Reply With Quote
My point is that punches, while injurious, don't usually tend to be life-threatening.
Actually, as I understand the law in Texas...if he has already punched you and broken your orbital bone and then rushes you again you are well within your right to shoot his ass because you have a reasonable fear for your life. Not that I want to be a test case.
My point is that punches, while injurious, don't usually tend to be life-threatening.
That's true, but don't you think, socially and legally, we treat assaulting a random civilian differently than we treat assaulting a law enforcement officer?
Not to belabor the point, but -- again -- neither is a capital crime.
It's all good. You're right it's not. But it certainly might authorize the use of deadly force.
As an attorney you are probably aware that it really comes down to "state of mind" and "reasonable fear". No one but the officer really knows what went through his mind in those awful seconds but I seriously doubt he got out of bed that morning and decided he was going to shoot someone that day "just because he could".
I don't think there's anything superhuman about recognizing a situation and acting on it, especially for a trained individual. Wouldn't be the first time or last time police retreat and regroup. If he truly felt he couldn't subdue him, then what were his other options? If shooting him fatally were option A, B and C, then why are we giving these guys batons, tasers, sprays, etc?
FWIW, there might be completely legitimate reasons for him to kill him, they're just not readily clear to me with what we know so far.
Would this cop have been justified using deadly force?
We still have witnesses giving very different stories.
What they all have in common though is a cop shooting a man at distance.
A man rushing him, a man threatening him, a man daring him to shoot and then a numb rush, a man hands up saying don't shoot.
When did the cop call for backup? And some help here, did brown really spend 4 hrs lying dead after the shooting?
I actually understand the whole 'fear' thing, but other than possibly be a mitigating factor, I don't think it's the end all, be all of a possible defense.
Hey.
She had a camera on.
This would have been useful in the situation being discussed.
Just sayin these guys aren't robots, they are human subject to the same fears and automatic defense mechanisms we are (or at least I am). Guess the fact that my future son in law is a part time cop may be clouding my judgement. I want him to live and if he shoots some guy trying to hurt or kill him I'm all for it.
Wonder was Stephen A Smith would say...
Actually as I understand the law in Texas and a lot of other states, it is.
And this is very Trillish.
So trill is required to show a vid with a White cop beating a Black woman.
Ask the question a different way: if a cop was in Brown's shoes (and still a cop) and Brown had been in the cop's shoes (and still not a cop) -- assuming for now the facts will eventually show that the cop's side of the story is objectively true -- would Brown have been justified in shooting and killing the cop?
We actually spend a pretty penny training them to recognize complex situations. Which is largely what distinguishes them from you or I. That doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing 100% of the time, but as FWD indicated, if the new trend is to protect potential ' ups' and lower the bar for the use of lethal force, then we're heading in the wrong direction. I'm not saying this is what happened here, we just don't know yet, but it's certainly a possible angle.
Let me get this straight...
Brown is driving down the street and yells at the cracker (cop not in uniform) to get out of the street.
The cracker approaches the car, punches Brown in the face breaking his orbital bone, and then wrestles with him for a gun he sees in the car.
The gun goes off and the cracker initially retreats...
The cracker then has a change of heart, taunts Brown that he won't shoot him,and then rushes Brown in an attempt to disarm him and presumably do more harm to him.
Yeah, I'd say Brown is well within his legal right to shoot the cracker.
No. The cop in uniform and on duty, in the midst of a confrontation with a citizen, rushes the citizen (after having already punched the citizen). If the citizen fires and kills the cop, is that justifiable?
Hmmmmm.
probably not.
In a confrontation with a cop Yes Sir and No Sir go a long way towards preventing escalation of violence. Take away the cops right to confront resistance with force and you are inviting anarchy.
I realize it's a thin line and the world is full of bad guys but I'm glad the cops are out there trying to do a tough job.
War on drugs? Not so much.
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to Investigate the Murder of Michael Brown
http://pe ions.moveon.org/sign/appoint-a-special-prosecutor?source=mo&id=100069-4330971-hD_aC2x
LOL Boo.
BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...th-mike-brown/
I don't know anything about the source. But if this is true the shooting is probably going to be justified.The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown.
...
More… The St. Louis County Police told reporters after the shooting that the police officer involved suffered facial injuries. He “was hit” and the “side of his face was swollen.”
Dammit black people. Why can't you riot when the facts are on your side....
It took 10 days for a rumor to surface that this guys face got broken.
That really sounds su ious as tbh.
everyday is something else. what a circus this has become. If these idiots from both sides had any self respect they would both shut up and wait till the investigation is over and finished with.
clowns
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions