- 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
0
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:07 pm to Five0
quote:The state CREATES the interaction.
That sounds equitable
It damned sure SHOULD bear more responsibility for ensuring it doesn't end in death.
I can't even believe that's questionable.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:08 pm to Aristo
quote:
Was the officer's defense "he was going for his gun"?
Worse. Basically that he didn't know what the guy was doing.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:09 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:If they're confronting a 100lb woman who is threatening zero civilians and backing up will result in no harm to anyone? Yeah. I do.
The police are under no obligation to "back up" and you don't really want them to do you?
quote:
I mean think of all the times police have ran TOWARDS gun fire to protect truly innocent people. Would you have preferred they "backed up" too?
All situations are not the same. Applying the same standard to all situations is the hobgoblin of simple minds.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:09 pm to Aristo
quote:
Was the officer's defense "he was going for his gun"?
No. It was "I thought he was going for his gun." Which is a very important point and the reason police officers walk away from shooting civilians who are unarmed.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:11 pm to the808bass
quote:
I think he wants civilians to have less (which they practically do).
Exactly.
I mean, let's face it.
If a civilian walked up to the car of a person he knows screwed his wife. He says, "I know you screwed my wife" and then sees a gun on the seat and when the guy moves, the civilian shoots him..........I know EXACTLY how that case is going to end.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:12 pm to the808bass
quote:
If the choice is "back up" or shoot the 85 lb. bipolar kid armed with a screwdriver in his house, they should shoot?
Unfortunately the police are often called to sad situations which make them losers no matter what.
Imagine in your scenario that they had "backed up" and the kid had stabbed his own mom to death with a screwdriver while they were there....
You can blame a lot of this on liberals you know. They complained and complained as non lethal weapons and tactics were used on such people and so now all most LEOs have is a lethal option. I mean if that were me 6' 200 lbs black belt, Army CID , the best hand to hand combat training the US Army can afford. Yeah I don't have to shoot that kid. But how many of our LEOs fit that mold? Not many of course because liberals demand DIVERSITY in the police force.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:15 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The state CREATES the interaction.
It damned sure SHOULD bear more responsibility for ensuring it doesn't end in death.
I can't even believe that's questionable.
You are correct. It is also why such interactions are judged on the reasonable officer standard. This standard of acting in the capacity as a LEO is different. Here we agree. The SCOTUS agrees with us both as well. Our disagreement may come more from individual cases and the variables presented on a case by case basis.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
"I thought he was going for his gun."
Then the answer to my question is yes, his defense was he was going for his gun. Apparently 12 jurors thought so as well with the evidence that was presented.
quote:
police officers walk away from shooting civilians who are unarmed.
This has nothing to do with this case as Castile was armed.
Plus, unarmed does not mean you are not dangerous (of course all these situations are dynamic and and all are depending on different factors - absolutely none of them are the same)
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:19 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If a civilian walked up to the car of a person he knows screwed his wife. He says, "I know you screwed my wife" and then sees a gun on the seat and when the guy moves, the civilian shoots him..........I know EXACTLY how that case is going to end.
That is not a definite outcome. My conclusion on that comes from working self-defense cases as a cop and from my current perspective. Token mention to everyone to get your prepaid legal dense set up if you carry.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:20 pm to Five0
quote:
You are correct. It is also why such interactions are judged on the reasonable officer standard. This standard of acting in the capacity as a LEO is different. Here we agree. The SCOTUS agrees with us both as well. Our disagreement may come more from individual cases and the variables presented on a case by case basis.
Correct , and that is what many posting here don't seem to understand. A LEO can't just shoot someone declare "feared for my life" and walk away. There MUST be clear evidence that the officer both acted in good faith AND that their fear was reasonable. Of course many posting here obviously believe that a cop should NEVER be afraid, but that's another topic.
Depending on the circumstances it is reasonable to fear that a person who keeps reaching around in their vehicle while you are screaming at the to stop is probably reaching for a weapon. I mean surely this idiot didn't think the cop meant "stop reaching for your insurance card?" and even if he did, wouldn't it have been prudent and REASONABLE to stop reaching? Of course it would, which means if the suspect is not doing the reasonable thing, it is then reasonable for YOU to suspect he is going to do something unreasonable, like maybe go for a weapon.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:23 pm to Five0
quote:
That is not a definite outcome.
Yeah yeah.
You know as well as I do that the civilian's chances of coming out of that clean are DRAMATICALLY lower than a cop's.
Intellectual honesty please.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:23 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
A LEO can't just shoot someone declare "feared for my life" and walk away. There MUST be clear evidence that the officer both acted in good faith AND that their fear was reasonable. Of course many posting here obviously believe that a cop should NEVER be afraid, but that's another topic.
No. This isn't true. They have to prove nothing. The state has to prove they did not act reasonably. Police officers who shoot people are assumed to have acted reasonably.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:24 pm to the808bass
quote:
Police officers who shoot people are assumed to have acted reasonably.
Going to need to see a citation for this.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:25 pm to Aristo
quote:
Then the answer to my question is yes, his defense was he was going for his gun. Apparently 12 jurors thought so as well with the evidence that was presented.
You're just wrong here.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You know as well as I do that the civilian's chances of coming out of that clean are DRAMATICALLY lower than a cop's
An unrepresented civilian, HELL YES.
quote:
Intellectual honesty please.
I have been very honest and would appreciate the respect of not using passive swipes at integrity by you or anyone else on here.
Cops have prepaid legal representation plans and most take advantage of them. So should civilians. Proper and competent representation in ANY legal matter improves the odds in any party's favor.
Having said that, 3:30 docket. Back later.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:27 pm to Five0
quote:Which is an absolutely horrid standard.
You are correct. It is also why such interactions are judged on the reasonable officer standard
quote:As happens on occasion, SCOTUS is full of shite.
The SCOTUS agrees with us both as well
The "reasonable officer" standard effectively LOWERS their standard under that of civilians. Come on, you simply MUST admit that.
But, more importantly, it creates a rule that COMPLETELY ignores the reality that the cop started the interaction. It applies ZERO increased scrutiny to his choices.
It basically makes him a civilian who can act as capriciously as any other "reasonable" civilian. "Oh, he was legit scared.........get out of jail free".
Like I said. Try that shite as a private in Afghanistan and enjoy your time in Leavenworth.
One would think we would demand AT LEAST as much of police when interacting with OUR citizens and NOT in a fricking war zone.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:29 pm to the808bass
quote:
You're just wrong here.
How so?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:30 pm to the808bass
quote:
No. This isn't true. They have to prove nothing. The state has to prove they did not act reasonably. Police officers who shoot people are assumed to have acted reasonably.
You sir are either dishonesst, a cop hater, or stupid. Possibly all 3.
If YOU as a private citizen shoot someone, you are assumed innocent until proven otherwise. If you claim "I feared for my life" the state must prove that your claim is unreasonable , just the same as they must do for a cops.
Cops are not "assumed innocent" you fricking idiot, Americans are.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:31 pm to Five0
quote:
Going to need to see a citation for this.
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer was not authorized to use deadly force. If you can tell me how that's not assuming that deadly force is assumed to be justified by a police officer, I'm all ears.
Page 39 of 41
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News