Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Another shooting by police

66 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then
22 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You can't shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing. Where that may be different if it was clear the suspect had a gun and either fired at the Officer or other people then the Officer could return fire and if the suspect turned while being fired back at and was hit in the back then that would be justified. Since that didn't happen the Offiver should have called for backup and the Supervisors and would determine how to search for the the suspect or cordon off an area to search. But just believing a suspect is armed doesn't allow you or an Officer to shoot them in the back while fleeing. 

My understanding is that if the suspect was believed to have been armed and dangerous to the public, such a shooting would be justified.  The fact that he was fleeing wouldn't preclude him killing someone else he came across.  Maybe it's a state by state issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
lost_shaman
44 minutes ago, and then said:

My understanding is that if the suspect was believed to have been armed and dangerous to the public, such a shooting would be justified.  The fact that he was fleeing wouldn't preclude him killing someone else he came across.  Maybe it's a state by state issue.

Lots of criminals are armed and dangerous to the public but it would need to be either pointing a gun at someone or an active shooter situation in order to shoot that suspect in the back while they are fleeing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Lots of criminals are armed and dangerous to the public but it would need to be either pointing a gun at someone or an active shooter situation in order to shoot that suspect in the back while they are fleeing.

I'll take your word for it but I knew I'd read of such circumstances before:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-case-police-deadly-force/index.html

From the piece:  

"Contrary to popular belief, the answer is yes," said Friedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor, "but the use of deadly of force is always conditional."
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts."
 
So, it would be a case by case basis and the officer would be taking quite a risk unless they were SURE they could justify it.  Obviously, that case in SC was NOT a justified shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
23 minutes ago, and then said:

I'll take your word for it but I knew I'd read of such circumstances before:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/us/south-carolina-case-police-deadly-force/index.html

From the piece:  

"Contrary to popular belief, the answer is yes," said Friedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor, "but the use of deadly of force is always conditional."
The fleeing suspect would have to pose a significant threat of death or of bodily harm to the officer or to others, according to Friedman and other experts."
 
So, it would be a case by case basis and the officer would be taking quite a risk unless they were SURE they could justify it.  Obviously, that case in SC was NOT a justified shooting.

Definately a Case by Case basis because every situation is different. An officer could be justified in deadly force if a subject starts reaching for something without out permission by an officer for example certainly if the subject is showing signs of nervousness or reaching quickly, every situation is different and if it makes the officer fell threatened. Also I may catch flack for saying this but there is a culture in certain minority groups to disobey or fail to follow Police commands and doing things like trying to run before being handcuffed. This culture of disobeying commands and or running always only escalates the situation and also adds more charges to otherwise lesser offences. That fact contributes to the truth that certain minorities end up being looked away for longer periods than other racial groups, but they bring this on themselves via that culture.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

As a general statement, LEO's have enough of a problem during a traffic stop, not to to mention the sudden threat of defendant lethal provocation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

No more, people!

When stopped persons are granted automatic "pass" regardless of infraction, the societal system fails.

But that's OK with gangs... in their mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Let's gangs rule America, yeah!!!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I want their stupid graffiti wherever I look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Let's have graffiti on the White House, on EVERYWHERE.

I hate gangs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Gangs are thieving, drug running, robbers, rapists and killers.

They steal from America, and offer nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Time to take America back...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Find them. Shoot them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7
10 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Find them. Shoot them.

Too many bleeding hearts, nothing will get done.

House them, lie for them then on the news later cry later why oh why me boohoo did my sons/daughters etc. etc. spiel/speech/ martyr.


I've got it, federal law, snowflake eh, well its now mandatory that all freshly out of prison will tend your flowers, at least two gangers will be making sure your house is clean, and now this is mandatory for those folks, ... I bet there ideas would change after a few family member incidents happened.

To borrow a phrase::: Just my two bits and I'm sticking to it !

Edited by MWoo7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I think I seen a headline yesterday about the shooter being found guilty of manslaughter. This story is like two weeks old though so I guess who cares anymore. Ancient history for our news cycles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
40 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I think I seen a headline yesterday about the shooter being found guilty of manslaughter. This story is like two weeks old though so I guess who cares anymore. Ancient history for our news cycles.

He's been charged with manslaughter.    Not found guilty yet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I just realized I have my threads confused. I meant to post what I did yesterday in the fla stand your ground thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.