Fair enough. And I'd like to think that the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm not going to get shot by the police for it. But to me, there seems to be a line that get's crossed when a suspect is stupid enough to assault a cop and break his face.
I get the bobbling of the response - and I agree with that. But if you're patron saint turns out to have done some pretty stupid , I'd abandon the movement.
Whatever happened with taking out his baton and beating the out of him? This isn't amateur hour or you facing a treat, this is a professional. They're held to higher standard.
Not all threats are the same. Two teenage fists just don't strike me as something that warrants deadly force. Obviously, there might be more to this, but this is where I'm at without any further details.
Once the gun comes out the training is to keep shooting until they are down and out.
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)It is not, however, uncons utional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not cons utionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such cir stances, the Tennessee statute would pass cons utional muster.
The more I think of it, the more this seems like a legitimate use of deadly force.
I think you are trying to hold the police to an unreasonably high standard...this cop had just had his face smashed in by this 300# man and according to witnesses he was coming back for more...he had a reasonable fear for his safety and the right to defend himself.
Two fists from a 6'4" 250+ lb man are most definitely considered a deadly threat, especially when those fists previously went for your firearm. Don't think punches are deadly google is your friend.
I don't buy he was a saint, but that has nothing to do with it, IMO. The guy that was selling counterfeit cigarettes in NY a couple months ago wasn't a saint either, but the cop put him on a chokehold (which has been prohibited by the NY police a long time ago) and killed him. Does it make it all right he wasn't a saint? No. I get that some people prefer to weight-in from a moral standpoint, but to me that's entire angle is irrelevant.
It's still far from clear what happened here. What there seems to be is a lot of 'anonymous sources' from either side just trying to steer the story in particular directions.
Strange that there were no protests for the man who was truly murdered by the police.
The argument you're presenting is that because this particular cop allegedly was unable to subdue this kid, his only choice was use deadly force on him. With what we know so far, I personally don't buy it.
But why should a cop be en led to do something that a normal citizen wouldn't? I get that cops are out there to protect us, but ultimately in a situation like the Brown situation, the cop's duty is really to apprehend the suspect and allow the criminal justice system to determine guilt and mete out punishment. It's one thing for a cop to see a suspect who is endangering the lives of innocents and determine that there's no choice other than to use lethal force to impose what may be fatal injuries (though even then, my view is that the use of that type of force should only be as a last resort to protect human life from an imminent danger); it's something else for the cop to be a scared and hurt and to use that cir stance to overreact to a situation in a way that cannot be reversed. happens, undoubtedly, but the reaction should be at least proportional to the alleged crime. Assaulting a cop, while indefensible, isn't a capital crime.
I guess it depends on what the basis for the movement is. If the basis of the movement is a majoritarian black community feeling as if the majority white police department unjustifiably profiles black citizens and frequently uses excessive force against them, non-violent protests in the wake of what could be perceived as another example of that seem like a perfectly reasonable manner of airing grievances.I get the bobbling of the response - and I agree with that. But if you're patron saint turns out to have done some pretty stupid , I'd abandon the movement.
I'm not saying that those complaints are valid here -- I honestly don't know, though there are those who have put forward a rather strong case to support those ideas. But if that's the sentiment in the community, I'm not really sure what other way they really have to express that sentiment than to organize themselves and protest, particularly when the world is watching.
And that's true, I think, even if the victim of the police overreach in that particular cir stance may have been at least partially at fault for his fate. At some point, if you think the police department has become culturally antagonistic to your community, responding to that in a massive and public way is a fairly American way to try to effectuate change.
I don't think anyone with any sense at all condones the commandeering of civil disobedience as a platform for violence or real crime.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 08-19-2014 at 05:25 PM.
What do you mean? There has been weeks of protests in Staten Island over that incident.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/ny...rand-jury.html
If the kid allegedly tried to grab his gun, and then allegedly charged the same cop afterwards, yes deadly force is warranted.
Well, we disagree.
I stand corrected. Had stopped following the story and had seen no coverage.
Guess so.
Again, I ing hate the cops, and I don't want to give the appearance of defending them. And I agree that assaulting a cop shouldn't be a capital crime (although killing one is). That being said, I have a really hard time seeing the injustice in the death of someone who fractured a cop's face. This isn't resisting arrest, or mouthing off to a cop. This is punching him so hard his skull fractures. If the standard authorizing the use of deadly force is severe bodily injury (whether to the cop or others), I don't see why that hasn't been met here.
I'll plead ignorance here and say that I don't know what the "real" motives of the movement are. However, I don't think anyone can deny that, at least initially, there was a very strong outcry over the death of an innocent 18 year old boy. As the facts are developing, I have a hard time buying that narrative.
My point is that this "movement" appears to have chosen a woefully bad candidate as their patron saint for decrying the excesses of police force (which I'm on board with) because this idiot may or may not have assaulted a police officer. I don't think that those who criticize police force are any less justified -- however -- I don't think that rallying the movement around Michael Brown creates that much sympathy because it seems, more and more, that Brown was a pretty bad dude.
At this point, I just don't buy that killing him was his only choice. Could he have gone back to his car, and called for backup? Was the kid an immediate threat to other civilians? It's a lot of questions without answers right now.
My nig, do you think that if (and its a big if at this point) the cop's face was really fractured by Brown, then that'd cons ute a "severe bodily injury?"
Possibly. I don't even pretend to state that what the cop did was illegal. I just get the feeling that certain lives are regarded as more worth than others when the decision to pull the trigger comes around. I can't help but wonder if the cop really did go through all his options before going for the last resort. Like I said, this is just based off what we know right now. It could easily change based on what really transpired.
I think you are asking for superhuman reasoning/self control for a person in a truly life threatening situation...If the Brown was truly rushing him like an NFL linebacker as witnesses say he had no time to weigh all the non-fatal options..."oh, let me holster my gun and get out my taser or go back to the car for my baton"...according to witnesses he stopped him only 3' away with the final shot....
I agree with this. While the cir stance might have (we really don't actually know yet) justified the use of deadly force, that doesn't require that deadly force be used. I realize that it's theoretical and aspirational to some to think this way, but I tend to think a police officer's approach to any encounter should be to use deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only when left with no other choice -- even if the situation might justify that type of force.
My fear is that we've turned the corner in a normative sense and now accept that when a police officer feels threatened (or even is assaulted), he or she can skip over other ways to subdue a suspect and just go right to deadly force.
That's particularly troubling when there are cir stances in which a stop is undertaken without much justification and a person who is surprised or angered by the stop overreacts to it. Somehow, the citizen is obligated to maintain his cool in that situation, no matter what, and if he doesn't keep his cool, the cop gains a justification to lose his.
Getting punched by a big dude is suddenly a life-threatening situation?
If some dude rushes up me on the street, is big, and looks threatening, I can just whip out a gun an shoot him dead on the spot?
I think this is absolutely 100% right. Unfortunately, I also think it's unreasonable to expect that out of the police considering the character of people who become cops.
Well, and if they don't choose to comply with those rules, they shouldn't get to be cops. Period.
I understand what you are saying, but isn't the cops right to use deadly force a deterrent to resistance? I was arrested a few times in my young wild days and survived it easily by saying Yes Sir and No Sir and doing what the cops told me to do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
