools, that there's less social mobility, or both? I'd have thought both would be obvious. What's going to be harder to measure to the capability of those still left behind to still rise up, but it does seems fairly obvious it's going to be harder to advance those still at the bottom on average than was the case before the rise of the professional classes.

The correlation between the two.

First of all, what fucking donkeys. Second, a major news network scans social media for sound bites that they can turn into "news". That's just depressing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... ement/amp/

OMG etc.

If the idea of police shooting at potential witnesses doesn't bother you, maybe just view this as unnecessary property damage and that ought to get you riled up.

armoured personnel carrier parked up - what type of police need an APC

paddy no 11 wrote:armoured personnel carrier parked up - what type of police need an APC

Ones who are getting it offered to them on military surplus and who face a reduction in their budget if they don't spend it all.

Puja

paddy no 11 wrote:armoured personnel carrier parked up - what type of police need an APC

We still use armoured vehicles in Northern Ireland.

Useful for riot situations so you can shelter behind them; personally I wouldn't have them on the streets unless there was real trouble, it does send the wrong message, but that's a British perspective.

It seems like these utter cunts may be getting what’s coming to them over the murder of Rayshard Brooks, or at least the one who directly murdered him. Hearings sound utterly grim.

The Brooks one is a bit interesting. On the one hand if you don't do as the police instruct, and in this instance he upped that to grabbing at weapons and firing at the police, I've some line of thinking that it's somewhat akin to poking a bear and you've only yourself to blame. But he might well have started to panic because the police kill people they take into custody and so one can't take his actions in isolation, and that's on the police, then he was running away, and surely there's no way enforcing an arrest for a possible dui should entail the use of lethal force, it just doesn't belong. I would again have concern about the people admitted into law enforcement and their training, but at most I get up to some mitigation around the sentencing and level of offence. It does show there's an awful lot more wrong than just the actions that took place in a car park

Digby wrote:The Brooks one is a bit interesting. On the one hand if you don't do as the police instruct, and in this instance he upped that to grabbing at weapons and firing at the police, I've some line of thinking that it's somewhat akin to poking a bear and you've only yourself to blame. But he might well have started to panic because the police kill people they take into custody and so one can't take his actions in isolation, and that's on the police, then he was running away, and surely there's no way enforcing an arrest for a possible dui should entail the use of lethal force, it just doesn't belong. I would again have concern about the people admitted into law enforcement and their training, but at most I get up to some mitigation around the sentencing and level of offence. It does show there's an awful lot more wrong than just the actions that took place in a car park

It also appears that at no stage did they inform him he was under arrest and instead just started manhandling him to put the cuffs on him, which makes it even more understandable that he would panic.

Puja

Stom wrote:While I do have a problem with the events happening, if they're going to happen I have no problem with that disclaimer. They need to cover their backs.

Such a disclaimer would have no effect in England. You cannot exclude liability for personal injury, the logic being that if you think you need to cover your back then you should do something about the fucking obvious risk of personal injury that has been created by what you are doing.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:While I do have a problem with the events happening, if they're going to happen I have no problem with that disclaimer. They need to cover their backs.

Such a disclaimer would have no effect in England. You cannot exclude liability for personal injury, the logic being that if you think you need to cover your back then you should do something about the fucking obvious risk of personal injury that has been created by what you are doing.

It's pretty impossible to hold an event with people and remove any risk of catching covid, though...

But, yeah, it just shows how much farther Boris wants to take us down the road to insanity.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:While I do have a problem with the events happening, if they're going to happen I have no problem with that disclaimer. They need to cover their backs.

Such a disclaimer would have no effect in England. You cannot exclude liability for personal injury, the logic being that if you think you need to cover your back then you should do something about the fucking obvious risk of personal injury that has been created by what you are doing.

It's pretty impossible to hold an event with people and remove any risk of catching covid, though...

But, yeah, it just shows how much farther Boris wants to take us down the road to insanity.

What’s Boris proposed?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Such a disclaimer would have no effect in England. You cannot exclude liability for personal injury, the logic being that if you think you need to cover your back then you should do something about the fucking obvious risk of personal injury that has been created by what you are doing.

It's pretty impossible to hold an event with people and remove any risk of catching covid, though...

But, yeah, it just shows how much farther Boris wants to take us down the road to insanity.

What’s Boris proposed?

Nothing concrete, it’s just we’re moving closer to the American system, which can bring the Uk closer to, well, shit

Stom wrote: Nothing concrete, it’s just we’re moving closer to the American system, which can bring the Uk closer to, well, shit

Literally in the case of buying their food products

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's pretty impossible to hold an event with people and remove any risk of catching covid, though...

But, yeah, it just shows how much farther Boris wants to take us down the road to insanity.

What’s Boris proposed?

Nothing concrete, it’s just we’re moving closer to the American system, which can bring the Uk closer to, well, shit

Do you mean healthcare?