- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: New Polic Shooting Vid
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:59 am to SamuelClemens
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:59 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
All he had to do was “feel” threatened. Not the same standard of immediate life or death endangerment required for regular public.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think "feel threatened" is a good reason to shoot someone.
Any policeman can shoot someone and say they felt threatened. What if a policeman stops you for speeding and he is a dick when he ask for your license and registration, to the point, you emotionally react with a cocky response, there is a heated verbal exchange and tell him "I will beat the life out of you mother fricker!". Is it okay for him to shoot you because what you told him made him feel threatened?
2
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:02 am to lsuoilengr
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 9:59 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:17 am to OweO
Graham v Connor allows police to use lethal force if they believe their life or someone else life is endangered or they or someone else is danger of great bodily harm.
If the court believes the officer's perception was reasonable....it is justified. Reasonable perception is reality.
That is the standard.
Graham v. Connor also instructs the court to recognize the stress involved in these situations and that split decisions must be made quickly. And cautions against looking at it from a hindsight perspective.
If the court believes the officer's perception was reasonable....it is justified. Reasonable perception is reality.
That is the standard.
Graham v. Connor also instructs the court to recognize the stress involved in these situations and that split decisions must be made quickly. And cautions against looking at it from a hindsight perspective.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:22 am to lsuoilengr
Unless she was attacking someone else with the shovel, I could see justification in shooting her. But seriously, she could barely stand on her own two feet due to intoxication probably. Yeah, a shovel can do some damage, but I would not be afraid of taking that woman down through tazing or even just tackling her. Shooting her didn't make a lot of sense based on the video.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:23 am to OweO
quote:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think "feel threatened" is a good reason to shoot someone
When the feeling threatened is combined with a person walking towards you with a shovel, then yes it is a good reason to shoot someone.
You are explaining a situation of someone using words to prove your point. Words can't be used as a deadly weapon. I shovel, however, certainly can.
Can you really not comprehend this?
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:26 am to SUB
quote:
Yeah, a shovel can do some damage, but I would not be afraid of taking that woman down through tazing or even just tackling her
Are you saying that you can't be totally hammered and still get off one solid swing of a shovel?
Why should a officer take that chance? He doesn't deserve to risk his life for that idiot.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:27 am to TexasTiger39
quote:
It's amazing how many people don't know the use of force continuum and don't understand the facts necessary to justify use of force, but sit online a criticize officers' decisions.
Doesn't make it necessary in this particular circumstance.
Sorry for judging the actions that possibly could result in a loss of life.
It's just an opinion, you can have yours. I think most understand how this will play out going forward.
quote:
Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation. (See Deciding When and How to Use Less-Lethal Devices. ) Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person. Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray). Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance. Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual. Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's actions.
Why didn't the officer use some of those actions? Perhaps he will be better prepared to handle 1v1 situations next time without the need to shoot?
It's not like this person was running around rampant... Looked like they could barely even swing the dang thing.
Regardless of the laws, we can have opinions on alternative actions. Doesn't make him wrong or us right.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:28 am to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
quote:
When the feeling threatened is combined with a person walking towards you with a shovel, then yes it is a good reason to shoot someone.
A woman who's stumbling around with a shovel is not just any "person walking toward you with a shovel." I don't think it's reasonable to fear for your life in this specific situation. An able bodied cop vs a drunk woman with a shovel should be fairly easily handled without deadly force. It's not like it was the Hulk walking toward him with a shovel. And he didn't shoot her when she was walking toward him.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:31 am to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
quote:
Are you saying that you can't be totally hammered and still get off one solid swing of a shovel?
No, I'm not saying that. The woman was stumbling around, like I said. I'd have reason to believe she's not even capable of making a solid swing to do me harm before I could get control of the shovel.
quote:
Why should a officer take that chance? He doesn't deserve to risk his life for that idiot.
You are a pussy if you fear that the woman in this video would cause you serious harm without you using deadly force.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:32 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:33 am to SUB
quote:
And he didn't shoot her when she was walking toward him.
And this will probably be his saving grace if he thought she was going toward someone else with intentions to do harm
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:34 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:34 am to theenemy
quote:
And this will probably be his saving grace if he thought she was going toward someone else with intentions to do harm
Maybe. It seems like that's what they wanted to show at the end of the video. And if that's the case, I could maybe see the justification.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:39 am to SUB
quote:
You are a pussy if you fear that the woman in this video would cause you serious harm without you using deadly force
Easy to sit on a message board and say that. If you go back and read, I did say, I don't think he handled the situation in the best possible way. Shooting could have probably been avoided. However, I think it was justified.
I bet if this was a black person you would be in here saying, "one less thug on the streets."
Posted on 5/17/18 at 11:42 am to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
quote:
Easy to sit on a message board and say that.
It is. It’s why body cams are worn now - for people to objectively judge LEO’s actions instead of basing it on their word.
quote:
I bet if this was a black person you would be in here saying, "one less thug on the streets."
You’d lose that bet.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:44 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:15 pm to theenemy
quote:
Graham v Connor allows police to use lethal force if they believe their life or someone else life is endangered or they or someone else is danger of great bodily harm.
quote:
That is the standard.
That is the problem, imagine if the fire department used the same standard, " There may have been children in the building, but we were forced to let it burn, it would have endangered the lives of the fireman to try to go in."
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:19 pm to lsuoilengr
quote:
LVMPD reports that the woman attacked an officer and other citizens with a shovel about 10:30 p.m. An officer shot the woman,
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:20 pm to lsuoilengr
Yeah that’s not sexy enough. It’s mid May . Just about time for the cause celebre Racial shooting to keep the cities hot all Summer leading into the mid terms . It’s just a matter of deciding which dead multiple felon to champion, and which cop was working the most in the gray areas and is easiest to take down.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:22 pm to lsuoilengr
Seems like everyone coulda just walked into their trailers and ignored her.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:24 pm to lsuoilengr
Ill defend cops in these situations more often than not but that was a very unnecessary shot
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:31 pm to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
that cop is a giant pussy and i hope he is disciplined accordingly.a drunk bitch with a shovel?c'mon man 
Posted on 5/17/18 at 12:32 pm to WhiskeyThrottle
quote:
This one doesn’t feel too good but in the end the lady is clearly not a contributing member to society
Man, I know you don’t mean anything by this, but that is the beginning of a very dark road you’re walking there.
As for the shooting, it’s pretty well established now that cops can shoot anyone who they think has put them in a situation that could conceivably turn deadly.
High, middle-aged lady with a shovel? Sure, blast away.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News