re: Police released video of the fatal shooting of unarmed black man in Oklahoma

Unfortunately, you're incorrect. There is no restriction on where or how an officer may use lethal force if justified. This man was obviously playing some type of Michael Briwn game with the cops as others have said. He was either attempting to not comply and flee or he was gaining access to a weapon. He was willfully non compliant even after backup arrived and displayed additional force. His actions got him shot. If he had complied, he would be alive.

You can't just walk away from police when you want. The law gives them the legal right and responsibility to stop you. You must comply.

I guarantee you that this will be determined to be a legal shoot.

quote:

---

Ikr they should join the military

---

They should... but then they would actually have to work

you can quote all the laws you want, but he was not shot for walking away

LINK

Right or wrong action by the officer the dead man gets no sympathy from me. Acted stupid and got himself shot!

quote:

---

Why does a large number of black people that feel they're oppressed by the government keep voting for a party that wants the government to control as much as possible?

---

I do find this funny. But then again, on the other side, we have many small government conservatives who want limited government control over their lives who all of a sudden are gung ho about supporting police actions with no questions asked.

At the end of the day, we're all hypocrites.

quote:

---

My man- this guy also gets it. It's totally up to the cop if he wants to kill you on any given day.

---

Merica!

quote:

---

You can't just walk away from police when you want. The law gives them the legal right and responsibility to stop you. You must comply.

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Court had already set up a mechanical test prior to deciding Graham v. Connor. In 1985, Tennessee v. Garner posed the questions whether and when a police officer may use lethal force to seize a fleeing suspect. Under common law, officers had been allowed deadly force against any fleeing felon if using it was necessary to prevent his escape. Garner involved a case in which a police officer acting on that standard—which had been enshrined in Tennessee’s statues—fatally shot a fleeing, unarmed burglar in the back of the head as the burglar climbed a fence. The Court’s majority noted that the common-law standard had developed in times when police officers did not carry firearms and deadly force implied hand-to-hand struggle. It had also developed when almost all felonies were capital offenses. In the modern context, the Court argued, “it is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”

---

LINK

No, you cannot just shoot a fleeing suspect. However, there is always this gray area where the officer may have felt to be in danger. I think that's a stretch in this case.

quote:

---

Why does a large number of black people that feel they're oppressed by the government keep voting for a party that wants the government to control as much as possible?

---

Because their liberal masters tell them to

quote:

---

This man was obviously playing some type of Michael Briwn game with the cops as others have said. He was either attempting to not comply and flee or he was gaining access to a weapon. He was willfully non compliant even after backup arrived and displayed additional force. His actions got him shot. If he had complied, he would be alive.

---

Yeah, all of that is "obvious".