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

[Astros19]

Is it fair to say the officer could have or should have, while not also saying the suspect could have or should have?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Chris Lyle]

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.

So i take it you practice law. What would make him a threat to society? Isnt the cops judgement call to stop him? So the suspect is just allowed to run away because he didn't do anything bad enough??

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

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

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

You're right, I wasn't. And neither were you. Yet that hasn't stopped you from opining as to the reasonableness of the officer's actions.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

You're right, I wasn't. And neither were you. Yet that hasn't stopped you from opining as to the reasonableness of the officer's actions.

I'm not the one who added (which don't look to be present) in my post.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[hairysasquatch]

We need hostile carrot, our very own F.Lee Bailey, to weigh in!

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

So i take it you practice law. What would make him a threat to society? Isnt the cops judgement call to stop him? So the suspect is just allowed to run away because he didn't do anything bad enough??

Great question. It is very fact specific. For example, someone who just committed an armed robbery is without question threat to the public. All they had to do was pursue him on foot. If they reasonably believed he became a threat after that, then I think we could reassess and analyze with those additional facts. As it stands now, and as Astros so eloquently pointed out, I wasn't there, it looks to me as though it wasn't reasonable to shoot him in the back because there wasn't any reasonable articulable facts to suggest he was a threat to the public or law enforcement. He was fleeing, chase his ass down and arrest him. Use whatever reasonable force you need to effectuate arrest.

[RedSoxFan28]

Thought Fox was real news?

Fox News Removes Digitally Altered, Misleading Photos of Seattle 'Autonomous Zone' From Website

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

I'm not the one who added (which don't look to be present) in my post.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I was referring to the absence of facts suggesting he was armed with anything other than a used taser. If he was armed with more, we would've heard about it.

Quick question, have you ever seen a publicized case where the use of deadly force was questioned and not thought the police were in the right?

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

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

Don't you worry, I have more than a HS education. Thus they wouldnt hire me.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

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

Actually it isn't. You copied and pasted an abstract and cited the 6th Circuit COA. The holding from Tenn v. Garner is as follows: Deadly force cannot be used unless necessary to prevent escape AND probable cause exists to believe the fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or the public.

EDIT: similar language, just not exactly what you posted. Also, the AND makes it disjunctive, not conjunctive. Meaning you need all 3, not just 1. If it said or instead of and I would agree with your interpretation.

[callou2131]

Just watching the Wendys video frame by frame. Whoever said he was 20 feet away when he deployed the taser at the cop is WAY off. He was the width of 1 parking spot. Unless cars are now 20 feet wide....

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Great question. It is very fact specific. For example, someone who just committed an armed robbery is without question threat to the public. All they had to do was pursue him on foot. If they reasonably believed he became a threat after that, then I think we could reassess and analyze with those additional facts. As it stands now, and as Astros so eloquently pointed out, I wasn't there, it looks to me as though it wasn't reasonable to shoot him in the back because there wasn't any reasonable articulable facts to suggest he was a threat to the public or law enforcement. He was fleeing, chase his ass down and arrest him. Use whatever reasonable force you need to effectuate arrest.

So becoming violent taking a weapon from a cop isnt a threat? Im glad i decided to not pursue becoming a cop

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFan28

Thought Fox was real news?

Fox News Removes Digitally Altered, Misleading Photos of Seattle 'Autonomous Zone' From Website

Shocking

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

I was referring to the absence of facts suggesting he was armed with anything other than a used taser. If he was armed with more, we would've heard about it.

Quick question, have you ever seen a publicized case where the use of deadly force was questioned and not thought the police were in the right?

Easy answer, George Floyd. If you want other examples I'm sure I could come up with more. I could also add plenty where the police were accused of such, and which I disagree. What's your point?
If you're suggesting I stand by the police no matter what, you'd be wrong.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Actually it isn't. You copied and pasted an abstract and cited the 6th Circuit COA. The holding from Tenn v. Garner is as follows: Deadly force cannot be used unless necessary to prevent escape AND probable cause exists to believe the fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or the public.

So a man with a taser and who just got done fighting with cops isn't a threat?

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Actually it isn't. You copied and pasted an abstract and cited the 6th Circuit COA. The holding from Tenn v. Garner is as follows: Deadly force cannot be used unless necessary to prevent escape AND probable cause exists to believe the fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or the public.

Ok lets go with that. He just fired a taser at a cop, he still has this taser. There are lots of members of the public around, as it is a busy area. Lets say by the law, the cop is wrong, Oh well. Dont fight cops, assault them and run, take your little DUI punishment and move on with your life.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Great question. It is very fact specific. For example, someone who just committed an armed robbery is without question threat to the public. All they had to do was pursue him on foot. If they reasonably believed he became a threat after that, then I think we could reassess and analyze with those additional facts. As it stands now, and as Astros so eloquently pointed out, I wasn't there, it looks to me as though it wasn't reasonable to shoot him in the back because there wasn't any reasonable articulable facts to suggest he was a threat to the public or law enforcement. He was fleeing, chase his ass down and arrest him. Use whatever reasonable force you need to effectuate arrest.

So you are saying it is unreasonable to perceive the guy as a threat to the public after taking the law into his own hands by violently assaulting two officers and stealing a weapon?

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

Don't you worry, I have more than a HS education. Thus they wouldnt hire me.

This speaks volumes on how you see the police.

[callou2131]

Originally Posted by Astros19

This speaks volumes on how you see the police.

Well, I am just guessing he is a defense attorney. I will keep my opinion to myself on that, As I know many both personally and professionally.

[MattDMC]

Just something I wanted to point out that I don't believe has been mentioned yet.

For those of you saying that once he deployed the taser it becomes useless as a weapon and the police should have let him run off with the now disabled weapon clearly don't know that much about the weapon. A good portion if not most police issued tasers have what is known as a Drive Stun mode. This is a mode that you can hold the taser up against a suspect and shock them without firing the taser wires and can be used even after the taser has been normally fired.

So even after the suspect fired the taser at the police officer, if the police had just let him run off to arrest him later he would still have a functioning taser that could be used in Drive Stun mode.

Letting a person who just fought with the police, stole their weapon, and fired the weapon at the officer just run off with a weapon that is STILL FUNCTIONAL while inebriated would be extremely irresponsible by the police.

Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks he made some extremely poor choices and paid the ultimate price.

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by callou2131

Well, I am just guessing he is a defense attorney. I will keep my opinion to myself on that, As I know many both personally and professionally.

Are you licensed to practice law in any state?

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by callou2131

Ok lets go with that. He just fired a taser at a cop, he still has this taser. There are lots of members of the public around, as it is a busy area. Lets say by the law, the cop is wrong, Oh well. Dont fight cops, assault them and run, take your little DUI punishment and move on with your life.

We agree on that. He was wrong to fight the police. He should've taken his medicine and gone to jail. I'm not trying to minimize his actions, nor paint the cops as villains. This isn't a Floyd/Garner situation. I look at the officer's actions as more negligent than criminal.

[LoveRookies]

Originally Posted by Astros19

This speaks volumes on how you see the police.

You haven't seen what I've seen. All personal opinions are developed by our own personal experiences.

As for the education swipe, it is very accurate. A lot of police departments have no education requirement aside from a HS diploma. That shouldn't be the case.

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Astros19

This speaks volumes on how you see the police.

No, it speaks volumes about the hiring standards of many law enforcement agencies. People charged with the power to kill and present criminal cases to the DA for filing (which can ruin someone's life) should
be reasonably intelligent, even-tempered, and hold some measure of higher education. See Irvine PD (CA) for their requirements.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by LoveRookies

You haven't seen what I've seen. All personal opinions are developed by our own personal experiences.

As for the education swipe, it is very accurate. A lot of police departments have no education requirement aside from a HS diploma. That shouldn't be the case.

Education level doesn't always equate to intelligence. It may provide better opportunity but it doesn't make anyone an expert. I have met many morons with university degrees and many brilliant people without a high school diploma.