Posted on 06/04/2012 7:51:28 AM PDT by fella
Witnesses claim Dallas officer shot suspect in the back
by JONATHAN BETZ
WFAA
Posted on June 3, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Updated today at 7:35 A
DALLAS — Conflicting stories are emerging surrounding Saturday's killing of an armed man by a Dallas police officer.
Police justify the shooting as self-defense, although witnesses report the 21-year-old suspect was shot in the back as he ran from the officer.
John Husband III, 21, of Dallas, was killed Saturday afternoon outside an apartment complex in the 3600 block of Folklore Trail in Oak Cliff.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Duh! I lack formal medical training, but I’m pretty sure they can determine these day where a bullet entered a body.
Without a video the . . . Locals, are going to Travon this case just like in Stanford Fla. The locals are looking for an excuse to go on a rampage and the truth be damned.
Doesn’t matter what the “eye witness say” Eye witness testimony is known to be seriously unreliable. The forensic investigation/autopsy will determine if the suspect was shot in the back or not.
Who cares if he shot an armed criminal in the back?
If the Trayvon Martin case has shown anyting it is that blacks care more about skin color than the truth. Why should anyone trust the “eye witnesses” from the ghettos of Dallas?
What crime?
Cop trying to cuff him and he runs, shoot him. That’s the way it is. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t run.
Cop should be prosecuted for second degree murder and violation of his civil rights.
It is a civil rights violation to shoot a fleeing individual unleash they are an mediate threat to cause serious bodily harm or death. The law in this is clear and widely known within law enforcement agencies.
See 471 US 1 (1985)
Yikes, ever hear of due process? Are you willing to give LEO that much power? According to the witnesses, the officer didn’t make any effort to chase the suspect, just pulled out the gun and shot him. Since the eyewitnesses are correct thus far and the police dept is being very quiet, I believe the witnesses have credibility at this point.
DALLAS — The Dallas County Medical Examiner's office has confirmed witness reports that a suspect who was killed by a Dallas police officer on Saturday was shot in the back.
OTOH, why was he being arrested? "story" doesn't say. Was he illegally carrying? "Story" doesn't say. Was he trying to flee, as witnesses (his buddies) say; or trying to reach cover & use his weapon? Can't say. Were threats made against the officer, while he struggled to escape? "story" doesn't (can't?) say.
Was "his gun" really a gun? "Story" doesn't say. If it was, a gun, was it his, or a throw-down? I'm pretty certain the witnesses would have mentioned that, but it still can't be ruled out completely, based on the 'story'.
Was he a "good boy" who was 'turning his life around'? Well, we're told he 'wanted to become' a truck driver, and 'wanted to see the world'. Can't tell from the "story" though, if 'he was an A student'; or if he really was a good boy...and neither the linked story, nor a companion (word for word) piece at another TV "news" site, link to any previous or related stories that might answer any of these questions. ...and those are the only two stories that come on Google-News for his name.
Personally, I'm pretty tired of the Lefty meme of "proportional force"--I grew up in the time when the doctrine was "overwhelming force" against enemies and criminals. I'm tired of allowing 'runners' to hole up; cause huge circus-like standoffs for up to days on end, complete with pizza deliveries to the 'poor, unfortunate, misunderstood, 'crying for help' dirtbags. "A bullet in time, saves nine".
It is also widelyknown among the criminal population.
It is also widely known among the general public that "the law is an ass."
Mega Ditto!!
What crime did this guy commit?
IIRC, in my state, “Stop or I’ll shoot!” is basically legal. The officer just has to believe you are an imminent threat to the community. 2b
Use of Force in Arrest. –
(1) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (2), a law-enforcement officer is
justified in using force upon another person when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes it necessary:
a. To prevent the escape from custody or to effect an arrest of a person
who he reasonably believes has committed a criminal offense, unless
he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or
b. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest or while preventing or attempting to
prevent an escape.
(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon
another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection
only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person
who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a
deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates
that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical
injury to others unless apprehended without delay; or
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as
a result of conviction for a felony.
Nothing in this subdivision constitutes justification for willful, malicious or
criminally negligent conduct by any person which injures or endangers any
person or property, nor shall it be construed to excuse or justify the use of
unreasonable or excessive force.
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.