Texas church shooting leaves many dead

[Up_Tilt_390]

And as the past 15 years have taught us, going to the middle east and killing people doesn't really help matters. The fact is, to prevent terrorism we need to do less, or rather we need to stop killing innocent civilians, stop funding authoritarian regimes, try and address the root causes of terrorism which are generally legitimate grievances such as poverty and deprivation.

The part about killing innocents and not funding authoritarian regimes is a legit criticism because ISIS came about thanks to the power vacuum after removing Saddam, Gadaffi, and now Assad. But poverty and deprivation? Not always a cause of terrorism. Osama bin Laden, often regarded as a terrorist, was a member of a wealthy family, and quite a few ISIS members, such as those in Dhaka, are well-educated and wealthy themselves. ISIS aren't a bunch of poor deprived terrorists who need nourishing with a home and job, they are radical Islamists who want nothing but total dominance of their ideals and submission to their beloved god.

Now, given that that many people die in the US from guns roughly every six weeks, you wonder why we haven't done anything about that...

I've already explained that part. As long as the Republicans propped up by the NRA are in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Presidency, you will hear nothing about addressing any problems with guns. Obama couldn't do anything because it's hard to push through policies when you have conservative opponents ruling the houses beneath you. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, and so Trump isn't going to bite the NRA's hands unless they stop feeding him. Homer Simpson might've found a non-lethal use for a firearms, but he's also the exact kind of person who shouldn't have one.

 

[Harbouring]

Osama and his ilk are not the ones physically doing the killing, the people carrying out terroist attacks as well some people who have carried out shootings are all within a narrow psychological profile ie. predominantly male, radicalised online, low status, problems with substance misuse, family problems.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

As much as there needs to be a discussion for some of the problems with guns, it's worth noting that it'd be a very tricky task. Criminals already don't care about the law, so they won't take any notice of any bans that come about. If they find themselves not being able to buy any thanks to tight control laws, then there's always the black market. A normal responsible gun owner could easily make a buck selling them to criminals, and because it's the black market it's not easily traceable back to the original owner should the criminals get caught. Prohibition didn't stop people drinking alcohol, it just handed over the profits to the bootleggers, and the war on drugs hasn't stopped people taking them, it's only resulted in the criminal drug lords making money off them.

Guns are a slightly different kettle of fish in that they're legal, so it's hard to say how it would go if they were illegal or tightly controlled. Either way, the black market would just provide those who truly wanted them. So the need to discuss different solutions is necessary, and it might be the best idea to advocate for a social and cultural change in American society. If they were willing to undergo mandatory conscription like Switzerland to get their guns, just like the founding fathers wanted, it might work. If they were willing to get a license for a gun before buying one then things might be different. If they were willing to go through rigorous processes to get a firearms then it might just work. These are all MIGHTS, but it's better than doing nothing, though nothing will be done in the near future.

 

[najaB]

As much as there needs to be a discussion for some of the problems with guns, it's worth noting that it'd be a very tricky task. Criminals already don't care about the law, so they won't take any notice of any bans that come about.

The majority of gun fatalities in the USA are caused by legally held firearms and do not occur in the course of random street crime.

 

[fowler9]

That's not true, and it is also based on faulty assumptions.

First off, you will find few people who argue that we should do less to stop terrorism. The problem is what can we do? There was one coordinated airliner hijacking, and so cockpit security was stepped up. Someone tried to put a bomb in his underwear so now we can't take liquids on to planes. Fertiliser was being used to create explosives so we require reporting of large purchases of the stuff. There's a massive surveillance state out there which stops the big clever attacks (by and large anyway). What we're left with is people using cars and lorries as battering rams, and honestly what can you really do about that? Cars are a ubiquitous part of our life because they are useful for normal non-death-related purposes such as going to school or pretending you're still in your 20s. And as the past 15 years have taught us, going to the middle east and killing people doesn't really help matters. The fact is, to prevent terrorism we need to do less, or rather we need to stop killing innocent civilians, stop funding authoritarian regimes, try and address the root causes of terrorism which are generally legitimate grievances such as poverty and deprivation.

Now, compare with guns. Guns, like cars, are a ubiquitous part of American life. But what are they for? They're for killing and maiming. The only person who ever discovered a non-lethal use for guns was Homer Simpson when he used it to turn off the TV or get a ball off the roof. So, a deadly weapon which you not need to be trained to use (unlike a car), which generally have nothing to prevent unauthorised use (unlike a car) and which have no safety features to try and prevent accidents or harm (unlike a car). Now, what has been done to prevent the 30,000 gun deaths caused every year by guns in the US? On a national level over the past 20 years say. Well, a ban on assault weapons expired; congress made it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns, and also tried to make it easier to buy silencers. There has been some movement towards regulation at the state and local level, but that's cancelled out by other territories who made it significantly easier to acquire firearms, extended magazines and armour-piercing bullets.




Well given that the US is on track to average one mass shooting every single day of the year, it's kind of difficult to find a date when it's acceptable to talk about gun violence. After a tragedy is a great time to talk about political options to prevent future tragedies. The important thing is that the response not be knee-jerk, but instead be reasoned and proportional. 9/11 killed 4000 people, and because of it the world upended its security infrastructure and spent trillions invading the middle east. Now, given that that many people die in the US from guns roughly every six weeks, you wonder why we haven't done anything about that...

Incredibly well said.

 

[fowler9]

I would love to know the percentage of shootings that are in defence or that are done by a well armed militia.

 

[najaB]

I would love to know the percentage of shootings that are in defence or that are done by a well armed militia.

That will be very hard to determine since - by way of an example - under many state laws a suspect who you believe to be armed with a knife can be shot if they are within a 16 foot radius and it's classed as self-defence (even if they aren't facing towards you at the time).

 

[Bromley boy]

That will be very hard to determine since - by way of an example - under many state laws a suspect who you believe to be armed with a knife can be shot if they are within a 16 foot radius and it's classed as self-defence (even if they aren't facing towards you at the time).

Surely you would have to perceive an immediate threat to life in order to justify shooting someone? I didn't believe the US law on self defence was *that* different to the UK position.

Do you have any sources?

Judging the point at which it is acceptable to use lethal force is a fine balancing act. This is why the armed police have such a difficult job. If they hold fire, an innocent person could be killed by an armed criminal. If they shoot a suspect too soon, they could be facing a murder charge.

 

[najaB]

Surely you would have to perceive an immediate threat to life in order to justify shooting someone? I didn't believe the US law on self defence was *that* different to the UK position.

Do you have any sources?

It's known as the Tueller Drill rule - I was wrong, it's actually 21 feet, not 16.

Being in possession (or thought to be in possession) of a weapon (while also being black) is considered to be an immediate threat in the US. Just look at the case of Philando Castile where the officer was found not-guilty:

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Deleted

 

[fowler9]

I'm going to have a wild stab in the dark that more toddlers have shot their siblings or parents and more people have shot themselves than people have actually managed defend themselves with a gun in the US. If I'm wrong then shoot me.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

If I'm wrong then shoot me.

Thats not exactly helping the problem there, if I dare say so myself.

 

[Bromley boy]

It's known as the Tueller Drill rule - I was wrong, it's actually 21 feet, not 16.

Being in possession (or thought to be in possession) of a weapon (while also being black) is considered to be an immediate threat in the US. Just look at the case of Philando Castile where the officer was found not-guilty:

Careful with that. It appears the Tueller rule is actually a self defence tactical training exercise regarding reaction times to draw aim and fire a holstered fire arm, rather than an alteration to the underlying law on self defence (where murder charges are a risk if the police get it wrong).

The below website discusses it, and notes that it is misinterpreted as a blanket authorisation to shoot suspects at will within a certain distance, which it most definitely is not

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/the-tueller-drill-revisited

“Dennis Tueller’s study went so far beyond him that his name has become inextricably linked with what is erroneously called the “21-Foot Rule,” as if an arbitrary distance could be established beyond which an assailant armed with a contact weapon was no longer an immediate threat, or put conversely, justifying use of deadly force if an assailant with a contact weapon was within a certain distance.”

Re the second video, that’s appalling and I completely with your sentiment that the US generally has too many guns, too many criminals, too many trigger happy police and undoubtedly an undercurrent of racial tension. All in all it’s a broken system and I don’t see it ever improving, sadly.

 

[fowler9]

Thats not exactly helping the problem there, if I dare say so myself.

Apologies, I have a warped sense of humour. Ha ha.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm going to have a wild stab in the dark that more toddlers have shot their siblings or parents and more people have shot themselves than people have actually managed defend themselves with a gun in the US. If I'm wrong then shoot me.

Yes indeed.

In fact I recall when this topic was previously discussed on this forum figures were produced backing your statement up exactly: a gun bought in the US is statistically more likely to kill the buyer, or one of the buyer’s loved one, than an armed criminal.

Conversely owning a gun made barely any difference to owner’s likely ability to defend themselves in a breaking and entering robbery type situation.

So the gun lobby’s nonsense about buying a gun to be safer is.... Well, nonsense.

 

[fowler9]

Yes indeed.

In fact recall when this topic was previously discussed on this forum figures were produced to show a gun bought in the US is more likely to kill the buyer, or one of the buyer’s loved one, than an armed criminal.

Conversely owning a gun made barely any difference to owner’s likely ability to defend themselves in a breaking and entering robbery type situation.

So the gun lobby’s nonsense about buying a gun to be safer is, well, nonsense.

Can't argue with that. If they want to carry killing themselves and each other backing it up with the second amendment nonsense who are we to argue I guess. Let them carry on blaming Marylin Manson and mental illness which they provide precious little support for.

 

[najaB]

Careful with that. It appears the Tueller rule is actually a self defence tactical training exercise regarding reaction times to draw aim and fire a holstered fire arm, rather than an alteration to the underlying law on self defence (where murder charges are a risk if the police get it wrong).

I know what it is, but thanks to Graham v. Connor it has become, de facto, a blanket defence against a charge of unlawful use of force - "He was less than 21 feet away and I thought he had a weapon" pretty much gets you off any killing if you're a police officer. And several states have more or less codified it into their own law for citizens.

 

[Bromley boy]

I know what it is, but thanks to Graham v. Connor it has become, de facto, a blanket defence against a charge of unlawful use of force - "He was less than 21 feet away and I thought he had a weapon" pretty much gets you off any killing if you're a police officer. And several states have more or less codified it into their own law for citizens.

Have they? Which states are these, and please could you point to the relevant legislation?

Re. Graham v Connor, would you mind pointing out the bit of the case that implements a de facto blanket defence based in the Tueller rule? Could you also identify any other cases where said blanket defence has been invoked by a defendant?

I know it’s only a digest but, unless I’ve missed it, the case you’ve referenced makes no mention of the Tueller rule/training (or whatever it’s correctly called).

From a quick read this case seems to be clarifying the objective elements of the “objectively reasonable” standard by which officers’ actions must be judged when assessing their decision to use force in arresting or detaining a suspect (said suspects protected by 4th amendment rights). This doesn’t sound at all dissimilar to the UK position, and, as I say, seems to make no mention whatsoever of the Tueller rule. The following extract (from your link above) gives a flavour:

“The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.”

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The fact is, to prevent terrorism we need to do less, or rather we need to stop killing innocent civilians, stop funding authoritarian regimes, try and address the root causes of terrorism which are generally legitimate grievances such as poverty and deprivation.

I have emboldened part of your posting above and would put forward a view that Britain is only one of a disparate group of countries who fund such regimes. How do you propose to stop funding by those other countries? There are Middle East countries with a seemingly bottomless pit of available finance to fund those regimes, far more in monetary terms than Britain.

 

[najaB]

Re. Graham v Connor, would you mind pointing out the bit of the case that implements a de facto blanket defence based in the Tueller rule? Could you also identify any other cases where said blanket defence has been invoked by a defendant?

I think, perhaps, you didn't quite grasp the meaning of it being de facto, rather than de jure.

I know it’s only a digest but, unless I’ve missed it, the case you’ve referenced makes no mention of the Tueller rule/training (or whatever it’s correctly called).

Grahm v Connor established the principle that an objective reasonableness standard applies when civilians wish to make a claim of unlawful use of force by a police officer. Combine this with the Tuleller drill establishing that anyone with a weapon is an immediate threat if they in the 21-foot circle and there's your blanket defence.[/QUOTE]As to cases where this has been seen, try being black in America - there have been dozens of high-profile and thousands of under the radar cases of police wounding or killing people because they 'presented a threat' despite being unarmed and/or at a distance from the officers involved.

E.g.: Florida police officer charged for shooting unarmed man who had arms raised - two relevant quotes from the article:

In a statement announcing the charges and the issuing of an arrest warrant, the state attorney’s office criticized Aledda’s actions, noting that while two officers were within 20 feet of Kinsey, Aledda was more than 150 feet away when he fired three shots from his rifle. One round struck Kinsey in the thigh.

The police union representing Aledda defended the officer after the shooting, saying he was aiming for Soto because he was afraid the man held a gun and threatened Kinsey’s life.

The trial hasn't started yet, but I'm not confident of a conviction.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have emboldened part of your posting above and would put forward a view that Britain is only one of a disparate group of countries who fund such regimes. How do you propose to stop funding by those other countries? There are Middle East countries with a seemingly bottomless pit of available finance to fund those regimes, far more in monetary terms than Britain.

I would agree with that view, although I do think we need to be doing fewer dealings with Middle East, in particular.

I would add an additional question, if you don't mind, as to what extent foreign aid is also a de facto source of funding for some authoritarian regimes, albeit indirectly, when it finds its way into the hands of corrupt governments officials? According to this article from the economist, this is something of a problem.

Of course bono and the like never consider these matters when they're travelling by yacht to the latest charity fundraiser in Monaco, or wherever.

https://www.economist.com/news/inte...nt-poor-well-governed-countries-isnt-where-it

Unfortunately, as Malawi shows, it is liable to be snaffled by crooks. Aid can also burden weak bureaucracies, distort markets, prop up dictators and help prolong civil wars.

 

[najaB]

I would add an additional question, if you don't mind, as to what extent foreign aid is also a de facto source of funding for some authoritarian regimes, albeit indirectly, when it finds its way into the hands of corrupt governments officials? According to this article from the economist, this is something of a problem.

So, let's not do anything to help because there's a chance that some of the aid will go astray. I'm sure that the children will be happy to know that at least nobody bought a gun as they lie there starving to death.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think, perhaps, you didn't quite grasp the meaning of it being de facto, rather than de jure.
Grahm v Connor established the principle that an objective reasonableness standard applies when civilians wish to make a claim of unlawful use of force by a police officer. Combine this with the Tuleller drill establishing that anyone with a weapon is an immediate threat if they in the 21-foot circle and there's your blanket defence.
As to cases where this has been seen, try being black in America - there have been dozens of high-profile and thousands of under the radar cases of police wounding or killing people because they 'presented a threat' despite being unarmed and/or at a distance from the officers involved.

E.g.: Florida police officer charged for shooting unarmed man who had arms raised - two relevant quotes from the article:



The trial hasn't started yet, but I'm not confident of a conviction.

Ok so just to recap. Your original reply to fowler 9 was as follows:

That will be very hard to determine since - by way of an example - under many state laws a suspect who you believe to be armed with a knife can be shot if they are within a 16 foot radius and it's classed as self-defence (even if they aren't facing towards you at the time).

That reads pretty unambiguously as a "licence to kill" any suspect within a certain proximity based on an officer's subjective belief. You have made this as a statement of fact. This sounded too extreme to be accurate to me, which is what prompted my initial query for evidence to back it up.

We have subsequently established that the "rule" you mentioned above is in fact not a rule at all but a police training technique, I presume the uk police will have similar. The mistake you seem to be making is having read this rule (same one mentioned in the article) and interpreted it as a blanket authorisation to shoot suspects "if they believe they have a knife". The article I subsequently linked to categorically refuted this.

You've then linked to a case which you previously stated, when read in conjunction with this "rule" creates a de facto blanket defence for the police. As I say my reading of that case is that it clarifies an objective standard on the reasonableness of the officers' actions - nothing to do with any partiulcar aspect of their training.

I'll ask you again, please could you link to cases where this "blanket defence" has been successfully made out. You yourself have stated there are thousands of cases, so please show a single one showing a de facto blanket defence based on the above case and referencing the training. Please also list the states where you believe this de facto defence has been codified explicitly into law. (I've also done a google search regarding "de facto"'defences of this type and found nothing.)

If you cannot do that I will have to conclude there is nothing to support your original statement to fowler9 and will continue to regard it as wildly inaccurate.

To be clear we are both in broad agreement that gun violence and police violence is a problem in the US. Unfortunately your passion for this view has caused you to once again start "shooting from the hip" (excuse the terrible pun) and make simplistic statements that, when probed a little deeper, quickly show themselves to be completely unfounded.

As I suspected nothing I've my seen from you so far has altered my belief that the law governing use of force by the police is substantially different to that in the UK.

EDIT: I am now off to the pub so will reply in due course... I await your reply with baited breath!

 

[Bromley boy]

So, let's not do anything to help because there's a chance that some of the aid will go astray. I'm sure that the children will be happy to know that at least nobody bought a gun as they lie there starving to death.

I asked a question, and I never said anything of the sort. Did you read my post?

 

[Antman]

And yet another mass shooting in northern California has left at least three dead.

Hardly worth me starting a new thread so common are such occurrences!

 

[TheNewNo2]

Sussex Guy, there is quite literally one every day on average.

 

[najaB]

Charged with second degree homicide.
Acquitted.

 

[Bromley boy]

Charged with second degree homicide.
Acquitted.

Looks insane when you first watch it but it's difficult to see what happened at the crucial moment. Also, it's strange how he puts his hands behind his back the first time (at 3:50), in direct disobedience of the police officer training a gun on him.

From a google search of the story:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/arizona-police-shooting-philip-brailsford-acquitted

Shaver, 26, sobbed as he begged police not to shoot and was ordered to crawl toward officers. As he inched forward, he reached toward the waistband of his shorts. Brailsford said he fired his rifle because he believed Shaver was grabbing a handgun in his waistband.

Why on earth did he reach towards his waist?! Evidently the jury felt they had enough doubt to acquit. Nobody commenting on here will be able to second guess that decision.

One thing we can agree on is that there are far, far too many guns in the US, that's for sure.

EDIT: I see he and/or his his misses had been pointing pellet guns out of the hotel room window. Guns which were subsequently found in the room.

What did they expect was going to happen?!

 

[AlterEgo]

There was no reason for the police to ask him to crawl forward. Make him stay where he is with his hands above his head, advance and secure him.

At no point in the bodycam footage does the victim (because that’s what he is in my view; a murder victim) appear in any state to shoot anyone. He’s upset and confused, not angry or aggressive. He was clearly unable to follow instructions and the police ought to have made him follow as few as possible - see my suggestion above.

He reached for his pants because they were falling down, which is an instinctive reaction.

 

[najaB]

EDIT: I see he and/or his his misses had been pointing pellet guns out of the hotel room window. Guns which were subsequently found in the room.

What did they expect was going to happen?!

a) He was an exterminator and he used the pellet guns in his work.
b) It was a rifle type weapon - he clearly didn't have that stuffed down the waistband of his shorts.
c) There is no evidence that he was pointing the guns at anybody - one report I've seen says that he was 'seen' with the weapons.

There was no reason for the police to ask him to crawl forward. Make him stay where he is with his hands above his head, advance and secure him.

Exactly. He was alternately told to kneel, lie down, put his hands up, put his hands down, lie still, crawl.

There was only one instruction needed: "Lie on the ground with your hands in front of you, palms down."