- 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: California eyes changing LEO deadly force standard
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I like it. It's taking away the wiggle room so often taken advantage of by police, DAs, and police unions. Not hard to prove a "reasonable fear" in a court of law.
If a cop wants to play judge, jury, and executioner out in public, he damn well better have a strong case to do so.
If a cop wants to play judge, jury, and executioner out in public, he damn well better have a strong case to do so.
0
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:44 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I don’t live in California so I am fine with it. If the liberals want to kill each other then so be it .
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:59 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
A common theme with police shootings (with few exceptions) is non-compliance with a LEO's directive. Just comply. Why is it so hard? And if you think you're being treating unjustly, comply and you'll have your day in court.
Unless you are deaf, one poor kid was trying to get the cop to understand he was deaf, reached for his dash placard that said he was hearing impaired, and the cop shot and killed him. Bad outcomes between the police and those that don't comply because of physical or mental impairment are far too common.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 8:05 pm to Scoop
quote:
No cop wants to shoot anyone even when they have to for numerous, obvious reasons.
Is it your contention that in this case the police had to shoot for numerous obvious reasons?
If so please list the numerous reasons and tell us why they're obvious.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 8:10 pm to llfshoals
quote:
And we'd be paying to incarcerate them
The guy crawling on the hotel hallway floor would have been incarcerated?
Posted on 4/7/18 at 8:35 pm to ShortyRob
yeah, I think we are on the same page really. I don't think a cop gets an open green light to just shoot. I agree they are trained to be in stressful and dangerous situations and should use extreme actions after taking other non lethal steps to mitigate a threat.
However, if a person puts themselves in situations that can be threatening to an officer then they too should be ready for anything to happen even being shot, and even death. I don't believe all cops are ready to pull the trigger and one should adhere to the demands of the officer and let the courts work the rest out.
I also don't think they should get a pass in a legal case just because they are cops. If they broke the law then they should be prosecuted just as you and I would be. Obviously their job makes it more unique then a citizen.
However, if a person puts themselves in situations that can be threatening to an officer then they too should be ready for anything to happen even being shot, and even death. I don't believe all cops are ready to pull the trigger and one should adhere to the demands of the officer and let the courts work the rest out.
I also don't think they should get a pass in a legal case just because they are cops. If they broke the law then they should be prosecuted just as you and I would be. Obviously their job makes it more unique then a citizen.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 9:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Lol. So the exact same as it is now.
The proposed measure dictates that deadly force should be used only when it’s “necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death
If they really wanted to do something there would be no distinction in the burden of proof between a cop and regular citizen in regards to shooting someone.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 9:31 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:This law won’t change anything. But if it makes people feel like they did something then whatever.
That would be nice but it’s clear there’s no willingness to do that from DAs or judges
Posted on 4/7/18 at 9:32 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
No, but if it was called in that he had a gun, it's not unthinkable that he poses a threat to others. What if he takes a hostage? What if he fires at other LEOs and hits an innocent? What if he gets away and commits another crime injuring or killing another?
Let forget for a moment the standard of innocence until proven guilty Our entire legal system is based on the premise that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent person to go to jail. But here you seem to be suggesting that it’s ok to use lethal force because it was “reported” someone had a gun because you can imagine some hypothetical situation where he commits a terrible act.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 9:39 pm to uway
quote:
by uway
quote:
After breaking into others property and being reported to be in possession of a gun
That’s not reason enough to shoot him, surely?
People can report anything. Police should have to see a gun and see that it’s about to be used to harm someone.
C ..... you did exactly what MSM does in not reporting entire story. You left off the critical info of the boy’s criminal guilt in order to deceive us to move your agenda. That’s why we hate msm as they do the same
You were outed and hence lost all credibility
Posted on 4/7/18 at 9:54 pm to Little Trump
quote:
. You left off the critical info of the boy’s criminal guilt in order to deceive us to move your agenda. That’s why we hate msm as they do the same
When was the trial?
Posted on 4/7/18 at 10:02 pm to Little Trump
I think the core problem is that we have a risky profession occupied by too many people not willing to accept that risk. It's not a part of the mindst and it's not a part of the training.
I grew up around LE guys that all happened to be Vietnam Veterans. They had stories of prolonged engagements, going through the enemy dead, tossing out death cards onto dead bodies, dealing with casualties within their own ranks, and so on. Their shoot-no shoot decision making was on point and not clouded by this "end of my shift must go home" syndrome. I think their war experience not only helped thm in the moment, but also during their training. Most of the time, people fall back on their training. I believe that ties into the core problem we have.
I grew up around LE guys that all happened to be Vietnam Veterans. They had stories of prolonged engagements, going through the enemy dead, tossing out death cards onto dead bodies, dealing with casualties within their own ranks, and so on. Their shoot-no shoot decision making was on point and not clouded by this "end of my shift must go home" syndrome. I think their war experience not only helped thm in the moment, but also during their training. Most of the time, people fall back on their training. I believe that ties into the core problem we have.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 10:38 pm to Draconian Sanctions
This is only a change in verbiage. “Reasonable fear” of receiving serious bodily harm or death isn’t saying anything different than saying a threat of serious bodily injury or death was imminent.
Guess changing the language makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy
Guess changing the language makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy
Posted on 4/7/18 at 11:00 pm to uway
quote:
That’s not reason enough to shoot him, surely?
It is. If someone says you have a gun, police can kill your arse.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 11:02 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I started to form an opinion on this, but then saw that it’s in California. I had to stop caring about anything that they decide to do out there.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 11:37 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
It does make a difference, reasonable fear depends on officers perception, imminent threat is an objective, after the fact inquiry.
Posted on 4/8/18 at 12:35 am to Ingloriousbastard
quote:
ecause you specifically stated that breaking into people’s property isn’t reason enough for them to shoot unless they see a gun. I disagree, if people are there.
So someone breaks into my house so I call police to come and you want them to shoot the first person they think is the suspect?
Are you retarded?
Posted on 4/8/18 at 7:32 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
After the shooting, police reported that he was carrying only a cell phone
This is going to be the issue with this bill. Historically, when looking at self-defense, both for police and citizens, we look at what they the person reasonably believes while in the situation. For instance, in the Alton Sterling matter, the law says that both officers could reasonable believe that Sterling was armed because the call that came in cited him waving a gun at people. The fact that was armed or was not armed is irrelevant to analysis because we do not want to judge these situations on hindsight.
Obviously, there is more to this bill but if it attempts to remove the reasonability standard then that is a big problem.
Posted on 4/8/18 at 8:17 am to Draconian Sanctions
Texting while black is now a CAPITOL OFFENSE is these United States?
Who would have thunk it?
Who would have thunk it?
Posted on 4/8/18 at 8:20 am to the808bass
quote:
It is. If someone says you have a gun, police can kill your arse
Incorrect.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News