you aren't instructed to shoot at limbs. when an officer opens fire, they aim center mass.
both sides are wrong. this isn't a race issues...it's two idiots and one has a gun. listen to the cop and he might even like you and let you off. if not, take it to court and he won't show up and get it expunged. fight fire with fire.
i guess that requires a little more thought than just fleeing. he took off like he was stealing home plate.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-10-2015 at 08:19 AM.
The family attorney says he was most likely fleeing because he knew he had a warrant out for his arrest for failure to pay back child support payment. One side was way more wrong than the other. Not even in the same ballpark.both sides are wrong. this isn't a race issues...it's two idiots and one has a gun. listen to the cop and he might even like you and let you off. if not, take it to court and he won't show up and get it expunged. fight fire with fire.
i guess that requires a little more thought than just fleeing
Here's what happened:
Scott reached for the cops taser or somehow dislodged it. Cop thought Scott took the taser and shot him in the back several times. Cop realized taser was on the ground next to him and took it over and dropped it next to the body. Cop is guilty of covering up a homicide, tampering with evidence, and the shooting itself.
Yep, this one's pretty cut and dry
The video shows Scott reaching for the taser?
they aren't instructed to shoot a fleeing, unarmed suspect either, but hitting him once in the leg would be better.
No. If you have the time to line up a shot to a leg, you weren't in imminent danger. That is just lawsuit city
then it would only be attempted murder charges
That is the point. He wasn't in imminent danger.
I know. Therefore there shouldn't have been a shooting at all. I was responding to the "shoot him on the leg" comment. Either you are in a position where you need to shoot to kill, or there should be no shooting at all. There is no "shoot them in the leg" middle ground
this actually makes plenty of sense. if you have to shoot to someone it's because your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger.
Yeah and that wasn't the case here. The guy was resisting arrest, but that's not a crime punishable by death nor is it threatening the life of anybody there. Cop could have radio'd for backup while maintaining pursuit
If he reached for the Officer's taser = shooting is justified
No. He never attempted to use the taser on the officer. At the point the officer reached for his side piece, the perp was already fleeing the scene without taser in hand. In Tennessee vs Garner, an officer is justified to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the officer feels the perp poses imminent danger to the officer or the public. The perp in this case posed no threat to the officer or public because a) he was running away from the officer and b) was not wielding a weapon.
"if the officer feels"
Who are we to judge his feelings? He is face to face with a lying and evading criminal. He never had the chance to pat him down either.
The courts will judge his feelings/intuition. That is what the courts are for and the reason this guy will get sentenced for murder. Under the law, law enforcement officers usually get a lot of leeway in cases like these (Darren Wilson comes to mind) but because there is visual evidence the courts will see the cop in this case was not justified in shooting the perp because he did not pose a threat to the officer or anyone else. He was just running away.
If it is deemed there was contact before the 2nd fleeing attempt (which it seems there was) the judgement will go differently than you are expecting.
If the Cop was blood thirsty, he would have shot him during the first fleeing attempt
Don't fall into this racial trap the medial loves to play that now the cop is some blood thirsty bigot. The shooting officer will not be charged for shooting a black unarmed man. He will charged for using deadly force on an unarmed man who was resisting arrest by fleeing the scene. Again, the officer was not justified in shooting the perp because he did not pose immediate danger to the officer or the public.
Your last sentence is hindsight.
All we/Officer know is a guy evading arrest during a traffic stop. We don't know if he has a knife or gun. He could have robbed a car and used it as a weapon. You have to assume the worst when an individual runs from the scene leaving behind his passenger.
No, you don't have to assume the worst. The officer didn't initially, which proves you completely wrong.
The job of the Officer is keeping the general public safe. Allowing a maniac who has already illustrated he will avoid Jail at all costs, to run thru the neighborhood is wrong.
If I'm in that park with my daughter, I want him taken down at any costs necessary.
It wasn't at all costs.
He wasn't a maniac.
You're a very fearful person.If I'm in that park with my daughter, I want him taken down at any costs necessary.
Why do we have to make excuses for 0.00001% of the Human species?
Hundreds of Thousands of people are pulled over each day on Planet Earth. Hundreds of Thousands of people remain in their car.
He got his wish: He avoided jail.
Nothing he did merited getting shot in the back multiple times.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
