Posted on 06/13/2003 2:21:21 PM PDT by tomball
The incident happened in a supermarket car park in the town of Shreveport and was captured on CCTV.
The 25-year-old man jumped out of his car and pointed what the officers say they thought was a gun. They responded by shooting him eight times in the back as he ran away. They then discovered his supposed weapon was only a mobile phone.
Police had chased him to the car park after he jumped a red light. A spokesman for the local police said they had studied the video tapes of the shooting. They decided it was justified because the officers felt threatened.
Shreveport police chief Jim Roberts said: "They felt their lives were in danger."
He said he believed the victim had engineered the incident to get himself killed in a "suicide-by-cop".
conservative, adj, "tending to conserve, preservative."
My interprestation of your remark above is that you classify yourself as a conservative.
I have provided the definition of conservative from The American Heritage College Dictionary.
With that being said, I presume you would wish to "conserve" the covenants of the Bill of Rights.
Specifically,
Amendment II, "...right to keep and bear arms..."
Amendment V, "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
I would hope you do not think being shot in the back is "due process of law."
Amazing.
Your comparison to Stalin was despicable and unwarranted and displays a cop-bashing mentality.
Under the circumstances that were described in the accompanying news story, there was zero failure of due process. The fact that the wounds were in the back is of no material value, because once the officers felt their life's were in jeopardy (the only issue in this shooting), the shooting should not cease until that jeopardy ceased to exist. Which way the perp was facing the exact moment the bullets struck is irrelevant.
--Boot Hill
Since just because of the utterance of such a phrase, listed above, indicates that you fail to compehend how inmicable to liberty that such a phrase represents, that I give up as hopeless in my attempt to talk to you about the issues of liberty, other than to recommend to you that you change your handle from "Boot Hill" to BOOT LICKER.
You have just expressed (however illiterately) the belief that it is "inimical to liberty" for a cop to defend his life from a perceived threat of death or great bodily injury. On a scale of morality and justice, that places your belief on a par with the hillbillies in the movie Deliverance. Wouldn't you feel more at home with the rest of the hate-filled, retrograde dirt bags over at FU?
--Boot Hill
Wrong.
He pointed a shiny object at a police officer, using a two-handed isoceles shooting stance.
In other words, he looked like he was pointing a firearm at the police officer.
We do not need hot pursuit except in the case of violent felons, nor do we need the use of deadly force except to apprehend violent felons.
Assault is a violent felony.
There is nothing to spin here.
Then quit trying to spin it.
The police shot an unarmed man for traffic violations.
The police shot an unarmed man who was acting as if he was armed and ready to shoot them.
Another dirtbag learned his lesson for running from the police state.
No, another element of the gene pool got chlorinated.
You are the one trying to spin the simple facts.
You are the one desperately ignoring several intervening steps in order to get to your desired conclusion.
Although a general respect for authority might contribute to a successful and prosperous life, "long life" is helped by respect and courtesy (or feigned respect and courtesy) for people pointing guns at you.
No. When a policeman pulls me over I am very careful to appear non-threatening and I punctuate my sentences with sir. I avoid giving an officer any reason to think I am a threat, because I am not a treat. A policeman pulling over a drunk on public roads is a different matter than a citizen defending his own property. I would never pull over for someone who is not a police officer while travelling on public roads. It sounds like the driver was not only too drunk to drive a vehicle, he was unable to know how to behave, or he was afraid he would be convicted of DWI and panicked.
You have just expressed (however illiterately)"
Just for the record, the phrase highligted above, that you have characterized as illiterate, is your composition and a reflection of your literacy, BottHill, not mine.
See post #123 for the proof. I copied and pasted your phrase verbatim.
LOL, you are a hoot tahiti!
I never characterized that phrase as illiterate, I characterized your entire sentence (that I had to insert that phrase in) as illiterate! The structure of that sentence contained so many misspellings, excess verbiage, strained grammar and faulty punctuation that it literally begged for my comment of "however illiterately".
What are you, about 60? And you still can not compose a single coherent sentence? Why do you bother posting if you can't communicate your ideas to another person? No wonder your political thought is so muddled and faulty. Stalin, indeed!
"How do you exert you 2nd amendment right to "...keep and bear arms..." if a "cop" can shoot to kill, if he/she "felt" threatened?"
"...an ignorant buttwipe."
"...despicable..."
"...that places your belief on a par with the hillbillies in the movie Deliverance. Wouldn't you feel more at home with the rest of the hate-filled, retrograde dirt bags over at FU?"
"And you still can not compose a single coherent sentence? Why do you bother posting if you can't communicate your ideas to another person?"
Obviously, nothing but ad hominem attacks. (ad hominem, adj, appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.)
Please answer my question with "logic or reason."
Nope, wrong again, tahiti, nothing I posted was, in anyway, a response to your question.
My original post to you was in (severe) condemnation of your outrageous ad hominem attack on poster Onelifetogive in your post #18, where you characterized his suggestions as being akin to something Josef Stalin would say. Beyond your personal attack on him, you said nothing in that post that I felt needed any response, least of all your illogically framed question about the 2nd Amendment.
tahiti says: "Obviously, nothing but ad hominem attacks."
You started with the ad hominems in post #18, tahiti, so if you can't take it, you shouldn't have let loose with the first salvo. I feel no pity or remorse when you come crying to me about taking return fire.
tahiti quotes Boot: "And you still can not compose a single coherent sentence?"
That was not an ad hominem attack, that was just objective fact based upon the content (or lack thereof) in your posts. Your posts were getting difficult to decipher.
tahiti asks: "How do you exert you 2nd amendment right to "...keep and bear arms..." if a "cop" can shoot to kill, if he/she "felt" threatened?"
To see how illogical your question is, replace your phrase "a cop" with the word "anyone". The standard that a person must "maintain a reasonable belief that he/she were in imminent danger of an attack that posed the threat of death or severe bodily injury" is the proper and accepted standard for both the cop as well as any civilian.
In the present case we find from the story that after the police department reviewed the video tape of the shooting, they found, as Police Chief Roberts said: "They felt their lives were in danger". Regardless of whether you are in front of either a cop or another civilian, if you're going to pull it out (or a reasonable facsimile) and wave it around during a confrontation, expect consequences. Severe consequences.
And in neither case (cop or civilian) does such a standard, in any way, endanger the 2nd Amendment. In fact, it re-enforces the 2nd Amendment implied right of self defense.
I am gratified to now read that we agree.
"Anyone" would be convicted of murder if "anyone" shot someone in the back, especially if it was eight times.
I rest my case. Thank you ladies and gentleman of jury.
Too cute by half. The problem you are left with though, is that you asked a question about the 2nd Amendment and responded to my answer with a few frail quips about the circumstances surrounding the event. Make up your mind, do you wish to argue facts or do you wish to argue the law? You can argue either one of those, but only one of them at a time.
Well, all is not a loss, at least you have confirmed that my original instinct to ignore your illogical question was well founded: If you can't advance a logical question, why should I then expect a logical response?
--Boot Hill
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.