Posted on 08/24/2020 5:33:46 PM PDT by montag813
“No they don’t get info criminal background in every case or event which occurs. Get real. I can give ya a dozen scenarios where the cops wouldn’t have a clue who you are or what you’re all about.”
I was responding to a quote like I’m responding to yours. I left out the quotation marks. Sorry.
His behavior at that scene certainly caused the police to react.
“What if the suspect had no ID? What if the suspect was merely an occupant of a vehicle?”
I was responding to a quote. This is what I said.
They would have to know who he was before they got there (idk how they would) or ID him once they got there (by actually looking at an ID) or possibly one of the cops knew him from a previous encounter.
“But the left wants to defame African Americans by telling us that this is just another average Black person who didndunuffin gunned down by the police.”
But how many blacks join the left in condemning the police and praising the thug?
Blacks could un-defame themselves by taking the side of the police, but most don’t.
“His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.”
BS.
If law enforcement on scene knew of his past propensity to have and threaten with firearms then it very much should have entered the picture.
If they had already run him and knew he had warrants outstanding to include his gun crime and resisting arrest history, they it should have come into the picture.
Lethal force is appropriate only when innocent life is in immediate peril. There is no immediate threat to life seen in this video so lethal force is not justified. If there was a weapon involved I think we would have heard about it by now but we will have to wait and see. At this point the video is the only evidence available.
‘
Let’s see if wanted man shoots us to death.
Makes no sense.
‘
One out of 66
Impressive
Past crimes are not admissible (normally) in a court case. They absolutely have value in warning a cop of a higher potential for violence. In the video I saw, it looked like they had him on the ground at one point and he managed to get free. Can’t say for certain because I didn’t watch it super close.
But when you’ve already pulled your gun on someone with an arrest warrant, and that person reaches inside a car, the next thing you may see at 18” is the gun that will kill you. And that is why cops ARE allowed to open fire in a situation like this. It is a situation that I, as a CCW carrier, would never encounter.
I dont understand why they didn't lay hands on him. The cops did not have control and looked unprofessional. Even if there was a weapon in the vehicle the suspect should've been on his ass long before even attempting to get to it.
‘
They’ll play hide the Toxicology.
3-4 months, Tox report will be reported on in a way to couch the findings.
Probably by Defense Counsel.
We’ll hear - disobeying Police doesn’t matter. Acting in manner consistent with retrieving a weapon doesn’t matter. Drugs don’t matter. Criminal record doesn’t matter. When you get down to it, nothing matters.
The Media has told people what to think.
‘
“Lethal force is appropriate only when innocent life is in immediate peril.”
Not if you are a cop. Special job and it DOES sometimes require using lethal force because of how the situation has developed.
“The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/#tab-opinion-1957951
If a reasonable cop might believe the suspect was reaching for a gun, then shooting him is justified even if no gun existed.
Not a lawyer and don’t play one anywhere. Just what I’ve been told/read.
Cops label any caller (call them anytime) or a victim in a case (guarantee this, they even screamed at me when I had a concussion in a car wreck) as the ultimate evil. It’s just what they do.
‘
You have one part of the picture. Did you notice things laying on the ground?
Wonder how that happened?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I don't think this is correct, in fact I think it is a really stupid attitude to have.
If he has a propensity to fighting police, his past crimes are very relevant.
If he is 72 years old and is reaching in his car for a fresh hearing aid battery the cops are wrong. But I don't see that in this case.
The cops are not your friends. Understand that?
>> His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.
Past crimes certainly factor into the prosecution and sentencing of repeated criminal behavior. Not sure what you mean by “police acting correctly”, but it makes sense for LEOs to also account for past criminal behavior when confronting a subject.
Regarding the necessity of such force, if LEOs are permitted to permanently subdue a subject, then there’s nothing to debate other than the possibility of modifying the arrest protocols.
Let’s say the subject got into the vehicle. What do the LEOs do next? Stand in front of the car? Engage in a dangerous pursuit? Walk away? A difficult situation.
The job hardens cops, and many lose sight of how callous they may appear.
Oh, I understand now, you're an idiot! Thanks for the ID.
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.