2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

People have died from being Tazed. People have fallen and hit their heads after being tazed, and gotten brain damage or died. Using a tazer is deadly force. The criminal used deadly force against the officer, the officer in turn also used deadly force towards the criminal. Us of force continuim allows you to use force 1 step higher than is being used against you. It is a legal shooting. Now the cops will sue for wrongful termination and win

It is true that people have died from tasers. However, it is quite rare. Why is it not deadly force when an officer uses a taser, but it is when someone uses one against an officer?

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Clark

Here is the actual body cam footage. Cops seem reasonable to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOiKgmCJwls

White girl wasted.

“I only had 1.5 drinks, officer.” Been there, done that. They didn’t believe me either. I got in the car, paid my fines, did my community service, surrendered my license. Still alive.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Clark

Here is the actual body cam footage. Cops seem reasonable to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOiKgmCJwls

The officer came across to me as very professional. The strange part is he didn't ask the suspect to submit to standardized field sobriety exercises. The "breath test" he gave on site isn't admissible in court (the officer could only testify to the presence of alcohol, not the actual BAC) due to being inherently unreliable. A lot of states don't even have the handheld breath test anymore.

Regardless of all that, I'll never agree it is ok to shoot a DUI suspect who is fleeing on foot.

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

It is true that people have died from tasers. However, it is quite rare. Why is it not deadly force when an officer uses a taser, but it is when someone uses one against an officer?

Dont ask me, i just know the defense if any charges are brought. Many defense attys have said that tasers are deadly weapons etc. It will be used. As to that situation, if he hits the cop with the taser, he can easily get his gun, then instead of riots for a criminal we have 2 dead cops that no one GAF about.

[Astros19]

I think the safety of the community comes into play in this circumstance. If they'd given chase and a citizen driving by had been carjacked by the suspect the police would have been vilified. Kind of a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation.
Would this have happen? Who knows? But it could have along with other scenarios where the suspect put the public in danger.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

Dont ask me, i just know the defense if any charges are brought. Many defense attys have said that tasers are deadly weapons etc. It will be used. As to that situation, if he hits the cop with the taser, he can easily get his gun, then instead of riots for a criminal we have 2 dead cops that no one GAF about.

Have you watched the footage? The suspect is at least 20 feet away when he deploys the taser. After he deploys the taser it is a useless piece of plastic. There is also no evidence that he had a firearm, nor that the officers could reasonably believe he did. You're adding facts that simply aren't present.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I think the safety of the community comes into play in this circumstance. If they'd given chase and a citizen driving by had been carjacked by the suspect the police would have been vilified. Kind of a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation.
Would this have happen? Who knows? But it could have along with other scenarios where the suspect put the public in danger.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

All they had to do was pursue on foot. They had already called in "shots fired," albeit before any shots were fired. This one isn't difficult, deadly force was not warranted.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

All they had to do was pursue on foot. They had already called in "shots fired," albeit before any shots were fired. This one isn't difficult, deadly force was not warranted.

Speaking of ignoring things, in a foot chase is the possibility of another citizen getting involved there? A carjacking among other scenarios. Let's not also ignore the fact that had he complied, he'd probably be at home with his family at this moment.
I had a dui several years, actually decades now, I complied and lived to see another day.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Have you watched the footage? The suspect is at least 20 feet away when he deploys the taser. After he deploys the taser it is a useless piece of plastic. There is also no evidence that he had a firearm, nor that the officers could reasonably believe he did. You're adding facts that simply aren't present.

Yup watched the footage. Are you aware of the fleeing felon doctrine?

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Speaking of ignoring things, in a foot chase is the possibility of another citizen getting involved there. A carjacking among other scenarios. Let's not also ignore the fact that had he complied, he'd probably be at home with his family at this moment.
I had a dui several years, actually decades now, I complied and lived to see another day.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I agree he should've complied. The fact that he didn't would've rightfully led to an additional charge.

Now, as far as this inevitable carjacking that you've brought up twice, without anything to back it up other than, hey, it could happen, I ask this. If I go to Target, steal a blaster of Bowman, an officer sees it, tries to apprehend me, and I run to the parking lot, can that officer shoot me in the back while I'm trying to get away? After all, when I get to the parking lot I could carjack someone.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

The officer came across to me as very professional. The strange part is he didn't ask the suspect to submit to standardized field sobriety exercises. The "breath test" he gave on site isn't admissible in court (the officer could only testify to the presence of alcohol, not the actual BAC) due to being inherently unreliable. A lot of states don't even have the handheld breath test anymore.

Regardless of all that, I'll never agree it is ok to shoot a DUI suspect who is fleeing on foot.

The cop stated "preliminary breath test". The admissible test would have been at the station.

He wasn't just a DUI suspect, he violently assaulted two officers resisting arrest, stole a weapon, and also put the public at risk by fleeing.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

Yup watched the footage. Are you aware of the fleeing felon doctrine?

I am. I am also aware that Tennessee v. Garner struck down a similar law in Tenn, due to it being unconstitutional.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Clark

The cop stated "preliminary breath test". The admissible test would have been at the station.

He wasn't just a DUI suspect, he violently assaulted two officers resisting arrest, stole a weapon, and also put the public at risk by fleeing.

Agree with everything except the public risk. He was a suspected drunkard running with a piece of plastic in his hand.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

I agree he should've complied. The fact that he didn't would've rightfully led to an additional charge.

Now, as far as this inevitable carjacking that you've brought up twice, without anything to back it up other than, hey, it could happen, I ask this. If I go to Target, steal a blaster of Bowman, an officer sees it, tries to apprehend me, and I run to the parking lot, can that officer shoot me in the back while I'm trying to get away? After all, when I get to the parking lot I could carjack someone.

If you resisted arrest by assaulting them and stole a weapon, and they perceived you as being a threat to the public or themselves. Yes they could legally use deadly force.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

The officer came across to me as very professional. The strange part is he didn't ask the suspect to submit to standardized field sobriety exercises. The "breath test" he gave on site isn't admissible in court (the officer could only testify to the presence of alcohol, not the actual BAC) due to being inherently unreliable. A lot of states don't even have the handheld breath test anymore.

Regardless of all that, I'll never agree it is ok to shoot a DUI suspect who is fleeing on foot.

Once he gets violent with the police striking them and everything else. At the point of running from them he is not just a DUI suspect.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Clark

If you resisted arrest by assaulting them and stole a weapon, and they perceived you as being a threat to the public or themselves. Yes they could legally use deadly force.

Yea he kind of left out a couple of important facts.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Clark

If you resisted arrest by assaulting them and stole a weapon, and they perceived you as being a threat to the public or themselves. Yes they could legally use deadly force.

Except there is nothing to suggest he is a threat to the public. It is a reasonableness standard. It isn't reasonable to shoot a fleeing felon in the back without more information. If he had a firearm, fair game. If he was wielding a bladed weapon, fair game. None of those facts are present. He had a deployed taser which was not a threat to anyone after it was deployed.

[Astros19]

Personally I don't want anyone who's fought the police and stole a weapon, any kind of weapon, running around my neighborhood.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Except there is nothing to suggest he is a threat to the public. It is a reasonableness standard. It isn't reasonable to shoot a fleeing felon in the back without more information. If he had a firearm, fair game. If he was wielding a bladed weapon, fair game. None of those facts are present. He had a deployed taser which was not a threat to anyone after it was deployed.

Nothing to suggest he's a threat to the public?
Seriously?
I hope you never become an LEO.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

I am. I am also aware that Tennessee v. Garner struck down a similar law in Tenn, due to it being unconstitutional.

Then you should know that the ruling also gave instances where it could be used. It listed three situations in which deadly force would be justified as a last resort, the police suspect the felon of committing a violent crime, have probable cause to believe the suspect was armed, and believe the suspect would endanger the lives of others if allowed to escape. The Suspect was armed. (an empty gun is still armed, as is a deployed taser, as it can then be used as a shock weapon through touch. Suspect the felon of committing a violent crime, (He just did) Suspect he would endanger the lives of others ( anyone dumb enough to fight off 2 cops and take and deploy there taser over a simple DUI would lead one to believe he would also endanger the lives of others) He gets all 3 when you only need 1.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

Once he gets violent with the police striking them and everything else. At the point of running from them he is not just a DUI suspect.

Correct, I don't practice in Ga., but in my state I could tell you he committed at least (1) felony, Resisting with Violence, and that is solely from the punch he obviously threw at one of the officers. But when he flees, even though he likely committed a felony, there still needs to be more facts present (which don't look to be present) to justify shooting him in the back.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

Then you should know that the ruling also gave instances where it could be used. It listed three situations in which deadly force would be justified as a last resort, the police suspect the felon of committing a violent crime, have probable cause to believe the suspect was armed, and believe the suspect would endanger the lives of others if allowed to escape. The Suspect was armed. (an empty gun is still armed, as is a deployed taser, as it can then be used as a shock weapon through touch. Suspect the felon of committing a violent crime, (He just did) Suspect he would endanger the lives of others ( anyone dumb enough to fight off 2 cops and take and deploy there taser over a simple DUI would lead one to believe he would also endanger the lives of others) He gets all 3 when you only need 1.

That isn't the holding of Tenn v. Garner.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Correct, I don't practice in Ga., but in my state I could tell you he committed at least (1) felony, Resisting with Violence, and that is solely from the punch he obviously threw at one of the officers. But when he flees, even though he likely committed a felony, there still needs to be more facts present (which don't look to be present) to justify shooting him in the back.

Here's another fact. You weren't present.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Except there is nothing to suggest he is a threat to the public. It is a reasonableness standard. It isn't reasonable to shoot a fleeing felon in the back without more information. If he had a firearm, fair game. If he was wielding a bladed weapon, fair game. None of those facts are present. He had a deployed taser which was not a threat to anyone after it was deployed.

You do know that once a taser is deployed, it can be then be used as a close in weapon right? You said bladed weapon, which is also a close in weapon. A tazer then works as a stun gun with a crap ton of stun.

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

That isn't the holding of Tenn v. Garner.

Actually it is.
Title: Unconstitutional Use of Deadly Force Against Nonviolent Fleeing Felons - Garner V Memphis Police Department
Journal: Georgia Law Review Volume:8 Issue:1 DatedFall 1983) Pages:137-163
Author(s): G Looney
Date Published: 1983
Annotation: This discussion of constitutional challenges to State laws that authorize police to kill fleeing nonviolent felons rather than risk their escape focuses on Garner v. Memphis Police Department (1983) which extended the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures to protect fleeing felons.
Abstract: The common law fleeing felon rule was based on the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors, but< many States codified the rule without making this distinction or accounting for the increased number of crimes classified as felonies. Courts have been reluctant to strike down such laws, although they have been challenged. In Garner v. Memphis Police Department, a police officer shot and killed a 15-year-old youth after he burglarized an unoccupied house and tried to elude capture. The officer knew the suspect was young and unarmed. The boy's father challenged the constitutional validity of the Tennessee fleeing felon law under both the 4th and 14th amendments. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court held that the law constitutes an unreasonable seizure of person and a deprivation of life without due process. It listed three situations in which deadly force would be justified as a last resort: the police suspect the felon of committing a violent crime, have probable cause to believe the suspect was armed, and believe the suspect would endanger the lives of others if allowed to escape