Posted on 05/29/2010 10:19:58 AM PDT by Drew68
We empower our police with deadly force, true. But as a consequence of that empowerment, we expect greater discretion, judgment and self restraint from them. When that equation doesn't balance, there is a problem.
Which is irrelevant. Do you have anything to say about this case and the question I asked you?
This was the end of a 2 1/2 block chase. The kid slowed down and the cop kept coming.
Not bearing on the case but:
What is a kid who works at Arnies doing spending hundreds of dollars on a night out after work and what was so important that he had to pay a guy $60 to drive him to an alley in Seattle in the middle of the night?
He was a suspect (totally innocent in retrospect), not a felon. Maybe the cop should have showed a little more restraint if he categorizes everyone a felon.
It's perfectly relevant. I never terminated a person without good cause.
" Do you have anything to say about this case and the question I asked you?"
The question you asked was, "How would you defend yourself in the wrongful termination lawsuit?"
Again, my "irrelevant" point was, I never terminated a person without good cause...in a civilian police department, even if I couldn't "terminate" this officer, he'd be riding a desk for as long as I had any influence over the matter.
Apples and bowling balls. The general atmosphere on base is infinitely more civil. Officers don't have to deal with anything near the climate they do in an insane asylum like Seattle, I live here, I know.
I didn't say deadly force. Knocking someone down with your shoulder isn't deadly force. If the officer had used his gun, I would agree with you.
To the police officer, the fleeing suspect was a felon involved in a violent crime. He had no reason to believe otherwise. The suspect shouldn't have chosen to run.
Stop being ridiculous. The suspect was identified by a witness as a felon involved in a violent crime. That's all the law requires.
I avoid contact with LE whenever possible, as I avoid contact with Jehovah's Witnesses, my ex-wife, the IRS and TSA. I have no duty to stand there and be annoyed or harassed.
/johnny
I'm sure that's what the police report said.
The truth is probably very different.
Obviously it is, if someone almost died over it.
/johnny
The suspect was identified as such by a witness, and the suspect was fleeing. The officer's actions are justified.
So now you've gone from termination to riding a desk. The fact is neither you or anyone else could justify termination in this particular case.
I'm sure that's what the police report states.
The injury was so severe because of the relative position of the wall, which is tragic. Once again knocking down a fleeing suspect with a shoulder isn't deadly force.
I know...I did. We empower police with the ability and authority to take people's lives. We empower them with the application of managed violence when appropriate, and we expect them to exercise discretion, judgment and self restraint in that application. If you disagree with that, we needn't discuss this any further. If you agree, then read on...
"Knocking someone down with your shoulder isn't deadly force."
People have been killed with far less force. It was potentially deadly force, especially given the proximity of the wall. This officer's failure to recognize that is tantamount to him firing his sidearm without looking to see if there was a crowd of people standing behind the subject...I know these are split second judgment calls we expect...demand of our officers, but if we didn't think them capable of making those judgments we'd never authorize and empower them with deadly force in the first place.
"If the officer had used his gun, I would agree with you."
Well I'm glad we agree that firearms do constitute "deadly force."
"To the police officer, the fleeing suspect was a felon involved in a violent crime."
Well, if the officer had been trained properly, the fleeing suspect should have been considered a fleeing suspect.
"The suspect shouldn't have chosen to run."
It wasn't a wise decision, but hardly one I think he deserves to pay for by being turned into a vegetable. I'm not a big fan of tasers, but this is one situation where it's use may have been the right choice, and had that been the case, you would have probably seen me on this thread defending this officer as vigorously as anybody.
Not knowing the department's specific policies I can't say whether or not that could be justified...and I didn't automatically go to desk riding. I put the qualifier, "even if" in there.
Or do they not teach LE to evaluate the backstop when using potentially deadly force?
/johnny
It absolutely is if you are knocking them into an immovable object.
The lengths that some will go to in order to defend the indefensible is shameful.
When conservative politicians get caught violating ethics rules or breaking the law, they generally resign with the agreement of most conservatives. If the cops get caught violating laws the cop queers come out in full force to defend the police. These guys should be tossed out the police force and many of them should spend years behind bars.
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.