they had to wait till AFTER li'l ram won the election... and the 1st Deg charge is prolly overcharging him so he will be acquitted unless they bring lesser charges behind it
Posted on 11/25/2015 11:57:19 AM PST by IChing
I have no idea what that means, but thanks.
In many cases it does tell the whole story, and many cases the defendant was prosecuted based on video, so you're wrong. Any evidence, video or otherwise is better than no evidence. I'll keep repeating this if you like.
Back to detective school for you.
In my previous post I said that they used a tazer but that it had no affect. Correct word is effect.
Except it appears there was an imminent threat.
Your minimum response is two rounds is a minimum.
Many instructors teach to keep on shooting until the threat is down and no longer a threat.
they had to wait till AFTER li'l ram won the election... and the 1st Deg charge is prolly overcharging him so he will be acquitted unless they bring lesser charges behind it
I’ll keep repeating this if you like.
...
No need. You’ve already proved you can’t back up your claim.
“Scroll down to the part that it talks about malice a forethought.”
I think they will have difficult proving malice in this case. They officer can clearly make the claim that he believed he was protecting innocent other officers.
That is not malice. That is what makes a shooting justified.
To me it looks like the first shot causes him to spin around and the second shot drops him.
Video has told the whole story in many criminal cases. You're wrong once again. What the press does or what people do after viewing video is another entire story. If you want to ban video, or ban viewing it, go ahead and give it a shot.
Whatever happened to net guns? Don’t work or not steroid enough?
Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the second shot was the fatal one. He went limp instantly. (IMHO)
LOL
No, Rahm didn’t want it to get out before his reelection cause he didn’t want Blacks mad at him. A judge released it, not him, this is bad for him.
This is the Chicago PD’s Use of Force Model:
AE is, apparently, correct, though I would use the term proportional response, i.e., an officer is allowed to enter the fray at the level he needs to, he doesn’t have to walk through each lower level if the situation warrants going immediately to some higher level.
But notice the objective is control of the subject. When you’ve got control, you don’t take it any further. If you do, the reasonableness standard will be applied, which, as I noted earlier, is an objective standard, and therefore NOT dependent on the officer’s personal opinion of his own danger, but the reasonableness of his judgment.
Furthermore, notice that even the amount of tissue damage is to be weighed in the decision. This is not a standard that would be applied to a relative amateur, a private CC carrier, so yes the standard is different, in that even though the design of the law is to give the police the ability to do their job, nevertheless they have to be even more careful than the rest of us in the application of lethal force. If an officer cannot walk that walk and chew that gum at the same time, he or she does not deserve to wear the badge of trust we give them.
Peace,
SR
Important to remember that LEOs have the duty to act, to make the arrest or confront/terminate the threat, whereas private c.c.w. citizens and even security officers do not.
So you have the expertise to be able to state that the definition for deadly force and its application (by both DoD and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security standards) significantly differs from local police? It doesn't.
Guess who trains the Marines for embassy duty for arresting and applying deadly force on embassy grounds? Federal special agents. The only difference in the deadly force taught for guard duty in the infantry is the baton, the mace and the handcuffs that are issued for embassy duty. That's it. The rest is paperwork.
So deadly force has been preached into my soul for 20 years. I know what it is, how it is applied, and I can tell you the cop is going to jail because he misapplied it. It is only a question of what he pleas to, or is found guilty of. My money is on manslaughter because it's a misapplication of deadly force, so it likely won't meet the standard for Murder 1 or 2.
If you want to ban video, or ban viewing it, go ahead and give it a shot.
...
I never said it should be banned.
All you have as backing for your assertion is personal attacks, repetition of the same unsupported claim, and putting words in my mouth.
Ouch!
“My money is on manslaughter because it’s a misapplication of deadly force, so it likely won’t meet the standard for Murder 1 or 2.”
Yes, that is what I would bet on as well. Manslaughter. I do not see it fitting Murder 1 or 2.
Probably tunnel vision on the part of the officer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.