re: Alabama cops shoots man exiting his vehicle with his wallet

quote:

---

didn't need those assumptions to prove my point.

Tell me how I'm wrong. If I'm so wrong it shouldn't be difficult for you to do so succinctly.

---

You never answered my question- did the driver, now being shot at for doing nothing illegal, have a logical reason to return fire?

quote:

---

Logic often plays very little role in a courtroom. How can a plaintiff prove the cop WASN'T threatened? That's the question.

---

Plaintiffs have proved MANY times that police used force when not threatened. Do you think I can't provide scores of instances where this is the case?

Do you not think that the judge makes his determination based on the evidence available and adjudicates based on reason?

so you think its logical for a cop to assume that a driver who called the cops on himself, involved in a traffic accident is going to exit his car with his hands in the air holding a gun?

Therefor it's logical for said cop to shoot man with his hands in the air holding his wallet

quote:

---

What's your point? Do you even know?

---

quote:

---

I believe police should be dealt with in the most logical way possible. Do you think the most logical behavior is to exit the vehicle with a black object in your hand in the middle of the night in front of a potentially poorly-trained officer with a gun? If so then the circumstances disagree with your claim. Staying in the vehicle seems the most logical because there's a better chance he would not have been shot.

---

Do you disagree?

quote:

---

it's reasonable to believe that he thought it was an object that posed a threat.

---

no its not...it was a fender bender...nothing suggested that he should assume the driver was going to pose a threat

quote:

---

so you think its logical for a cop to assume that a driver who called the cops on himself, involved in a traffic accident is going to exit his car with his hands in the air holding a gun?

---

I think it's logical to assume that the person exiting the vehicle startled a potentially poorly-trained officer. I think it's then logical that the startled officer acted like a startled person who felt threatened and used force to counter what he perceived as threatening.

quote:

---

little seceret here.


I'm in law enforcement.


This wasn't a good shoot. Nothing short of him pointing a gun at someone prior to that officers arrival can even begin to justify that.

---

So knowing what you know now, do you feel a little more empowered to kill as you see necessary knowing that you won't feel any legal reprecussion?

The kid won't get a cent from anyone for the "justified shoot".

quote:

---

a press release issued on Thursday, the City of Opelika issued a statement in response to the latest court ruling.

“The City, the Chief of Police and its officer have always denied any wrongdoing,” the statement read. “This case has now been analyzed by two federal courts … The judges have unanimously determined after a review of the evidence, which includes the dash cam video, there was no wrongdoing on behalf of the City, the Chief, or the involved officer. In reaching their respective decisions, these Federal Courts reviewed all of the evidence. Their opinions are clearly supported by all evidence.”

In affirming the district court’s ruling, the three-judge panel said it had reviewed the evidence, including dash cam video, and provided the following summary statement: “After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his life. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity in favor of Hancock on all claims.”

Davidson had filed a lawsuit in May, 2014 against Hancock, Opelika Police Chief John McEachern and the City of Opelika, claiming Opelika was liable for the “unlawful conduct” of its police officers, failure to properly train its officers to the use of deadly force and the negligent behavior of Hancock.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Pecker

---

Name checks out.

quote:

---

Do it. Link me all the many times where a cop has used his gun without being threatened.

---

Chicago cop

ST Louis cop

We can keep going.

quote:

---

No. Just what can and can't be proved.

---

Oh, so no logic is involved? Do you know what you're saying? Honestly

quote:

---

no its not...it was a fender bender...nothing suggested that he should assume the driver was going to pose a threat

---

Agreed, but that's 2 different things each of you are saying.

It's obviously reasonable to believe the cop though it was a weapon. Now that doesn't make it right or justified, just the mere fact that he shot the dude makes it a reasonable assumption that he thought it was a weapon. That does NOT mean I think the cop's assumption was reasonable, if that makes sense.

But what you said is also true, nothing suggested he should assume the driver was ever going to be a threat.