Posted on 07/30/2016 10:27:39 PM PDT by Enchante
Did you not read the story? He had ditched the car and was running. He had, in effect, dropped the weapon and was fleeing. What threat was he to the police or anyone?
What could possibly justify shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect?
I specifically said intrinsic value and never did I imply that you are entitled to receive a new car. You missed my entire point of the police are there to serve and protect in addition to enforcing the law. EVERY FRIGGIN ONE OF THEM. Break them and suffer the consequences, period.
He broke the law, he got caught in the act and then tried to ram his way through the police who he knew were trying to stop him. He ef’ed up on so many levels and Darwin’s rule took effect. What happened behind the house he was corralled at is still to be vetted. Did he attack the lone officer there with him and try to disarm the officer? We just don’t know that with any authority at all.
As for repop drivers to be the collection agency for wayward thieve’s bounty, they have enough troubles with people who are not disposed to violence and already carry for protection from those who do. In your example, just how many of them will have their livelihoods halted while a shooting investigation takes place?
How many will need to pay insurance rates that would make what anesthesiologists pay look like chickenfeed?
Just how will that affect what it costs us, the tax payers, again to support that kind of bottom line to take away a job already in the basic charge of our police?
You ignored the point that two of the officers (apparently) were not present for that shooting. So two of them, according to the articles, may have had nothing to do with the “in the back” shooting. Yet they are treated as guilty parties.
As for “in the back” we have to know all the facts, such as how close was he when the officer fired, was he attacking the officer ala Michael Brown, etc. The perp might have ambushed the officer. There are plenty of ways to cause grievous bodily harm without a gun. He might have been fighting and twisting, we don’t know anything yet. You don’t know that the officer knew he had no weapon. He might have been trying to get the officer’s weapon, or he might have done something threatening. I’m not going to try to list all the possibilities, I’m going to wait for a full presentation of the facts. If you care to make up your mind based upon the briefest of newspaper articles that is your concern.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
“Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Given that this week’s dead thug in Chicago had demonstrated a violent and reckless disregard for the lives of others, it was completely reasonable to assume that the fleeing felon posed an immediate danger to the community. The shooting was not just constitutional under the governing Supreme Court decision, it was the morally correct action for that situation.
Good riddance to another of the useless **Black Lives** that didn’t **Matter** to the thug who got himself justifiably killed.
damnit you don’t know that he was “fleeing” at the moment he was shot. All we are told is it happened behind a house. He might have been cornered, he might have tried to ambush the officer, he might have been trying to get the officer’s gun.
You want to assume the worst of the police without all the facts. We know we have a dead perp who was a vicious violent criminal. We don’t yet know all the details of what happened behind that house.
and no, I don’t trust “Chief Moose” the politically correct Affirmative Action hire to do an honest job here. The political pressures on the CHicago PD (and so many other depts) are tremendous now. Far too easy to hang some officers.....
“Sigh” — I wonder how many people opining about what “the facts” “say” even read the source story, or know what official police policy even is.
The lack of visibility cuts both ways in externally identical stories — because the thing that makes them not identical is often either never disclosed or else disclosed late.
What is happening here is an investigation in which the officers will still get paid for some kind of clerical duty.
How about wanting to assume the worst of the chief... doubt cuts both ways.
No, the chief is not the one who is having his badge taken away with no due process or full investigation. There is a radical assymmetry here, it is the officers who are being treated as criminals not the chief/superintendent.
I am perfectly willing to think that the chief’s view might be vindicated after a full investigation, but I would like to see that investigation conducted first. The officers would be on desk duty pending investigation anyway, but the chief had to publicly humiliate them and assume guilt in order to please the braying mobs.
thou shall not run from the cops
Really,
What if the thief takes it to a chop shop?
No more car.
When it is your vehicle that gets stolen and then you will sing a different song.
This is Pontius Pilate in full action.
Mayor gets what he wants ('clean' hands), 'top cop' gets what he wants (pass the buck), #BLM gets next to nothing but a pat on the head (because the perp isn't likely a #BLM dues-paying member), and the beat cops get shafted - unless they get their own lawyers and sue the everlasting shit out of all of the foregoing.
Annnnd again, the lawyers win...
As for myself, I have lived for 75 years. I attribute that in part to obeying the law for the most part. When confronted by the police for breaking said law by speeding, running a stop sign, ect, I am courteous to the officer and for the most part, they return the favor. I obey the officer's instructions. I do not attempt to flee, resist , or use a weapon on said officer. And for me, that philosophy has worked throughout the years.
The crooks are winning with a lot of help from the upper echelon of the political class!
YUP
Paul had 1st through 5th move. He made his own decisions. Actions have consequences. Play chess much?
>>This guy rams into two occupied police vehicles and this is a bad shoot?
I see the word “struck” being used in the actual story, but everyone keeps saying “rammed”. There is a difference. Cops use their cars to block another car. If the driver hits them, he isn’t really ramming them.
Back when I was a cop-worshiping FReeper, I used to work nights and I kept a police scanner on my desk. I listened to a car chase on our Northside one night where the cops kept putting their cars in the way and then the perp would be forced to “ram” them. Finally, they boxed her in and shot her a dozen times. The next day, we learned that she was an adult with Down’s Syndrome. But, it was a good shoot because the cops “feared for their lives” (as they placed their cars in the path of the moving vehicle).
They use their cars to cause you to “ram” them.
They put you in a painful hold so you reflexively pull away and then you are “resisting”.
They set a vicious dog on you and if you hit it, you are guilty of “assaulting an officer”.
That’s how a Police State begins.
Turns out, she was a criminal with down’s syndrome
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.