Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire So Is This Murder?

A reasonable threat is an objective standard, which means that the threat has to be imminent and deadly. It also means that an ordinary prudent person would also have to agree that it was needed at that very moment to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the cop. I saw no imminent threat on that video. Words alone are insufficient. There must be a means of causing serious injury presented to the cop in a threatening manner at that very moment. Unarmed disparity of force is sufficient, but there was too much space between the deceased and the cops for this threat to be imminent without a firearm or other deadly projectile type weapon in the hand, and prepared to deploy in a deadly manner.

I guess since he wasn't driving a pickup truck while you were walking your dog he should get a pass? OTOH, he WAS wild eyed and acting crazy...

I'm not gonna 2nd guess the cops shooting his crazy ass. They aren't paid to get stabbed, shot, beat to hell...they had good reason to put him down on the spot. What if he had gotten away for a short time & killed or stabbed somebody? I'm totally good with them shooting anybody acting like that SOB...whether it was caused by drugs or mental illness makes no difference to me...he was a threat to public safety and was dealt with accordingly.

I still couldn't see what the cops who shot the man saw, despite the dashcam video.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...ting-sacramento-20160711-snap-story.html

"A man was fatally shot by two Sacramento police officers Monday morning after he acted “really crazy” and charged the offices with a knife, police said.

The man, who was in his 50s or 60s, was spotted about 9:25 a.m. waving a knife in the 1100 block of Lochbrae Road when police were called to investigate, according to Sacramento police Sgt. Bryce Heinlein.

Callers complained to a police dispatcher that the man was not making sense and was behaving irrationally.

When the first officer arrived on the scene, the man charged at him, prompting the officer to lock himself in his police cruiser. The officer called for backup and tried to leave the area, but the man walked around the police cruiser and blocked it with his body.
When two backup officers arrived, the man with a knife took off running. The officers began chasing him on foot, and one of them suffered a non-life-threatening injury to his lower body during the pursuit, according to police.

Heinlein said the man refused to comply with the officers’ commands and acted “really crazy.”

When the officers approached the man, he turned around and charged at them, Heinlein said. At that moment, both officers fired their weapons, striking the man.

The man was taken to an area hospital, where he died later Monday morning. The injured officer remained in the hospital for treatment."

The actual standard for LE is that of a how reasonable LEO (not a citizen) would act, with the information he had at the time he made the decision, given his prior training, general orders, state law and specific agency regulation(s) that apply if any. Additionally, the same elements to justify lethal force by a citizen with respect to imminent death or grievous bodily harm to the LEO also apply. Prevention of grievous bodily harm (eg, permanent disfigurement or physical or mental impairment, etc), justify the use of lethal force, if needed to stop the threat. This is not just limited to the prevention of lethal injury.

A requirement that the suspect be armed, BTW, is not part of the justification for the use of lethal force by either LEOs or citizens involved in a SD situation.

Another distinction between the justification for the use of lethal force by LE, not a citizen, is the prevention of lethal or grievous harm to the public in general. This is the reason that an LEO is justified in engaging in a pursuit of a fleeing criminal, if he believes the criminal still poses a threat to others beyond the LEO himself. In this case, the failure of the subject to drop the knife when ordered and his ongoing flight from LEOs, could reasonable be argued to fall in this category.

I believe most of us on the Fire are philosophically of a strongly libertarian mindset in our advocacy of individual rights. However, let's not forget that the vast majority of LE OIS take place in the course of the commission of a felonious act - in this case, the reported prior threat with the knife constitutes the use of lethal force, or at the very least aggravated assumption by the violator against the neighborhood kids, so his shooting fits the general pattern. Pointing a firearm at a person or use of a knife as a threat if the other elements are presebnt, constitutes lethal force by the offending criminal.

Also, given about 900K LEOs in the US, assuming only 2% deploy lethal force, that adds up to about 18,000 OIS events annually. Nowhere near that many OIS deaths per year, so the argument that LE is out to "murder suspects" is worse than misguided and groundless. Perspective is important, moreso than raw emotion in judging the facts.

So are they changing their story.

Now he "charged them", no more shooting stance?

You're confused...the OP video and the link I posted are of a shooting that happened in Sacramento a couple months ago.

That's a recent corruption in our law, created by the courts in order to make the job of police forces easier and less risky. Permitting cops to be judged by the standard of the reasonable cop, however, rather than by that of the reasonable and prudent person, is akin to permitting KKK members, who have just murdered a black man for dating a white woman, to be judged by the standard of the reasonable KKK member. It permits the development a good old boy network standard in the law, the old "us vs them" culture. We're witnessing the natural and unavoidable outcome of that change in legal standard.

That's rich...comparing cops to the KKK...TFF.

I'm pretty sure most police shootings are reviewed and investigated by the local LE chief and then forwarded to the local DA for additional scrutiny...might there be a tendency to err on the side of LE??? Sure...and I'm glad it works the way it does...if it didn't, can you imagine anybody wanting to step up to the plate in keeping the schittbirds in check???

Keep living in your make believe world that the cops are the bad guys...

Too bad you missed your true calling...I'm thinking a career at the ACLU would have been a better fit for you and most certainly a better fit for the kids you teach.

That's not at all what I believe. The point I was making is that judging people, when the question is whether a homicide is justified, only by the standard of their club's view of reasonableness, doesn't tend to result in justice. Police tend to look out for their own. It's only human nature. Therefore you cannot allow them to investigate themselves and you cannot only hold them to their own standards in judging their conduct with the rest of us. Certainly you can see how that would become a problem.

MIGHT???

Is the Pope Catholic?

Has Hitlery ever lied?

Will the sun come up tomorrow?

Surely you jest.

You don't define "criminal act." Governments do.

That's the flaw in your logic.



Travis

That's an idiotic question.



Dave

Totally inaccurate.




Clark

If your comments weren't so outrageously ridiculous on their own, I'd say something more than that.

Easier and less risky? When did you last put on the uniform and answer calls at 2:30 am, without knowing what waits in that car, inside the house or the surrounds? I would try to make a reasonable argument to persuade you away from the ridiculous position you've taken. I'll just say that one of the few things I'll agree with Lincoln on is this advice I'll offer you on this topic, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt."

Nuff said. Call a hippie next time your cookies are burning in the oven instead of dialing 911, AGAIN. Have a safe and peachy day, TRH.

You're thinking of a different incident

So many of these I can't keep up on them all.

I don't see it as a problem because other cops (for the most part) are really the only ones who can relate to "heat of the moment" situations that result in a shooting...and even then, it's really easy to second guess a situation from the safety of a video screen...as for them looking out for their own??? I don't know...maybe to a point, but outright murder??? I think not.

IMHO there should be more and the standard for capitol punishment needs to be lowered...the older I get, the less tolerant I am of unacceptable behavior.

I'm actually a supporter of police in general. You folks must be hypersensitive or something to have so misunderstood my posts as to take them as anti-cop. I'm just opposed to cops being held to a lower standard on murder than I would be.