re: Marksville City Marshals......Breaking two officers charged with murder

quote:

---

Maybe if it is spontaneous but are we not training police to wait to engage a suspect until the risk to children (at least) can be eliminated???

---

If it comes down to deadly force, you are trained to go home at the end of your shift, just as you would want to go home to your wife/kids. Deadly force is to be used when there is no other option. Often it can AND SHOULD be avoided but that's not always the case.

quote:

---

Why block someone in when they have a child in the car? Have you not heard of fight or flight? Certainly there are protocols for these situations and they don't include attempting to corner and apprehend when there is a kid in the front seat.

---

As I've stated, I'm not discussing the legal particulars of this case because, well, they haven't been released. I wasn't there so I find it hard to find fault with- or clear- the officers involved when I don't know how it went down. I wish everyone on here felt the same way. Instead, it's turned into an ill-informed discussion what happened (with zero substantiation) in this case or blanket declarations about law enforcement in general.

quote:

---

No because shooting the driver of a moving car and think the car is going to stop is Hollywood BS.

---

I'm going to let this go but I have first hand knowledge where it did work.

quote:

---

I don't believe for one second these cops truly feared for their lives. They were challenged and responded with hasty deadly force.

---

This is where the preconceived bias comes in. Neither of us know these cops didn't have other options, at least not at this point. The difference between us is that you have made a massive assumption and want the police to be guilty so bad, you've decided it already in your mind. We both agree that the loss of that child's life was a horrendous event but how about we suspend judgment to the officers' guilt until we know more. If they acted outside the parameters of policy and legal action, no one will want them punished more than I will.

quote:

---

A child is dead for no good reason

---

From what I can tell based on the limited facts that I have, a child is dead because the driver refused to yield and perhaps tried to use his vehicle as a weapon, placing everyone at risk.

quote:

---

I'm more than capable of changing my mind when presented with new info.

---

But that doesn't change the fact that by your own admission, your default position is that cops are inherently guilty and at fault.

quote:

---

A child was shot and you ask "If they acted outside policy". Is it policy to shoot a fricking kid?

---

You seem very emotional and one of those people that can discuss issues logically and with a level head. My wife gets like that sometimes, too. Of course I ask if "they acted outside of policy". This thread is all about assigning blame and liability and whether or not these officers should be in jail for their actions. The legal motivations and policies these officers acted under are central considerations to answering these questions.

quote:

---

From what I can tell based on the limited facts that I have, a child is dead because the driver refused to yield and perhaps tried to use his vehicle as a weapon, placing everyone at risk.

---

I would imagine the autopsy will reveal a different cause of death but as you say, all the facts aren't in yet.

quote:

---

But that doesn't change the fact that by your own admission, your default position is that cops are inherently guilty and at fault.

---

My suspicion is that they were not in mortal danger and that they should have confirmed a kid wasn't in the car before blocking the car in. Maybe we've just come to expect stupidity from cops though so I could be wrong. I actually think cops are inherently good but we've written laws that allow them to shoot first and ask questions later. If the suspect is in a car you can just say "I feared for my life"

quote:

---

You seem very emotional and one of those people that can discuss issues logically and with a level head. My wife gets like that sometimes, too. Of course I ask if "they acted outside of policy". This thread is all about assigning blame and liability and whether or not these officers should be in jail for their actions. The legal motivations and policies these officers acted under are central considerations to answering these questions.

---

You are the one who has made at least three personal attacks against me so I don know what you think constitutes a logical and level head.
A kid died and I assume that means there was a breakdown in our policy. Something is wrong with you if you think that is ok.

quote:

---

A kid died and I assume that means there was a breakdown in our policy.

---

No, not necessarily. That's a bad assumption.

Also, I've not heard you mention word one about the father refusing to yield or that the possibility exists that he was trying to gun down a cop to affect a getaway. It's interesting to see who gets the benefit of the doubt- the cops or the wanted criminal with the warrants that fled authorities.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is a perfect example of what happens when you militarize the police force and convince the public that it's in their best interest.

quote:

---

Also, I've not heard you mention word one about the father refusing to yield or that the possibility exists that he was trying to gun down a cop to affect a getaway. It's interesting to see who gets the benefit of the doubt- the cops or the wanted criminal with the warrants that fled authorities.

---

He may not of known they were cops. He might have been trying to protect his kid from being robbed and killed. Maybe he had reason to believe his life was in danger? Perhaps the cops did a poor job of announcing their identity?

What we do know is that one of the parties killed an innocent kid. Thats who you are defending right now by the way, the kid killers.

(no message)

We felt threatened. Pew! Pew! Pew!

Don't worry, they'll charge the injured man with the death of the kid they needlessly shot.

quote:

---

Sounds like your beef is with the federal law enforcement training center. If you're ever in Glynco, Georgia, stop by and tell them how you feel. Might make you feel better.

---

I don't have a beef with them.



The only justification I have ever heard taught or used is:

Is it reasonable to believe the shooter believed he/she or someone was in great danger of losing their life or incurring great bodily harm?