If you want actual information and not opinion dressed as information, just read the actual news agency websites. Breaking News, Business News, Financial and Investing News & More | Reuters.co.uk That's where all the news papers source the majority of their information.
And the last mistake was when the officer fired unnecessarily into the back of a human being, with multiple civilians in harm's way, right? Where I agree with you is that it's hard. Where I disagree with you is that people should fear being murdered by police for resisting. Resisting arrest is not an executable offense. AS evidenced throughout history, when police start killing people resisting, revolutions form.
And if the suspect rendered the officer unable to prevent him from taking his service weapon and killed him or others with it, what would you say then? The suspect was running away turns a little to shoot a weapon and gets hit in the back by return fire...You'er right he was shot in the back. Apparently an officer according to some is not allowed to protect his own life in the service of protecting others. Let’s see if this true? 1."[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. 2. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. [check] https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cg....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1085&context=jolpi the question seems to be one of "if there was another way" 1. yes /suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm 2. yes / the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon given what happened in the preceding the officer didn't have a choice other then to respond with deadly force... Resisting arrest can be deadly for both officer and suspect not a good move.
It wasn't a safe shot, and that's a big "what if". That's why there are assault charges as well as murder. Like I've said twice now I expect the murder charge to not stick, and will probably be pled down. Assault charges are probably gonna stick. Cop was wrong, someone died. You can easily argue the shooting was negligent even if you can rationalize the outcome, and for a cop that should mean jail time. It would for anyone else!
You seem to be confused as to the status of law officers under the law versus non-officers. Officers, have what’s called qualified immunity. The indictments may not even make it to a trial.
Qualified immunity - Wikipedia Civil suits only, not criminal charges. "In the United States, the doctrine of qualified immunity grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
So a taser is lethal when civilians use them, but non-lethal when police use them? Do you think civilians should need a license to carry a taser in all states, seeing as they are lethal weapons? I don't really care what the DA has to say about tasers, to be honest. I'm interested in your assessment of the footage. This is a martial arts forum, not a politics forum, so I've approached this from that angle. I disagree with Van Zandt's conclusion, but I respect his reasoning, and I also respect his experience as someone who is not a stranger to firefights. VZ gave his own opinion based on the footage, he was not regurgitating talking points fed to him by partisan pundits. As for the clip of the police shoot/don't shoot scenario training, I don't think it brings much to the discussion. What do you think would happen if you put an untrained person into scenario training where you only have the binary choice to shoot or not shoot? It doesn't reflect the training and options available to a police officer in real life.
And yet it’s scenario training based on real life situations. In the military we also used scenario training, commonly referred to as war games, or training exercises. Having served in the military for 20 years, there isn’t much time to think about things which is why one trains, to respond as needed. Based on the footage shown with the officer in question I would say the shooting was justified.
It's set up to fail. I'm not saying it isn't useful as part of a wider course of training for police officers, but sticking an untrained person in a situation where you can only shoot someone or take no action doesn't give us any useful information.
Always find it funny how talking points are claimed to be used, when ones opinion happens to coincide with them. The officer will be found justified when this comes to trial. Don’t resist arrest, it can be life-threatening for both officer and suspect
I don't get the point of even wasting the energy to type that. You're urinating into the wind. Why not go one step further and tell people not to commit crimes? Expecting every human being to act sensibly or in their own best interest is unrealistically idealistic. Plus, it's not like there aren't enough examples of police shooting people who weren't resisting arrest...
Maybe you missed the intent of the demonstration. It was to show that being in the situation even trained doesn’t give one much time to react. The reporter now has an understanding based on his own reality rather than watching a clip on Utube. He gained a better understanding of the choices an officer has, and what happens when incorrect ones are made.
It’s called law. Rules set down that everyone should abide by living in a society. “ Snitches get stitches“ An unspoken rule that those living within the framework follow. Kinda like “ don’t commit crime“ Of course one does not have to follow it, often They do understanding the consequence of Not following it.
If the only choices an officer has is to shoot or do nothing, then something has gone horribly wrong.
But it is not unlawful to resist an unlawful arrest. I don't think that applies to this case, but blanket statements can be a dangerous thing.
don’t be down wind. You’ve alluded to officers shooting people unjustified without posting any stats. Care to post the stats for 2019
Ya might want to check that. You’ve mentioned posting blanket statements and yet post one. The lawfulness of an arrest is proven in a court of law. Which is why in most cases the officer and the suspect appear before court. To resist an arrest , puts the officer and the suspect in danger.
Yeah but then shooting a guy running away in the back and then kicking his corpse kind of put the whole city in danger. From there to Wendy's arson to the shooting of an 8 year old just down the road. None of this is the fault of poor policing? Just chalk it up to uppity folk? Where have I heard that kind of whitewash before.
There's already an issue with that when the whole discussion is about what America considers 'justified.' The formal stats are unreliable when the metric used to take them is broken.
I can think of two examples off the top of my head: Daniel Shaver and Philando Castile. I'm sure I could find more.
