Standing passively with hands raised is inadequate
I saw a guy raise his hands, but he didn't look at all passive to me. If I had to pick between a) he was surrendering or b) he wanted to draw 'em in closer, I'd pick "b".
JMHO....
I didn't see a lot of time pass from when he put his hands up and when he was shot. Don't you think, absent some aggressive action on his part, that he should have been allowed a minute or two to follow instructions to lie down on the ground before his life was taken?
No, the law requires one be in fear of serious bodily injury to themselves, or another, as justification. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Fear alone is inadequate. The fear must be reasonable by an objective standard. Standing passively with hands raised is inadequate, regardless of how much actual fear the officers subjectively felt.
I'm betting Pat knows more about tx's use of force laws than you do
Perhaps, but he's wrong in precisely how I stated that he was in this particular case. Fear isn't the standard for lethal force justification. It must be reasonable fear by an objective standard. Were that not the case, Barney Fife would be justified in shooting half the town of Mayberry.
No, the law requires one be in fear of serious bodily injury to themselves, or another, as justification. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Fear alone is inadequate. The fear must be reasonable by an objective standard. Standing passively with hands raised is inadequate, regardless of how much actual fear the officers subjectively felt.
I'm betting Pat knows more about tx's use of force laws than you do
Perhaps, but he's wrong in precisely how I stated that he was in this particular case. Fear isn't the standard for lethal force justification. It must be reasonable fear by an objective standard. Were that not the case, Barney Fife would be justified in shooting half the Town of Mayberry.
It's amazing.. (well not really)...That you haven't figured out Mayberry Andy and Barone were fake and never existed in the real world
You seem to purposely leave out that the cops were called there for a reason and if the information posted above is true then the individual had andblready committed felony andblreadyssault at the very least, how do you find it unreasonable that that an individual facing the said suspect, who was likely in a further agitated state just by the cops being called, would not feel threatened?
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
You seem to purposely leave out that the cops were called there for a reason and if the information posted above is true then the individual had andblready committed felony andblreadyssault at the very least, how do you find it unreasonable that that an individual facing the said suspect, who was likely in a further agitated state just by the cops being called, would not feel threatened?
Really hurts both my feelers to see an armed career criminal who just injured a woman and a kid in a domestic dispute get put down by the cops, NOT!
That is sort of how I feel. IMO, the cops were not in significant danger at the point of the shooting. There is no way the nut-job could have rushed two cops aiming Glocks at him from that distance and get close enough to cut either one of them without getting shot a bunch of times. But, what about the woman and kid inside the house? I'm thinking that the cops thought he was about to head back inside and potentially do more damage to them....anyway that would be my defense if I were they. Then again, at some point they had to take the knife away from him and arrest him. Did either cop have a taser at the time. If not, I can't see one telling the other to "cover him while I go get the taser" and I can't see them risking getting cut up trying to take the knife from the idiot. I don't think cops owe idiots that kind of favor.
I am like you, if an idiot is facing two cops with a weapon and won't put it down after being asked a couple of times, the idiot gets shot....not too many questions asked. Same with running away from a cop with a weapon. The cop has no idea who or how many you will kill with it if you are crazy and resisting arrest is a pretty darn good sign that you are.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
Perhaps, but he's wrong in precisely how I stated that he was in this particular case. Fear isn't the standard for lethal force justification. It must be reasonable fear by an objective standard. Were that not the case, Barney Fife would be justified in shooting half the town of Mayberry.
Nice twist, but what is reasonable is determined by what the individual in fear believes. You are correct in a way, as fear is not the only justification of the use of deadly force. If a person has displayed the use of deadly force (which a knife represents) and it is reasonably believed (again...by the individual) that death or serious bodily injury to another will occur if the arrest is delayed, deadly force is justified.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
Really hurts both my feelers to see an armed career criminal who just injured a woman and a kid in a domestic dispute get put down by the cops, NOT!
That is sort of how I feel. IMO, the cops were not in significant danger at the point of the shooting. There is no way the nut-job could have rushed two cops aiming Glocks at him from that distance and get close enough to cut either one of them without getting shot a bunch of times. But, what about the woman and kid inside the house? I'm thinking that the cops thought he was about to head back inside and potentially do more damage to them....anyway that would be my defense if I were they. Then again, at some point they had to take the knife away from him and arrest him. Did either cop have a taser at the time. If not, I can't see one telling the other to "cover him while I go get the taser" and I can't see them risking getting cut up trying to take the knife from the idiot. I don't think cops owe idiots that kind of favor.
I am like you, if an idiot is facing two cops with a weapon and won't put it down after being asked a couple of times, the idiot gets shot....not too many questions asked. Same with running away from a cop with a weapon. The cop has no idea who or how many you will kill with it if you are crazy and resisting arrest is a pretty darn good sign that you are.
Ummm...yes he could very well have covered that distance and quite possibly been on top of one of the cops before either cops reaction/response impulse connected and allowed him to respond accordingly....that's the whole point behind the oft quoted "21 foot rule"
They had apparently already used tasters with no effect
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Clearly unintentional, but since pointing a gun at someone, absent very serious justification, constitutes reckless conduct, a murder charge doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Remember, recklessness satisfies for criminal intent in the eyes of the law. That is, unless he can provide a reasonable justification for pointing a loaded handgun at the man. No such justification appeared evident in the video, however.
^^^^^^^^^ this
The man only had shorts on !!!!
Last edited by Hotload; 09/02/15.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much" Teddy Roosevelt
Clearly unintentional, but since pointing a gun at someone, absent very serious justification, constitutes reckless conduct, a murder charge doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Remember, recklessness satisfies for criminal intent in the eyes of the law. That is, unless he can provide a reasonable justification for pointing a loaded handgun at the man. No such justification appeared evident in the video, however.
^^^^^^^^^ this
The suspect, for the record, was being sought in connection with a call involving domestic abuse/assault on the mother of his 21-day-old child, who was in that house and whom the now deceased had threatened or assaulted with a knife (which may or may not have still been in the hand not visible on the video).
Therefore reasonable justification for the officers to have firearms aimed at the suspect/deceased existed.
As for the rest, if there is a second video I'd like to see it.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Yet another erudite discussion of LE use of force. This one includes the 21' rule and TRH's drooling explanation of "reasonable fear" out of context and absent ability,opportunity and imminent jeopardy.
It is unfortunate that the LEO of today is required to make the daily life and death decisions inherent w/ the job w/out the support of the community they protect. Used to be the greatest job on earth. I don't see how you do it now.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
Perhaps, but he's wrong in precisely how I stated that he was in this particular case. Fear isn't the standard for lethal force justification. It must be reasonable fear by an objective standard. Were that not the case, Barney Fife would be justified in shooting half the town of Mayberry.
Nice twist, but what is reasonable is determined by what the individual in fear believes. You are correct in a way, as fear is not the only justification of the use of deadly force. If a person has displayed the use of deadly force (which a knife represents) and it is reasonably believed (again...by the individual) that death or serious bodily injury to another will occur if the arrest is delayed, deadly force is justified.
No twist was intended. With all due respect, however, there is a distinction between what an individual officer fears and what fears are reasonable under the circumstances. One is a subjective matter, and has no bearing on justification, while the other is an objective matter on which hinges legal justification.
Perhaps, but he's wrong in precisely how I stated that he was in this particular case. Fear isn't the standard for lethal force justification. It must be reasonable fear by an objective standard. Were that not the case, Barney Fife would be justified in shooting half the town of Mayberry.
Nice twist, but what is reasonable is determined by what the individual in fear believes. You are correct in a way, as fear is not the only justification of the use of deadly force. If a person has displayed the use of deadly force (which a knife represents) and it is reasonably believed (again...by the individual) that death or serious bodily injury to another will occur if the arrest is delayed, deadly force is justified.
No twist was intended. With all due respect, however, there is a distinction between what an individual officer fears and what fears are reasonable under the circumstances. One is a subjective matter, and has no bearing on justification, while the other is an objective matter on which hinges legal justification.
The Lt. is correct. You are not. The reasonableness standard applies to the individual involved. Was the individual's fear of death or SBI to himself or another reasonable in the situation the individual was facing, including any justifications or other extenuating circumstances? If so, then lethal force is justified. It hinges on the individual involved, because the extenuating circumstances can involve the individual and his/her physical characteristics, the physical/psychological characteristics of the other person, the surrounding or precedent circumstances of the encounter, and a host of other issues.
I understand that you might have studied this and are citing the close-end text book rationale. However, that's not the legal rationale when it actually comes to real cases and real situations.
There is far too little known or shown in that one video to guess at justification or other circumstances. If there is another video, I'd like to see it.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
For A box of Ho Ho's and he would have cuffed him self!
As we're speculating, how long do watch a young lady bleeding to death before you shoot the guy that cut her up and is preventing her aid?
Good point, but was that the situation here?
Arguably, yes. The officers responded to a domestic dispute/assault call about the suspect/deceased armed with a knife assaulting the mother of his child in the house behind him. The other reports on this shoot are indicating that the suspect/deceased had been tasered to no effect and was still wielding the knife in the hand that cannot be seen in this video.
If there is another video, especially one closer and from a better angle, I'd like to see it.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
The Lt. is correct. You are not. The reasonableness standard applies to the individual involved. Was the individual's fear of death or SBI to himself or another reasonable in the situation the individual was facing, including any justifications or other extenuating circumstances? If so, then lethal force is justified. It hinges on the individual involved, because the extenuating circumstances can involve the individual and his/her physical characteristics, the physical/psychological characteristics of the other person, the surrounding or precedent circumstances of the encounter, and a host of other issues.
I understand that you might have studied this and are citing the close-end text book rationale. However, that's not the legal rationale when it actually comes to real cases and real situations.
There is far too little known or shown in that one video to guess at justification or other circumstances. If there is another video, I'd like to see it.
We are not far from being in agreement. It may, in fact, be a mere matter of semantical ambiguity as to the legal meaning of "reasonable" in this context. In the law, reasonable means by an objective (not a subjective) standard.
