Let's leave the deciding to the experts.

 

In my opinion, as a man with expert opinion on the use of lethal and non lethal force, I would personally disagree that lethal force was the final choice.

 

When officers are questioned about lethal force, they must consent that all attempts to use non lethal force (such as negotiating or simple tasers) was used. We do not have enough evidence through this clip to see if the LAPD shouted 'Stop LAPD' or attempted to deploy a taser.

 

I rest my case.

Read Tennessee v. Garner. In law, there's no such thing as "no ifs, ands, or buts". In that case, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the "fleeing felon" rule. Now, it might be justified in the case of someone suspected of violent crimes (their example was, IIRC, if a serial killer is escaping you can shoot to stop them), but the mere fact that a felony was committed is not in and of itself reason to use lethal force. Furthermore, there is always the rule that a reasonable officer could think that the force was necessary to serve the government interest. If the police could easily catch up on foot, shooting isn't necessary. You could argue whether that was the case or not, but it isn't clear-cut.

 

I have read Tennessee v. Garner, I am familiar with case law, As i stated in a previous post, we don't know what else he did. He was running from the police in a high speed chase, he PROBABLY wasn't a shoplifter. He probably had outstanding warrants, but regardless of the fact, what if that person in the other car just died. He would be justifiably shot. Wait and see what happens, you guys are going to feel stupid when they all get off. They did their jobs.

I have read Tennessee v. Garner, I am familiar with case law, As i stated in a previous post, we don't know what else he did. He was running from the police in a high speed chase, he PROBABLY wasn't a shoplifter. He probably had outstanding warrants, but regardless of the fact, what if that person in the other car just died. He would be justifiably shot. Wait and see what happens, you guys are going to feel stupid when they all get off. They did their jobs.

Considering the outcome of the Rodney King trial, I'm not going to be surprised when they get off. Think for just a second. Why would an agency agree that they acted badly?

Actually, those officers were charged in federal court. So they didn't get off. Also, was that recent? No.

Actually, those officers were charged in federal court. So they didn't get off. Also, was that recent? No.

Yes, they were charged. They weren't convicted. Therefore, they did get off.

 

And you didn't answer my question. Why would an agency tarnish its PR by agreeing that multiple officers acted badly at the same incident?

Also, the car he drives can be considered a lethal weapon, authorizing the use of deadly force.

As I am being taught in the Emergency Medical Technician course, and motor vehicle is a lethal weapon. Also the two patients that were hit in the red car that ran away to that corner should have been treated by an ambulance, (which wasn't shown in the video) The cops should have definitely started to immobilize their spines by holding theirs head (Holding Cervical Immobilization) because that T-Bone collision can do alot onto your spine, since your spine isn't designed to hyperexetend laterally. (Side to side) For every car accident there are three collisions. The first is the vehicle hitting the other car or object (like a tree, person, wall, telephone pole) the Second is the Patient inside the vehicle hitting the inside of the car (the dashboard, the seat infront of them if they are sitting in the back) And the third collision is the Organs inside your body hitting each other inside the body. Like the brain hitting the inside of your head. But were the cops in the right to shoot the suspect, I dont have an opinion because I wasn't on the ground so I didn't see and hear everything that happened. !

Yes, they were charged. They weren't convicted. Therefore, they did get off.

 

And you didn't answer my question. Why would an agency tarnish its PR by agreeing that multiple officers acted badly at the same incident?

They were convicted in federal court. They were acquitted in state court. Now, add in that the feds very very rarely press charges when the state acquitted...

Hopefully a police report is published soon so we can see what actually happened. It will be heavily biased but that is an unavoidable truth

Yes, they were charged. They weren't convicted. Therefore, they did get off.

 

And you didn't answer my question. Why would an agency tarnish its PR by agreeing that multiple officers acted badly at the same incident?

 

Read up on the case, they were convicted you idiot. Don't come here talking about things you know nothing about.  They would because it was the truth, the Rodney king this was too much, the chief made a public statement. That has nothing to do with this.

MODERATOR NOTICE

Cool it with the personal attacks.

Read up on the case, they were convicted you idiot. Don't come here talking about things you know nothing about.  They would because it was the truth, the Rodney king this was too much, the chief made a public statement. That has nothing to do with this.

They were convicted in federal court. The case in here probably won't even make it to state court. The only reason why there was a public statement that the officers were wrong, let alone a trial,  is because of how publicized it was.

 

And again, since you failed to answer this before, how is someone walking slowly towards officers fleeing from them?

They were convicted in federal court. The case in here probably won't even make it to state court. The only reason why there was a public statement that the officers were wrong, let alone a trial,  is because of how publicized it was.

 

And again, since you failed to answer this before, how is someone walking slowly towards officers fleeing from them?

 

It doesnt matter, you can flee by crawling if you fucking want too. He just led police on a god knows how long high speed chase, probably critically injured someone if not killed the vehicle he hit. He did NOT surrender. WHatever else he does, unless he is unconscious could be considered as resisting. Which he was. If he would have thrown his hands up, then no. He didnt, he left his vehicle, (after still trying to escape in it briefly) and then left and went Behind his car for whatever reason. They made a decision in a split second, and i guarantee none of those officers wanted to shoot him. We don't leave the academy going "man i hope i get to shoot someone" Its horrible both mentally, physically, and on paper. They made a decision in a split second that you sit behind your computer and criticize. I'm done talking to you, god through the academy, deal with people like that, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then, grow up and stop judging the people that protect and serve you everyday.

 

 

..i saw the video..as I've read a few posts before we do not know who the suspect or why he was running away. forgetting that this in itself could give us an extra hand to understand why the situation has ended so, it must be said that the "weapon" of the suspect was his car. violated the rules of the road did not stop during the chase then for the agents could carry anything or hide weapons, drugs, kidnapping someone, you have to consider many things we do not know .. in the end despite the crash test flight and of course I personally would have done everything to avoid that continues to make victims as the type of the car rammed .. even I would have shot with the weapon ready to use and I think that is not lethal .. maybe I would not have shot to kill, I'd rather shoot warning shots and then a non-lethal parts .. in this case I think they have targeted to bring it down ...

..i saw the video..as I've read a few posts before we do not know who the suspect or why he was running away. forgetting that this in itself could give us an extra hand to understand why the situation has ended so, it must be said that the "weapon" of the suspect was his car. violated the rules of the road did not stop during the chase then for the agents could carry anything or hide weapons, drugs, kidnapping someone, you have to consider many things we do not know .. in the end despite the crash test flight and of course I personally would have done everything to avoid that continues to make victims as the type of the car rammed .. even I would have shot with the weapon ready to use and I think that is not lethal .. maybe I would not have shot to kill, I'd rather shoot warning shots and then a non-lethal parts .. in this case I think they have targeted to bring it down ...

 

You must be new, no offense intended. It is illegal to use warning shots, and you dont aim for nonlethal. The second you pull your gun out, its considered lethal force in the law book. You can't justify to a court why you shot the leg, because in reality most cops in firefights shoot center mass (like we are trained).

The idea that only police get to have a say in the government use of force goes against the whole concept of a democracy. While police have to make tough split-second decisions, deciding what ultimately is and isn't acceptable force is not ultimately their call. Police may have more experience, and have a decent understanding of the law involved (though judges ultimately have more say as to what the law actually is), but trying to cut off a debate by saying "I'm a cop, you aren't, your opinion is irrelevant" is ultimately the single worst idea that could EVER get into the minds of a group of people who are generally allowed to legally use lethal force. When armies think that way, you get coups.

The idea that only police get to have a say in the government use of force goes against the whole concept of a democracy. While police have to make tough split-second decisions, deciding what ultimately is and isn't acceptable force is not ultimately their call. Police may have more experience, and have a decent understanding of the law involved (though judges ultimately have more say as to what the law actually is), but trying to cut off a debate by saying "I'm a cop, you aren't, your opinion is irrelevant" is ultimately the single worst idea that could EVER get into the minds of a group of people who are generally allowed to legally use lethal force. When armies think that way, you get coups.

 

I never said that, don't twist my words. I said I'm done arguing with someone who clearly has no knowledge of policing. You're right, we shouldnt have all the say, but at the end of the day, when an officer is involved in a shooting, we don't judge them. We can form opinions about what is right or wrong. At the end of the day, we weren't there and we didn't understand the circumstances. The only people that will know if it was justified or not is the officers involved. I'm arguing their point, because of all my knowledge and what i know, it seems justified. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time beating a dead horse with someone who doesn't understand the common policing practices on use of force in America. He challenges me on answering his questions, which I have, I'm done arguing about it. Nothing will happen to them, just like the law says.

It doesnt matter, you can flee by crawling if you fucking want too. He just led police on a god knows how long high speed chase, probably critically injured someone if not killed the vehicle he hit. He did NOT surrender. WHatever else he does, unless he is unconscious could be considered as resisting. Which he was. If he would have thrown his hands up, then no. He didnt, he left his vehicle, (after still trying to escape in it briefly) and then left and went Behind his car for whatever reason. They made a decision in a split second, and i guarantee none of those officers wanted to shoot him. We don't leave the academy going "man i hope i get to shoot someone" Its horrible both mentally, physically, and on paper. They made a decision in a split second that you sit behind your computer and criticize. I'm done talking to you, god through the academy, deal with people like that, then I'll respect your opinion. Until then, grow up and stop judging the people that protect and serve you everyday.

 

 

So if someone doesn't surrender, but makes no move at present time to endanger others, police are legally allowed to shoot them? Do you realize it's classified as resistance to curl up into a fetal position? Should those people be shot too?

 

And expanding on what cp702 said, when police officers get the opinion that their word is the word of God when it comes to their actions, it endangers and enrages the general public, and ultimately, endangers the officers themselves.

So if someone doesn't surrender, but makes no move at present time to endanger others, police are legally allowed to shoot them? Do you realize it's classified as resistance to curl up into a fetal position? Should those people be shot too?

 

And expanding on what cp702 said, when police officers get the opinion that their word is the word of God when it comes to their actions, it endangers and enrages the general public, and ultimately, endangers the officers themselves.

 

No you wouldn't shoot them, but he made an attempt to endanger others, he may have KILLED someone. Seconds after, you can reasonably assume he is still dangerous. You are bringing in irrelevant scenarios. They will get off, and your going to look stupid for fighting me on this. Just take a step back, I think i understand the common laws about how its done. Just like how you said "Rodney King officers didnt get convicted" when in reality they did, and then you come back and agree with me. You don't understand what your talking about. You have an opinion, and i have mine, Mine is based on my training and facts. That's all. I'm done arguing with you, you can think whatever you want. Go ahead and continue to judge the people that serve and protect you everyday.

He wasn't complying and may have very well been going back to his car to get a weapon....in that moment it is ABSOLUTELY justified.

to dayton

sorry friend but ... I do not really understand ... you're telling me that in usa is illegal to fire warning shots? when anyone away from children can have a weapon? it's ridiculous! I have respect for human life and I'm sorry for the dead guy .. but he has broken the law has caused damage to other people and has resisted the police ... then apologizes in Italy if I am committing a crime and the police me the intimate 'alt, and continuous police fire in the air and then try to hit parts of the body non-lethal ..

this is a cop. security for themselves first, avoid involving other people and then stop the suspect.

escalation of force. intimate alt. show you my weapon, firing into the air and then I hurt you .. if you go you're just a jerk.