You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

You misread. Please don't speak for me, especially when you're so wrong.

I support both disband the police, which means require all police to go through the hiring process again with those with multiple or serious complaints on their record disqualified or at least forced into retraining and a long probationary period...and I also support defund the police...meaning remove mental health from their job (and fund a mental health department that is sent on mental health calls, normally without police escort), it means the SWAT team is only called after weapons are used, not pre-emptive for non-violent calls, so can be cut in half or less. It means ZERO dollars for military equipment.
It does not mean eradicating the police, it does not mean cut ALL police funding, it means remove the second, third, and fourth hats they wear, remove violent or abusive officers, and cut their funding accordingly.

Mostly I think people want enforceable responsibility, criminal and civil, not immunity. If police had no shield from their actions, they would act better instantly. That's a no brainer and doesn't cost a dime.

Edit: eradicating the police unions would go a long way towards fixing the culture.

I think the demands of the public are more homogeneous than you claim....I know so, since you mischaracterized my position to create an outlier. That said, people do have different ideas of how to fix a problem we seem to agree on....but stripping immunity seems to be nearly universal outside police and Republican senator circles.

The people running the country aren't our best and brightest, they are those narcissistic enough to think they alone can make a difference and those slimy enough to think they can take advantage of an elected position for their personal gain. Trump proves undeniably that they aren't necessarily better educated , smart, or professional.

I'll go ahead and say the unpopular truth....we need to not just defund, but disband the police. Fire them all, then allow them to reapply for their jobs, but those with excessive complaints, or any crimes on their record don't get hired back or at a minimum should have to go back to school with no pay, then pass a psychological screening far more stringent than the one they passed originally.
No amount of funding change (which is needed), demilitarization (which only means not making them more militarized, no one's taking their swat tanks or snipers), no amount of public outrage, or chiefs quitting will make a difference if the same criminal cops are still on the force, they need a massive purge and complete culture change or things will not get better.

One other change that I believe will definitely help, remove immunity so criminal cops not only go to prison, but also are first in line to pay restitution for their own crimes out of their own pockets, then once they're bankrupt the union's pockets, and if they both run out of money the city/state comes last in line for obligation to pay. When cops lose everything when they're convicted for abusing their authority, the bad apples will straighten up fast or quit.

I'll never swat another mosquito as long as I live.

Long live Monty Python!

Really? I think they handled it perfectly well for being homeowners and not part of a SWAT/Police/Military team.

Reply to multiple previous comments:



Re:
"Literally no different from a pistol other than it can have better accuracy and sometimes higher caliber"

.38 (9mm), .40, .45 are the calibers you will see used by police pistols

.223 (5.56mm), .300, .308, are the calibers you will see used by police rifles

Unless an officer is using a personal firearm at work, the pistols should all be higher caliber.

The major difference is muzzle velocity damage.
The pistol cuts a tunnel the diameter of the [expanded] bullet.
The rifle leaves an exit wound multiple inches across, and at point blank will grenade the exit side of the target, painting the wall with gibs.





Re:
"Can you tell me why you believe it's "not a great idea" when the criminals already all have guns too?"

Because police should be there to protect citizens lives, at the cost of their own if needed. (Hence the "hero"/"Public Servant" status they so like to remind us of)

If they protect their own lives, at the cost of citizens if needed, then they become a part of the problem they are supposed to be solving.

Just imagine the uninvolved bystander down the street struck down for no fault of their own.

The better path forward is full head to toe level 4 body armor for police, not heavier police firepower in packed suburbs.

That way they have the option to hold fire and assess the situation without shitting their pants and hosing the place down with lead "just in case, so they minimize the risk of getting hurt".

Full L4 body armor means that when things like the VT shooting happen, the police don't pitch tents outside and wait for SWAT (who actually has armor) to show up while people are likely getting killed inside.

Full L4 body armor means that when police open a door to a bathroom with an intruder inside (or a vacuum), they don't have to be thinking "kill or be killed".





Re:
"You are assuming it's a high velocity rifle. It's likely only 9mm, meaning minimal impact and penetration"

The video shows shots of the rifle magazine. It's not a 9mm pcc (pistol caliber carbine) magazine. It's the standard form factor. Meaning it is likely to be one of common the off the shelf calibers for that form factor :
.223/5.56
.300 blackout
6.8 spc
.224 valkyrie
6.5 grendel
None are 9mm. And other than a subsonic .300 blackout variant (used with suppressors/silencers), all pack a world more hurt than a 9mm.






It's true that a faster/heavier round will pass through more walls, and more houses.

Not sure it matters though, as 9mm ball will go through plenty of sheetrock layers, and rifle ammo stands a chance at fragmenting on impact with obstacles.
Which goes farther for any given shot will depend on what each one strikes along the way, and if it's bullet is of type FMJ/ball or HP or frag or penetrator or whatever.

-scheherazade

Sorry to hear that. As I have mentioned before (in a couple of different posts), I also grew up in a household that was deeply troubled and violent. My grandfather was a wonderful man when sober, unfortunately he was more often than not inebriated.

I experienced multiple styles of punishment, depending on the situation. If my grandfather was drunk, he was like as not to hit me. I still have a physical reminder of that method, in that he broke my nose once. I too learned to be elsewhere when he was drunk and to fear that version of my grandfather.

In times when he was sober, or when my grandmother was able (she suffered from MS), I received spankings. I learned that if I did not do certain things, I would not get spankings. So I stopped doing those things.

Same in school, I used to be a little shithead, very sarcastic and mean. I quickly learned that if I did things against other kids, I would get a paddling. The paddling didn't actually hurt that much, but the knowledge that other kids knew I was getting swats was very effective in making me stop acting out.

Later, as I became close to 18, both the school and my grandparents moved to a more hands off style. The school because, even in Texas, people were trying to get schools to stop using corporal punishment. My grandparents because they were older, sicker, and I was larger. My grandfather basically told me that I was close enough to being a man that I was going to make my own mistakes and he wasn't going to bail me out from them. I still got punished after the fact, but it wasn't physical.

Maybe I am an outlier, but that period was probably when I was the most wild. I got in trouble with the law, made terrible decisions, and probably would have done some serious time but for the guiding principles of my eventual wife when we started dating. I feel that if my grandparents and the school had been more strict during that time, I might have not had as many close calls as I did.

In any case, I would say that both of our experiences with earlier punishment would be taking it to the abuse level. I feel that corporal punishment, justly applied, is still better than not doing it. Fortunately we all can have our own opinion on the topic, so I can understand your viewpoint as well.

As far as the screwdriver, I wouldn't use it because it is completely ineffective. However, if I did not have a lug wrench and had a tool that could apply the proper force (say a crescent wrench or lockjaw pliers) I would use that tool.

Hubris.

WW2 japan had fighters that flew faster, climbed quicker, had bigger guns, and turned quicker (a6m vs f4f). And we had intel reports that told us, but we ignored them because "we have the best stuff and nobody else can compete".

You see the same stuff today with China. China makes all of our microchips, all of our microelectronics, most of which are designed over there anyways (companies here just ask for a widget that does X and Y, and Chinese companies design+make it), yet we act like as if they are some technologically retarded place that only knows how to steal ip.

Russia has been at the forefront of rocketry since ww2. Nobody has systems that compare to their consistency and reliability. Not even the U.S.. The idea that Russia can't make a hyper sonic missile before the U.S., because it's Russia, is a non sequitur.

Also, Russia broke up as a country because guaranteed government jobs for all citizens, where you can't be fired and performance is not important, is going to destroy any economy. No one will produce, shelves will be empty, and money will be no more than paper. Combine that with making private business illegal (preventing people from economically helping themselves), and you have a recipe for economic disaster and social discontent.

This missile exists to swat down carrier groups on the cheap.
We're gonna need some powerful lasers, or our own hyper sonic interceptors, or else proliferation would instantly leave us isolated in the Americas (vis-a-vis power projection via conventional weaponry). Our only option for projecting power would be reduced to nuclear or nothing.

-scheherazade

Was hoping for an actual experiment.

You cannot both "detect" a photon/electron before it "enters a slit" and have it go through and "detect" it again at the back. That part is (probably) hogwash.

Detection at this scale really means fatal crash or at least deflection.

From what has been observed it would appear that in such an experiment an individual electron takes all the possible paths through both slits and the "waves" that "interfere" are waves of probability of the particle passing through detection points.

While it might as well be magic, really, QED does have observable rules, and this video might make it appear as though one could change the outcome by blinking an eye, which is not the case.

To make any headway stop thinking about tiny marbles. Think about tiny cartoon characters moving so fast they are smudged to invisibility whirring their tiny appendages around - you can only tell which particle and where it is if you swat it or it hits a wall and stops moving. There is no "detect but keep going as if nothing happened".

Yes, people should be able to have the same weapons their local police have. If a weapon is too powerful for the public to have, the cops don't need it either. If the shit gets too hot, call in the national guard. As far as spawnflagger saying active military or SWAT owning an AR15, why wouldn't they just train with it and keep it at their department? There's no need for them to own it themselves to be able to use it.

A big part of any overthrow of government is getting the police and military to defect or refuse to fire on the resistance. Peaceful revolutions work much better for this than armed ones, although it seemed to work in Ukraine.

The intent of the 2nd amendment was so that The People could rise up against a tyrannical government and overthrow it, should the need arise. That was practical back then, when both sides were just a bunch of dudes with muskets.
Nowadays, it would be impossible to rise up and overthrow the military (and militarized police), even with the best assault rifles. So an overthrow-by-violence just isn't practical.

I think it would be OK for active military or SWAT police to own and practice with AR-15, but I support a ban for everyone else (similar to what was in place 1994-2004). I like your idea about allowing them at shooting ranges too, where they are rented, not owned.

Some AR-15 owners say they use them to hunt coyotes, but give me a break- you can use any rifle for that.

Damn, they should really retract or correct their video.

Also, does it seem like trolls have grown substantially more evil over the last 10 years? What with the swatting and the doxing and the fake news and the thing.

With all the trial by social media things these days, the damage is done long before forensics are even required, and retractions get very little traffic. Think about SWAT'ing with zero evidence and a person still ended up dead.