KZN rugby player shot dead by cops in Hawaii

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
A cop telling you to stop should be more than enough.

But then they also yell taser taser taser taser a bunch of times while tasering, fire a single shot and still he continues his kung-fu rampage. They couldn't have made it any clearer that they wanted him to stop.

But a guy smasing cops' faces really has no intention to stop.

Yeah, no, in this case the cops first warned him verbally to get down. Secondly, their firearms were drawn and pointed on him. Thirdly, they were physically assaulted, which resulted in a fight. Fourth, they tased him. Fifth, they fired a warning shot. Then, lastly, they took his life as there was no other option. The police cannot be more subtle than this.
 

Sollie

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
10,761
It doesn't detract from the fact that the police are allowed to engage in physical fights, which is what I was to show with the video
But just ask them to produce their drug test results first - Floyd ...
 

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
Protesters call for change


These so-called 'protesters' are all part of a new movement that want law enforcement disbanded in total. They are looking for lawlesness and probably a state of war to unsettle earth's population. One cannot listen to them and they should be given no attention. They will look for anything just to 'justify' these calls of them.

Out of tens, if not hundreds of millions of incidents a month, very few end up in violent force being used. They chose to focus on 1, 2 or 3 incidents and ignore the rest. So, they have false and ulterior motives in their calls.

Law enforcement should never change. It should stay as it is. People, however, should change their attitudes against law enforcement.
 

AntennaMan

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,759
There are more forceful but less lethal ways of asking someone to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_shot
Warning shots are absolutely the worst idea ever. As the person pulling the trigger, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. By firing a warning shot, you have almost no idea where it will stop. Or which innocent person may get hit.
If a situation has reached the point where you feel a warning shot is required, then you engage the actual target.
 

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
Warning shots are absolutely the worst idea ever. As the person pulling the trigger, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. By firing a warning shot, you have almost no idea where it will stop. Or which innocent person may get hit.
If a situation has reached the point where you feel a warning shot is required, then you engage the actual target.

100% correct. The SAPS are clearly taught that warning shots needs to fired into the ground and not into the air. But, even that, especially on cement or tar, is not a guarantee that no one else would be hit by a ricochet bullet.

No, a police officer firing a warning shot will not be charged or prosecuted if anyone, even an innocent bystander was hit, but still, the safety aspect remains an issue. Warning shots are indeed required by courts when a person was shot and killed by a police officer in order to show that the death of the person was indeed the last and only available method.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
16,404
Warning shots are absolutely the worst idea ever. As the person pulling the trigger, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. By firing a warning shot, you have almost no idea where it will stop. Or which innocent person may get hit.
If a situation has reached the point where you feel a warning shot is required, then you engage the actual target.

Did you actually read the text I quoted before you responded? It covers both the pros and cons of such actions.

If you did, you would never make such an absolute statement. Read it again...
 

Supersoaker

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
841
100% correct. The SAPS are clearly taught that warning shots needs to fired into the ground and not into the air. But, even that, especially on cement or tar, is not a guarantee that no one else would be hit by a ricochet bullet.

No, a police officer firing a warning shot will not be charged or prosecuted if anyone, even an innocent bystander was hit, but still, the safety aspect remains an issue. Warning shots are indeed required by courts when a person was shot and killed by a police officer in order to show that the death of the person was indeed the last and only available method.
If not for the body cam then shoot the person then fire a second shot, document the first shot as a warning shot in your report.
 

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
If not for the body cam then shoot the person then fire a second shot, document the first shot as a warning shot in your report.

What about all the witnesses around? The complainant who pointed out the suspect, your partner(s), that one person looking out a window, walking past, standing around in a dark corner - the one you never saw?

No thanks, do your job right, just like these police officers did. You can do your report / affidavit with a clean conscience and if need go to court, you can testify exactly as things happened and you will be fine.

Besides, when people's lives are in your hands, and you have the responsibility to decide when a person lives or dies in any specific moment of time, you need to act responsibly and not in any other manner.
 

Sollie

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
10,761
If not for the body cam then shoot the person then fire a second shot, document the first shot as a warning shot in your report.
Klank! That's the sound of your prison cell.

Your 1st round will be a clean round with less residue. The 2nd shot essentially passes through a dirty barrel, leaving more residue.

Just don't!
 

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
I'm compelled to ask how many years of legal experience do you have, given all your legal opinions.
Are you perhaps counsel, or possibly senior counsel?

No, I am not an attorney, SC, Advocate or prosecutor. But, at least all these facts are contained in laws and this is something we all should know.
 

DA-LION-619

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
11,444
BTW, when I looked up that property I went down a rabbit hole, the question is what was Myeni doing there?
Here’s a plot twist, he might have been a Krsna devotee, the temple is behind that house.
Who is Mayeni talking to at about the 0:27, he seemed quite calm at this point.
The first officer on the scene? Apparently they were talking but his bodycam was switched off.
 

ShaunSA

Derailment Squad
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
33,540
Humans... funny things. Everyone's watching the same vids and drawing a hundred different conclusions :ROFL:
 

rvZA

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,240
Here’s a plot twist, he might have been a Krsna devotee, the temple is behind that house.

The first officer on the scene? Apparently they were talking but his bodycam was switched off.

If this was indeed the first officer, then out the window flies any claim the family or attorney may want to file against police. The talk about police not identifying themselves then also becomes totally irrelevant and I suspect that the attorney may be asking the wife huge sums of money for the work he has done this far.
 

Speedster

Honorary Master
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
12,556
Humans... funny things. Everyone's watching the same vids and drawing a hundred different conclusions :ROFL:
Most are looking through severely tinted goggles trying to find a way to make this about race.
 
Top