- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Marksville City Marshals......Breaking two officers charged with murder
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:53 pm to Topwater Trout
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:53 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
Probably because we've given law enforcement far far too much leeway when it comes to using deadly force.
If you were a cop wouldn't you be on edge?
They're supposed to be trained to handle situations. I've seen many shooting vids in which cops showed great restraint. I've seen some where they didn't.
If a guy is trying to run someone over and they have to use lethal force, it's one thing. Using it just because you can is another.
1
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:53 pm to Croacka
quote:
I'm just saying that the dad made the error in judgement that caused the entire situation
and we're just saying the police are partly culpable as well.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:54 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
Is there an excuse for the father and how his actions led to this? If only he was a bootlicker that child would still be alive.
That's true and irrelevant to the question of whether the officers acted in a way we want the people we give the power over our lives to act.
We give them power to detain us, chase us down and run us off the road, enter our house uninvited in the middle of the night, take our children from us, etc etc.
All that and you also want them to be lightly scrutinized? I just don't think people understand what's at stake here.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:54 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
Is there an excuse for the father and how his actions led to this? If only he was a bootlicker that child would still be alive.
Go back to my first post in this thread. Read the first sentence I typed out about the father before I said a word about the cops.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:56 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
had they fired their weapons in a responsible manner, that child would still be alive. But they did not fire responsibly, thus the child is dead.
You're guilty of horrendous logic. When anyone's life is threatened, you are allowed to defend yourself- police officer or not. And you can never know every circumstance about every situation before taking that action. In a split second deadly force decision you are allowed to take reasonable measures to protect yourself.
Let me ask you this: if you are in an alley and a car is barreling towards you with the intent of running you over and you cannot escape, are you allowed to shoot at the driver? What if you miss or the bullet goes through the driver and strikes the passenger? What if you can't see into the back seat to see if anyone is in the back seat?
Do you just accept death? Because according to you, you're not justified for a shoot in this case.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They're supposed to be trained to handle situations. I've seen many shooting vids in which cops showed great restraint
I would think this would be most common
quote:
Using it just because you can is another.
I am sure it happens but I don't think most cops are looking to kill people without reasonable cause...now what is reasonable to one person may be different to another.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:59 pm to Topwater Trout
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:59 pm to uway
quote:
All that and you also want them to be lightly scrutinized?
When have I ever said this. Its standard procedure that when a cop fires his weapon there is an investigation right?
I generally side with the cops until all the facts come out. Sorry I don't think cops are out there looking to shoot innocent people...I am glad I am not that paranoid.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:01 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Can you quantify how many threats that could have been avoided were actually avoided? How do you account for that?
Impossible. I can find evidence that cops are being given the benefit of the doubt because they claimed to believe their life was in danger, even when video evidence doesn't support that.
quote:
And if you can't account for that, the how can you say the dominant paradigm is to neutralize the threat even if it could be avoided?
That's what the evidence I have seen indicates.
I know that officer safety is paramount now. I know they go out on patrol believing that DAs will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:01 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
You're guilty of horrendous logic. When anyone's life is threatened, you are allowed to defend yourself- police officer or not. And you can never know every circumstance about every situation before taking that action. In a split second deadly force decision you are allowed to take reasonable measures to protect yourself.
You ever walk through a busy city? You almost get run over several times in as many blocks...you think you can just open fire on someone who pulls out in front of you? What BS have you bought into?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:02 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
When have I ever said this. Its standard procedure that when a cop fires his weapon there is an investigation right?
Who's doing the investigation?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:03 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
You're guilty of horrendous logic. When anyone's life is threatened, you are allowed to defend yourself- police officer or not. And you can never know every circumstance about every situation before taking that action. In a split second deadly force decision you are allowed to take reasonable measures to protect yourself
And, in my opinion, I don't think discharging your weapon into a vehicle not knowing who else is inside it is reasonable.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:04 pm to uway
quote:
That's what the evidence I have seen indicates.
How can you say that AND say it's impossible to quantify how many are actually avoided? That seems contradictory to me.
quote:
I know that officer safety is paramount now. I know they go out on patrol believing that DAs will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Having the benefit of the doubt doesn't automatically mean they do anything wrong though.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:04 pm to TheOcean
Is Louisiana such a corrupt state that this would happen?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:05 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You ever walk through a busy city? You almost get run over several times in as many blocks...you think you can just open fire on someone who pulls out in front of you? What BS have you bought into?
Just wanted to say this may be the most asinine analogy to what happened in the OP yet.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:05 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
Sorry I don't think cops are out there looking to shoot innocent people....
I don't either. But I know officer safety is the #1 concern.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:06 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Who's doing the investigation?
Internal affairs I assume...isn't there tension between them and the cops they investigate?
Should we assume all IA investigators are dirty also?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:07 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Just wanted to say this may be the most asinine analogy to what happened in the OP yet.
Since I wasn't responding to the OP then you may be correct. I was responding to the poster who suggested that "anytime your life is threatened you can respond with deadly force".
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:09 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
say that AND say it's impossible to quantify how many are actually avoided? That seems contradictory to
Well we don't see every police encounter that could have gone either way. So it's impossible to KNOW for sure. All we can do is judge off of what we do know, common sense, and understanding of human nature.
quote:
Having the benefit of the doubt doesn't automatically mean they do anything wrong though
Granted.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 4:09 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You ever walk through a busy city? You almost get run over several times in as many blocks...you think you can just open fire on someone who pulls out in front of you? What BS have you bought into?
You seem a little slow, so I'll try again. If someone demonstrates the have the means, intent and capability to kill you, then you are authorized to use deadly force.
Means = the subject has a weapon (gun, knife, car, etc).
Intent = the subject is actively seeking to cause your immediate death or gross bodily harm.
Capability = the subject has to be able to actually perform the act he/she is attempting.
You must have ALL THREE to use deadly force. In other words, if an 8 year old girl has the means (a knife) and the intent (really, really wants to kill you) but not the capability (you could probably take the weapon from her), deadly force would not be authorized.
As far as your analogy of "almost getting run over every time you step into traffic", no you certainly could not "open fire on someone who pulls out in front of you" because that person does not have the intent to kill you.
Page 13 of 54
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News